I have been writing earlier on how some AAPL analysts have a terrible batting average yet continue to be widely quoted and interviewed on financial media such as Bloomberg or CNBC.
One poster example is analyst Peter Misek. Here's what Misek predicted for Apple in 2013:
Misek described the iPhone 5s as having "new super HD camera/screen, a better battery and near field communications." He also wrote that Apple was building a new iPad for release in June, a new television set and a cheap new iPhone model.
Let's review his claims now that summer and the iPhone event is over:
- No Super HD camera (he was probably referring to 4K cameras found on some new Android phones, a rather gimmicky resolution for a phone camera)
- No NFC (or he confused NFC with BLE coupled with iBeacons in iOS7, see my previous Instablog entries for more details on this)
- No new iPad in June (it's most likely coming in October)
- No TV set (I see a refresh of the Apple TV box as more likely for now)
(Let's remember that Misek mentioned an actual Apple TV set being in full production back in 2012. That was completely wrong, of course)
- No cheap iPhone (5C is cheaper, but not cheap as predicted at $550 vs $350-450 or even below $300 as some analysts wished for)
So Misek got the better battery correct - kind of easy to guess since that's true for most new smartphones.
That's not all. Misek probably also mis-interpreted the chip order cutback from Samsung as he and most other Apple watchers were unaware that a new 64-bit chip (A7) might be coming in the iPhone 5s:
We don't know that Misek's understanding of Apple's "wafer starts" in Austin were accurate, but if they were, there's more than one reason for that to occur.
It's also not known for certain who is fabricating the A7, despite mounting evidence suggesting that production may have shifted from Samsung to TSMC.
If the new chip is indeed being fabbed by TSMC, the cutbacks at Samsung made complete sense. AppleInsider (the source for all my quotes in this article) in closing comes to this conclusion:
This appeared to spook Wall Street so much that investors forgot that all of Misek's scary previous predictions from last year had all been grievously wrong, too.
The only question remaining: Why do investors and Wall Street still listen to such bad analysis and why does it (still) move the AAPL stock?
PS: My intention is not to attack or single out Misek alone, there are other bad apples (pun intended) out there in the professional AAPL analyst sphere. He just happens to be completely wrong on important calls and makes for a good example thanks to his frequent media exposure.
Disclosure: I am long AAPL.