Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 23, 2013, 07:29 PM   #351
cappadonna
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by IJ Reilly View Post
It isn't the analysts who are "disappointed," it's the markets. Investors know that the analysts are conservative. Companies are expected to beat their numbers, and by more than just a little.
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 by cappadonna; Jan 23, 2013 at 09:01 PM. Reason: changed asus to amd
cappadonna is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 07:30 PM   #352
Rogifan
macrumors G3
 
Rogifan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba Satori View Post
A lot of it is expectations about future rates of growth and how they compare to past rates of growth when the stock quadrupled in a few years.
The market is basically saying that that party is over. Apple will still do well, but not at the incredible rate that it has over the last four years.

The market is providing a brutal example of the law of large numbers.
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?
__________________
"I have a very optimistic view of individuals. As individuals, people are inherently good. I have a somewhat more pessimistic view of people in groups." -- Steve Jobs , Wired interview
Rogifan is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 07:30 PM   #353
Bubba Satori
macrumors 68040
 
Bubba Satori's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B'ham
Quote:
Originally Posted by cappadonna View Post
Nothing, I was disputing the guy who said they would be at 2000 in a year.

No one said that.
That's why I said not in three.
Oh well, maybe I'll win something from the Walmart receipt survey.
Bubba Satori is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 07:33 PM   #354
Rogifan
macrumors G3
 
Rogifan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by IJ Reilly View Post
One would think so, and I suspect the stock is going to start looking pretty cheap to investors over the next week or two, unless the analysts start piling on with downgrades or reduced one-year targets. That could happen too.
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 have a very optimistic view of individuals. As individuals, people are inherently good. I have a somewhat more pessimistic view of people in groups." -- Steve Jobs , Wired interview
Rogifan is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 07:35 PM   #355
IJ Reilly
macrumors P6
 
IJ Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Palookaville
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post
But I thought analysts were predicting a 2% profit decline. Flat beats -2% doesn't it?
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.
__________________
*The season starts too early and finishes too late and there are too many games in between.
Bill Veeck
IJ Reilly is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 07:36 PM   #356
FrozenDarkness
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by IJ Reilly View Post
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
FrozenDarkness is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 07:38 PM   #357
Bubba Satori
macrumors 68040
 
Bubba Satori's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B'ham
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post
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?
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.
Bubba Satori is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 07:38 PM   #358
IJ Reilly
macrumors P6
 
IJ Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Palookaville
Quote:
Originally Posted by cappadonna View Post
There's no secret formula to the stock market like you seem to be implying. As already mentioned, asus posted a loss and the stock went up. It's not as clean cut as "beat and go up, lose and go down"
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.
__________________
*The season starts too early and finishes too late and there are too many games in between.
Bill Veeck
IJ Reilly is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 07:39 PM   #359
Bubba Satori
macrumors 68040
 
Bubba Satori's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B'ham
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post
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.
Well, to be fair to Wall St., nobody was saying that on the way up.
Stocks go up, stocks go down...
Bubba Satori is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 07:41 PM   #360
flux73
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba Satori View Post
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?
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.

"Be fearful when others are greedy. Be greedy when others are fearful."
-Warren Buffett
flux73 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 07:44 PM   #361
Bubba Satori
macrumors 68040
 
Bubba Satori's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B'ham
Quote:
Originally Posted by flux73 View Post
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.

"Be fearful when others are greedy. Be greedy when others are fearful."
-Warren Buffett
Agreed.
Bubba Satori is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 07:56 PM   #362
Liquorpuki
macrumors 68020
 
Liquorpuki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: City of Angels
Quote:
Originally Posted by HobeSoundDarryl View Post
Describe how to replace the cable TV company with Apple and we end up with a better value proposition without killing those who create the content we want to buy (they're going to need Apple to show them how they are going to make more money in this new model, not less)? Then, tell me why the broadband tollmasters who are also our cable companies would not raise the price of broadband to make up for any losses of cable TV to Apple's replacement solution? Then, explain again how we end up with a better value proposition if the content creators are making more money, Apple has replaced the cable TV distributor and taking the Apple cut, and we are paying the money lost by the old distributor in higher broadband rates?

And in this dream, how much are we consumer's paying on average for this new cable TV replacement solution?
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
__________________
Ableton 9 on a Surface Pro 3, APC40, Audiobox, Yamaha KX8, Roland V-Drums HD1 + Octapad, K-Pro, Rode NT1A, MPC1000, EWI, 1200-MK5, 06-Pro
Liquorpuki is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 08:07 PM   #363
fastasleep
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: May 2010
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
fastasleep is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 08:14 PM   #364
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
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.

Last edited by HobeSoundDarryl; Jan 23, 2013 at 08:22 PM.
HobeSoundDarryl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 08:26 PM   #365
Jaro65
macrumors 68040
 
Jaro65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Seattle, WA
Send a message via Skype™ to Jaro65
Quote:
Originally Posted by abhishake View Post
Ouch. For a regular company this would be great, but Apple used to be far from the norm.

The simple fact is they are no longer creating the trend, but trying to keep up with it. It's simple, they need to step their game up. Samsung is killing them.

Apple USED to have the best Ads.
Apple USED to have the best OS, iOS.
Apple USED to have the best phone.
Apple USED to have the best innovation.

This is no longer the case. Straighten up fellas, begin acting like you're part of the company Steve Jobs resurrected.
The biggest question remains: Can Tim reignite the spirit? The answer remains elusive.
__________________
rMBP | MBP | MBA | ACD | iPad | iPhone | ATV | iPods | Senn HD 650
Jaro65 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 08:47 PM   #366
MacDav
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace View Post
Don't shoot the messenger.

I don't unless the messenger is a smart ass.
MacDav is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 08:54 PM   #367
Jimmy James
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
One billion per week. Profit.
Jimmy James is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 09:16 PM   #368
ifij775
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Boston, MA
Tim Cook needs a wake up call. Numerous earning announcements with misses to analyst expectations in a row!!
__________________
AAPL Stock Investor
http://aaplstockinvestor.blogspot.com
ifij775 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 09:18 PM   #369
wedouglas
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
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?

Last edited by wedouglas; Jan 23, 2013 at 09:42 PM.
wedouglas is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 09:34 PM   #370
YourAvgUser
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilo777 View Post
Samsung sold 18 million Galaxy S3 in Q3. They sold 30 million by November 2012. So they definitely sold way more S3 total than total numbers for iPhone 5. And people usually stop buying iPhones in Q1, Q2 and Q3 waiting for a new model.
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/...rter-for-apple , 650,000 iPhone 5's were sold in September by Verizon. From https://www.apple.com/pr/library/201...e-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.
YourAvgUser is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 09:43 PM   #371
Michaelgtrusa
macrumors 601
 
Michaelgtrusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Everywhere And Nowhere
All about the money.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	apple-reports-the-largest-corporate-earnings-in-the-history-of-the-earth-stock-down-10.jpeg
Views:	11
Size:	76.5 KB
ID:	392198  
__________________
iMACAll life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better.
TWITTER TUMBLR
Michaelgtrusa is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 11:22 PM   #372
iisdan
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilo777 View Post
There can't be two killers for one creatures. Galaxy S already killed iPhone. SGS3 outsold iPhone 4S in Q3 and looking at Q4 numbers (and a fact that iPhone 5 amount to less than 50% of all iPhone sales) it looks like S3 will stay on top (or get back to it in Q1, Q2 and on.
http://gizmodo.com/5977625/android-i...cause-its-good
iisdan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 12:12 AM   #373
ani4ani
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Derbyshire, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperMatt View Post
AAPL almost always beats its own estimates by the same amount each quarter. After analysts aimed way low for something like 10 quarters (or more) in a row, they finally decided to aim really high in hopes to finally not look like morons getting it so wrong. When they did that, they aimed too high. So, although AAPL is making more money than any other company, and growing at a ridiculous rate for a company its size, it is punished because analysts have no clue how to predict quarterly results? Wall St. analysts are given way too much credence.
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?
ani4ani is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 01:50 AM   #374
charliehustle
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
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.
charliehustle is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 03:31 AM   #375
tdream
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilo777 View Post
Stagnation is OK if the company pays meaningful dividend (which APPL does not). Expect them to announce dividend increases during the conference call.
Seems like Wall Street didn't buy it...
__________________
rMacbook Pro 2.6 Galaxy Note 12.2 Moto G iPad 3
tdream is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apple Reports Strongest Ever Quarterly Earnings: $13.1 Billion Profit on $57.6 Billion in Revenue in Q1 2014 MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 409 Feb 1, 2014 06:43 AM
Apple Reports Q4 2013 Year-End Results: $7.5 Billion Profit on $37.5 Billion in Revenue [Call Concluded] MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 193 Oct 30, 2013 11:57 AM
Apple Reports Q3 2013 Quarterly Results: $6.9 Billion Profit on $35.3 Billion in Revenue [Call Concluded] MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 269 Jul 25, 2013 12:30 PM
Apple Reports Q2 2013 Quarterly Results: $9.5 Billion Profit on $43.6 Billion in Revenue, Increases Dividend and Share Repurchases MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 361 Apr 27, 2013 07:45 PM
Apple Reports Results for Q3 2012: $8.8 Billion Profit on $35 Billion in Revenue MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 274 Jul 27, 2012 08:06 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:11 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC