Apple Implements My Plan: Here Is What It Should Do Next [View article]
agree that Apple pays attention to investors. disagree that apple based their buyback and div'd increase on this gentleman's article. i don't really appreciate when people take credit for something that likely has nothing to do with them. not only does it come off as arrogant, but it's also more than likely untrue.
Apple Implements My Plan: Here Is What It Should Do Next [View article]
investors already look at Apple as a China play based on their y/y eps growth in China. also, apple is not a hedge fund... i don't think they're looking to increase their risk appetite... any minority stake purchase or acquisition would need to make strategic sense. this one is absurd. no, Apple would not have direct exposure to "monthly payments" in the sense that monthly payments are predictable and less volatile. instead they would have exposure to market fluctuations of a Chinese equity and all the volatility that comes with it... they would have exposure to unpredictable margins, country risk, Chinese market risk, etc. A huge headache that Apple doesn't need. I also wouldn't go as far as saying Apple implemented your plan. I don't think Apple knows your plan exists.
The Good News, The Bad News And What's Very Ugly [View article]
Lawrence, every bubble needs a catalyst to burst it. As much as I agree with you about the fundamentals of our economy appearing weak and that the longer term effect might be bleak, as long as flows of money keep entering the stock market without any catalyst for a downward decline, this in my opinion will continue. Any opinions about the catalyst that will finally end the climb?
Apple: The Bottom Has Yet To Be Reached [View article]
I think everyone's aware that margin erosion was the reason for Apple's 45% stock price decline. I sold Apple at $685 - I saw that decline from a mile away. Nobody is arguing that the insane growth phase came to an end in 2012. The question is, do you put your money in "me too" companies or do you place it in a company that has proven its innovative worth and has the cash to create "new" products? I don't really think you have a good argument here for why the bottom has yet to be reached. Even if Apple does nothing for the next year, the company will still continue to print cash. That's the nature of having the #1 global brand.
define "sky high" please... i've been investing for many many years, i've been long and short apple on many occasions and i've never heard anyone refer to a 14-15x Apple valuation as "sky high"... and they've faced much much tougher times in the 80's, 90's and 00's. if that's the case, then you ARE clearly bearish on Apple, unlike your article implies. unless you're expecting Apple to just be flat for the next 5 years. is that the case? if so, then why would you buy even at 3%? why not find a higher paying dividend and look elsewhere. i am honestly very confused by what your message is.
Bill nobody is arguing that 2013 might be a tougher year than many thought. Valuations aren't based on 1 year though. My opinion is that money talks. Who has the most cash and who'll be able to capitalize on the next big thing? I put my money on cash. That implies that AAPL should trade at a much higher valuation than MSFT.
I don't see people lining up for MSFT products. I still have a tough time understanding why CSCO and INTC are comps. FYI - Just because they're large cap tech doesn't mean they should trade at the same multiple.
Bill, how many times did Apple drop 5-10% on the SAME exact report about delays? It started at $600 and it ended at $380+. That is ridiculous. The company lost $300 billion in market cap on similar rumors since October. If you actually analyzed the "rumors" you'd realize how many of them were exactly the same.
Short interest TRENDS are a good indicator for sentiment. Yes short interest is low, but it's doubled or tripled since October, if I remember correctly.
I respect your analysis, but part of the reason Apple plunged most recently is on fear that wasn't justified. That created higher short interest, more "noise", ridiculous valuations from horrible analysts, etc. The company's a great value play and more people are jumping on board. Will it pull back? Stocks always do - there are profit takers, etc. But I don't think you'll see a massive pullback as your article may imply.
I was honestly so shocked to see Apple trading at $390 - rarely do opportunities with such inefficiency exist - I'm not at all surprised by the recent spike.
You mention that AAPL is trading at a higher valuation, but why should it be trading at a deep discount to comps? I also believe the comps you picked are absolutely horrible. Why is Apple like INTC or CSCO? That makes no sense. In terms of its valuation, it doesn't matter if it has a "higher valuation" - the question is whether the valuation is correct even at its current levels. I argue absolutely not. It should be at least at 14x-15x 2013 EPS.
You Better Duck - Apple's Unit Profits Are Falling [View article]
1. Assumption that they'll have a linear decline in EPS is outrageous. You could say that it's a very bearish case scenario, but that's assuming that their new line up of products will not take into consideration declining margins. That's assuming that the brightest minds in the world are dumber than you.
2. At the current valuation, you're paying for future cash flows - which are incredible relative to your other options. Your assumption that Apple will crash and burn linearly is quite bizarre.
Heads: Apple Short Sellers Win, Tails: Apple Shareholders Lose [View article]
i would not call this article out of the box... i would call it out of this planet. i'd say the opposite of your article is true. because the company is secretive, its one of the most inefficient stocks to ever trade, hence 300 to 700 to 400 all within a year. management conversations are critical to efficiency, which is the opposite of what you're saying. your argument makes 0 sense.
Heads: Apple Short Sellers Win, Tails: Apple Shareholders Lose [View article]
"What I want to say is that the market knows what Apple's numbers are going to be tonight. It does not need tonight's conference call to be enlightened. And while management's outlook is a big help in forecasting the future, so much is known about Apple that analysts and the market have more than enough clues to go on, it actually does not even need management's enlightenment."
What a bunch of nonsense. If that was the case, then $700 would have been the correct price. So which is it, $400 or $700?
Apple (AAPL +1.6%) roundup: 1) Take this one with a big spoonful of salt: "Some Wall Street sources close to some Apple executives" tell Forbes contributor Gene Marcial some at the company are looking for a replacement for Tim Cook. 2) CIRP estimates the iPhone 5 made up 53% of Q1 U.S. iPhone sales, up slightly from Q4's 50%. Meanwhile, citing Verizon's Q1 iPhone mix, BMO (Outperform) now sees Apple's latest iPhone accounting for 55% of Sep. quarter iPhone sales, down from a prior 70%. 3) A Foxconn worker speaking to China Business claims Apple returned 5M-8M iPhones "due to appearance of substandard or dysfunctional problems." (Citi) (BGC/Avondale) [View news story]
A Forbes contributor says that someone says that people close to Wall Street say that shareholders say that some executives say... riighttt. Ha.
Tim Cook: The (Negative) $250,000,000,000 Man [View article]
while I disagreed with some of Bill's article for above stated reasons, katzha's insult shows poor form. What benefit is there to insulting an author? Even if you disagree, it gives us an opportunity to debate and learn from one another.
Apple, Zynga Lead Sharp Rise In Short Interest On Tech Names [View article]
Apple Implements My Plan: Here Is What It Should Do Next [View article]
Apple Implements My Plan: Here Is What It Should Do Next [View article]
The Good News, The Bad News And What's Very Ugly [View article]
Apple: The Bottom Has Yet To Be Reached [View article]
Apple: Too Far, Too Fast? [View article]
Apple: Too Far, Too Fast? [View article]
Apple: Too Far, Too Fast? [View article]
I don't see people lining up for MSFT products. I still have a tough time understanding why CSCO and INTC are comps. FYI - Just because they're large cap tech doesn't mean they should trade at the same multiple.
Apple: Too Far, Too Fast? [View article]
Short interest TRENDS are a good indicator for sentiment. Yes short interest is low, but it's doubled or tripled since October, if I remember correctly.
Apple: Too Far, Too Fast? [View article]
I was honestly so shocked to see Apple trading at $390 - rarely do opportunities with such inefficiency exist - I'm not at all surprised by the recent spike.
You mention that AAPL is trading at a higher valuation, but why should it be trading at a deep discount to comps? I also believe the comps you picked are absolutely horrible. Why is Apple like INTC or CSCO? That makes no sense. In terms of its valuation, it doesn't matter if it has a "higher valuation" - the question is whether the valuation is correct even at its current levels. I argue absolutely not. It should be at least at 14x-15x 2013 EPS.
You Better Duck - Apple's Unit Profits Are Falling [View article]
2. At the current valuation, you're paying for future cash flows - which are incredible relative to your other options. Your assumption that Apple will crash and burn linearly is quite bizarre.
Heads: Apple Short Sellers Win, Tails: Apple Shareholders Lose [View article]
Heads: Apple Short Sellers Win, Tails: Apple Shareholders Lose [View article]
What a bunch of nonsense. If that was the case, then $700 would have been the correct price. So which is it, $400 or $700?
Apple (AAPL +1.6%) roundup: 1) Take this one with a big spoonful of salt: "Some Wall Street sources close to some Apple executives" tell Forbes contributor Gene Marcial some at the company are looking for a replacement for Tim Cook. 2) CIRP estimates the iPhone 5 made up 53% of Q1 U.S. iPhone sales, up slightly from Q4's 50%. Meanwhile, citing Verizon's Q1 iPhone mix, BMO (Outperform) now sees Apple's latest iPhone accounting for 55% of Sep. quarter iPhone sales, down from a prior 70%. 3) A Foxconn worker speaking to China Business claims Apple returned 5M-8M iPhones "due to appearance of substandard or dysfunctional problems." (Citi) (BGC/Avondale) [View news story]
Tim Cook: The (Negative) $250,000,000,000 Man [View article]