There's no secret formula to the stock market like you seem to be implying. As already mentioned, amd posted a loss and the stock went up. It's not as clean cut as "beat and go up, lose and go down"
Last edited:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Reports Best Quarterly Results Ever in Q1 2013: $13.1 Billion Profit on $54.5 Billion in Revenue [Call Ended]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There's no secret formula to the stock market like you seem to be implying. As already mentioned, amd posted a loss and the stock went up. It's not as clean cut as "beat and go up, lose and go down"
But haven't they been doing that since September? Isn't all that D&G already priced into the stock? Did Cook or Oppenheimer really say anything today that was unexpected or shocking?
That's why I said not in three.
Oh well, maybe I'll win something from the Walmart receipt survey.
I expect we'll see the downgrades coming. I almost wish Apple would get cheap enough they could afford to buy themselves and go private. Screw Wall Street.
I didn't see a consensus forecast for a decline in earnings. What are you looking at? EPS did grow year-over-year. The "miss" such as it was is beating consensus earnings by only a small margin and it seems the market freaked out about Apple's guidance. Not sure why that was.
because apple said that they'll start handing out realistic guidances. before you can give them slack on lower guidance because rofl they'll beat it anyway but now they're like, no these are real
Yes, and that is part of the problem.
Apparently the D&G has not been completely priced as of tonight.
Nothing shocking, but a continuation of unsettling news since Sept.,
as you pointed out.
As someone else pointed out, Apple yield is approaching Corp. bond
at the $430 or there about level. Once the correction is over sold there will
probably be a big rally.
Secret formula... hmmm.
Yes, obviously a company can post a loss and the stock can rise -- if they were expected to post a larger loss. It's all about results vs. expectations.
Not a secret formula, just basic logic.
Well, to be fair to Wall St., nobody was saying that on the way up.
Stocks go up, stocks go down...
For people who only care what the price is right now, none. You'd either sell it all or stand on the sidelines if you don't have any shares. For people who care about the long term direction of the company, it's a buying opportunity.Ok, say it's shorted sighted and everything else you say is spot on.
What's the difference between a long sighted $40 billion one hour haircut
and a short sighted $40 billion one hour haircut?
"Be fearful when others are greedy. Be greedy when others are fearful."
-Warren Buffett
Content providers mandate the bundle. Only way they'll give it up is if they're losing money. They lose money when the price of creating content goes up and doesn't scale with what consumers are willing to pay. They also lose money if customers tune out (something the internet as disruptive tech is catalyzing by providing Hulu, illegal streams, etc). Both these things are slowly happening though we're not at a breaking point yet. But it'll happen down the road if trends are any indication. Apple's role would be to either catalyze it or be first to market with a distribution solution when the bundle is killed
Far as raising the price of broadband, they'll probably do that as long as they have a natural monopoly. In the case of phone lines though which many cable companies also own and which has also been disrupted by internet tech via VoIP, they haven't. In the end, it's all redundant infrastructure. Independent competitors rolling in could shake up market pricing too, which is why everyone's watching Google fiber.
Far as how much are we paying, it would be less overall. That's the only way it would work. I'm not a wizard so I'm not gonna quote you a dollar amount
It's pretty obvious by your tone you don't believe this will ever happen. Personally I find it hard to believe that out of every type of content that can now be distributed through the internet (music, videogames, movies, apps, books, etc), TV is special and somehow perennially immune to disruptive technology
Anyone else notice the bumper music right after the end of the call was The Temptations:
"I know you wanna leave me but I refuse to let you go..."
LOL
"I know you wanna leave me but I refuse to let you go..."
LOL
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
The "bundle" has both a cost and a subsidy. For the one channel you want in a bundle, there may be 10 channels you don't watch. On those 10 channels are commercials being paid for by other people. That commercial revenue is HUGE and key for the companies that make the stuff we want to watch. Kill the bundle and you kill the subsidy. Who makes up the for that subsidy in the new model? Apple?
A few years ago, I saw a stat that U.S. Household commercial revenue was $49 billion for a single year. The other day I saw something from Nielsen that said it was $255 billion for a single year. Whether $49 billion or $255 billion, 300 million people in the U.S. divided by- say- 4 people per household = 75 million households. $49 billion/75 million = $54/month per household. $255 billion/75 million = $283 per month per household. That's $54 or $283 per month per household being paid for by other people to bring us the television we watch and the television we don't watch.
Let's imagine that we kill the bundles entirely. Most of this subsidy is killed with it so who makes up that revenue? Or does the quality of the programming take a big plunge because the content creators have to make huge cuts to their budgets to fit this new model? Or do you believe that we would all choose the same small subset of programming that is the "good programming" and thus they could focus the much smaller revenues on maintaining those good shows? Who gets to choose the good shows? Commercials don't sell on those useless bundled channels because NO ONE is watching them.
Google Fiber is great. But even Google says they have no plans to roll out nationally. If one lives in Kansas City. Great. Then again, it's at least $70/month for it "as is" now and $120 if people in Kansas City want their TV plan too. Why would Google let Apple take their TV plan revenues?
Do I believe it will ever happen? I believe something like it will eventually happen. But not this year. Or next. Or probably even 10 years from now. My posts in this thread are about Apple needing a "next big thing" innovation(s) LAST YEAR and I don't think this rumored television is likely to be "it". To me, this year (2013) is late and it is- IMO- a major reason why the stock has fallen so far from $700/share. I don't see all the players being on board for an Apple Television + Cable TV replacement revolution in 2013 or 2014.
What I can imagine is Apple rolling out a nice piece of (Television) hardware with a great interface because they have complete control of hardware and software. But, the dream depends on all these other players getting on board. Every rumor we see about them makes it sound like Apple is not getting too far. I recall one recently where an Exec was complaining that Apple positions in discussions was that "Apple gets everything" (implying there was nothing left for them). Why should these other players play ball?
Lastly, if there is going to be a replacement where it's content creators + Apple + Us and we are going to pay less, then either Apple or the content creators are going to take the hit so we can pay less. If the bundles are going to be killed off, so goes the subsidies of commercials we never see on channels we never watch. Is Apple going to make up for that huge loss or is the content creators going to take that hit too? Since we know Apple is going to get theirs (else, why bother?) and we believe we are going to pay less, then we expect the artists on the other end to take the hit of lower shares of subscriptions per household and much lower revenues from commercial (subsidies). Why would they want to participate in that new model? Like Apple, their goal is to make more money, not less.
A few years ago, I saw a stat that U.S. Household commercial revenue was $49 billion for a single year. The other day I saw something from Nielsen that said it was $255 billion for a single year. Whether $49 billion or $255 billion, 300 million people in the U.S. divided by- say- 4 people per household = 75 million households. $49 billion/75 million = $54/month per household. $255 billion/75 million = $283 per month per household. That's $54 or $283 per month per household being paid for by other people to bring us the television we watch and the television we don't watch.
Let's imagine that we kill the bundles entirely. Most of this subsidy is killed with it so who makes up that revenue? Or does the quality of the programming take a big plunge because the content creators have to make huge cuts to their budgets to fit this new model? Or do you believe that we would all choose the same small subset of programming that is the "good programming" and thus they could focus the much smaller revenues on maintaining those good shows? Who gets to choose the good shows? Commercials don't sell on those useless bundled channels because NO ONE is watching them.
Google Fiber is great. But even Google says they have no plans to roll out nationally. If one lives in Kansas City. Great. Then again, it's at least $70/month for it "as is" now and $120 if people in Kansas City want their TV plan too. Why would Google let Apple take their TV plan revenues?
Do I believe it will ever happen? I believe something like it will eventually happen. But not this year. Or next. Or probably even 10 years from now. My posts in this thread are about Apple needing a "next big thing" innovation(s) LAST YEAR and I don't think this rumored television is likely to be "it". To me, this year (2013) is late and it is- IMO- a major reason why the stock has fallen so far from $700/share. I don't see all the players being on board for an Apple Television + Cable TV replacement revolution in 2013 or 2014.
What I can imagine is Apple rolling out a nice piece of (Television) hardware with a great interface because they have complete control of hardware and software. But, the dream depends on all these other players getting on board. Every rumor we see about them makes it sound like Apple is not getting too far. I recall one recently where an Exec was complaining that Apple positions in discussions was that "Apple gets everything" (implying there was nothing left for them). Why should these other players play ball?
Lastly, if there is going to be a replacement where it's content creators + Apple + Us and we are going to pay less, then either Apple or the content creators are going to take the hit so we can pay less. If the bundles are going to be killed off, so goes the subsidies of commercials we never see on channels we never watch. Is Apple going to make up for that huge loss or is the content creators going to take that hit too? Since we know Apple is going to get theirs (else, why bother?) and we believe we are going to pay less, then we expect the artists on the other end to take the hit of lower shares of subscriptions per household and much lower revenues from commercial (subsidies). Why would they want to participate in that new model? Like Apple, their goal is to make more money, not less.
Last edited:
The biggest question remains: Can Tim reignite the spirit? The answer remains elusive.
Tim Cook needs a wake up call. Numerous earning announcements with misses to analyst expectations in a row!!
Apple comes back reality. Why is that so hard to believe? Sentiment brought it up to $700 on high hopes, sentiment brings it back down on the reality of the situation. Lots of companies trade at a PE or 10. Also, some companies have higher PE's not only because growth is higher (or maybe not,) but also because it's easier to find growth and profit.
Company A has $100M in earnings and a PE of 16. It only needs to find $60M in earnings to come down to 10.
If Apple had $40B in earnings and a PE of 16, it would need to find $24B in new earnings to come down to 10.
Which is more realistic? The market is only so big. $24B isn't even remotely as easy to come by as $60M or even $4B for that matter. Percentage gains and dollar gains are not the same. It's way harder for Apple to grow very large numbers than it is for Google to grow pretty large numbers.
$130B in cash is nice too, but it's reflected in the valuation. It's not like it has $130B in cash with a $200B valuation.
Was overvalued, probably still is.
Things to worry about:
If the 4 and 4S hurt iPhone 5 sales because, as people say, they were really good phones that were still good enough and significantly cheaper, imagine what the 5/5S might do to iPhone 6 sales. If the 5 -> 6 is even less significant than 4 -> 5, that could really hurt.
Saturation. It's real, it's happening, and it's not good. There are a few big countries left, life China, to look for high growth, but a lot of places are going to be reaching saturation.
Competition. It's getting really really good. Apple is losing some of their edge. Samsung and others are turning out really good phones and returns are diminishing, as stated above. The best iPhone 2 years from now might not be much difference in actual use than a more bargain model. Even bargain models today blow away iPhone from only a couple years ago. As the innovation curve flattens, everything gets within range of one another.
As profitable as Apple is and as nice as their balance sheet looks, it's still a $450B company. How many $450B have ever been undervalued?
Company A has $100M in earnings and a PE of 16. It only needs to find $60M in earnings to come down to 10.
If Apple had $40B in earnings and a PE of 16, it would need to find $24B in new earnings to come down to 10.
Which is more realistic? The market is only so big. $24B isn't even remotely as easy to come by as $60M or even $4B for that matter. Percentage gains and dollar gains are not the same. It's way harder for Apple to grow very large numbers than it is for Google to grow pretty large numbers.
$130B in cash is nice too, but it's reflected in the valuation. It's not like it has $130B in cash with a $200B valuation.
Was overvalued, probably still is.
Things to worry about:
If the 4 and 4S hurt iPhone 5 sales because, as people say, they were really good phones that were still good enough and significantly cheaper, imagine what the 5/5S might do to iPhone 6 sales. If the 5 -> 6 is even less significant than 4 -> 5, that could really hurt.
Saturation. It's real, it's happening, and it's not good. There are a few big countries left, life China, to look for high growth, but a lot of places are going to be reaching saturation.
Competition. It's getting really really good. Apple is losing some of their edge. Samsung and others are turning out really good phones and returns are diminishing, as stated above. The best iPhone 2 years from now might not be much difference in actual use than a more bargain model. Even bargain models today blow away iPhone from only a couple years ago. As the innovation curve flattens, everything gets within range of one another.
As profitable as Apple is and as nice as their balance sheet looks, it's still a $450B company. How many $450B have ever been undervalued?
Last edited:
40 million total, they only just passed the 100 mil mark on the GS line itself. Congrats, after 8 months the GS3 finally sold its 40 millionth handset.
And if you're going to extrapolate based on Verizon's numbers, based on http://appleinsider.com/articles/12...t-better-than-expected-sept-quarter-for-apple , 650,000 iPhone 5's were sold in September by Verizon. From https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2012/09/24iPhone-5-First-Weekend-Sales-Top-Five-Million.html , 5 million were sold total the first weekend. Let's say that only 5 million were sold in September, altho that's the worst case. That means Verizon made up ~13% of iPhone 5 sales around launch period. If you extrapolate, since that's basically what you're doing using only Verizon's numbers, that would put iPhone 5's at roughly 23.8 million sold. Add in the fact that it was also released to more markets during the quarter, and I'd say the figures are reasonable.
However, the same analysts have predicted the actual performance far closer than Apple's own guidance? You should think carefully about who can (and should be able to) predict performance. Also worth noting that most folks were happy when the stock was at $700+ because of credence being given to the same analysts?
This is a buying opportunity for those that have no current position in apple.
Average out and don't dump your money at one price point.
This news isn't bad, just not amazing. Big financials that own enough volume to move the stock just locked in some gains and will buy back into the stock as it goes lower. Long term (5yrs) this is a screaming buy. Short term you might have some anxiety.
Average out and don't dump your money at one price point.
This news isn't bad, just not amazing. Big financials that own enough volume to move the stock just locked in some gains and will buy back into the stock as it goes lower. Long term (5yrs) this is a screaming buy. Short term you might have some anxiety.