Apple Stock Nears Quarterly High as Investors Prepare for Q3 Earnings Report

[Cineplex]

It's already booked as revenue. So they should find a way to count it twice?

It is revenue, but not for Apple, Inc. It is revenue for Apple Ireland, Inc. I wish I could remember but I'm 80% sure there is some crazy complex way to bring that over and claim it as income. It's something like deferring income from the subsidiary into the parent. I can't recall. If anyone could figure it out, it would be Tim Cook.

 

[sudo1996]

Rather sad you'd spend so much time calculating this out.

Now please, do the same for Dell, HP or Lenovo and show us all the amazing innovation they've done recently. We buy hundreds of these at work and I haven't seen anything new in the PC or laptop world for 5 years (or more). Innovation has stalled in the entire PC industry.

Do the same for Dell, HP, and Lenovo? They're are all shipping computers with the latest parts. Apple will soon be 3 Intel CPU generations behind, for crying out loud.

At least Apple have been competitive on screen resolution and disk speed. I don't know why PC manufacturers want to keep stupid 1080p displays and SATA disks alive forever, probably because people always overlook those specs.
[doublepost=1468606703][/doublepost]

I have a 2007 iMac. It's 9 years old and I don't feel compelled to replace it at all. It runs El Capitan just fine. I'm surprised Sierra is dropping support for it, but I still don't feel like replacing the iMac, because Apple really just hasn't made any compelling upgrades to their Mac line or OS X in forever.

2007 is a bit old. I think your main problem is the low-res display. If you're using that all day, you might want to get something easier on your eyes. Whatever disk you have is also slow by today's standards, but I suppose a SATA SSD is good enough. And OS X does NOT work on HDDs anymore.

My '08 Mac Pro is lasting longer since it's a pro machine and allows expansion via eSATA and PCIe. I can put whatever monitors I want on it. My CPUs are already hella fast. I just can't improve my low RAM speed and can't go past PCIe 2.0 SSDs, which are fast but aren't the best (3.0 is available now, about 2X the speed).

 

[IJ Reilly]

It is revenue, but not for Apple, Inc. It is revenue for Apple Ireland, Inc. I wish I could remember but I'm 80% sure there is some crazy complex way to bring that over and claim it as income. It's something like deferring income from the subsidiary into the parent. I can't recall. If anyone could figure it out, it would be Tim Cook.

Sure, it is revenue for Apple. These are Apple's wholly-owned subsidiaries, which exist for little other purpose than to book as much revenue as possible in countries with low corporate tax rates. That's how the money gets stranded in these locations. Either way, it all goes on the balance sheet.

 

[sudo1996]

Sure, it is revenue for Apple. These are Apple's wholly-owned subsidiaries, which exist for little other purpose than to book as much revenue as possible in countries with low corporate tax rates. That's how the money gets stranded in these locations. Either way, it all goes on the balance sheet.

But can they use the revenue stranded in Ireland for the acquisition of, say, a U.S. company? If not, that might explain why Apple has so much money but never uses it.

 

[Cineplex]

Sure, it is revenue for Apple. These are Apple's wholly-owned subsidiaries, which exist for little other purpose than to book as much revenue as possible in countries with low corporate tax rates. That's how the money gets stranded in these locations. Either way, it all goes on the balance sheet.

It isn't income here while over there....if it was, they would pay taxes. So as they bring it over it is then income. But there is more to it than that. Any finance experts here?

But can they use the revenue stranded in Ireland for acquisitions of, say, a U.S. company? If not, that might explain why Apple has so much money but never uses it.

They can not use it to buy companies here. Any money that enters the US is taxed. If they bought a company over seas (in Ireland especially) they could.

 

[IJ Reilly]

But can they use the revenue stranded in Ireland for the acquisition of, say, a U.S. company? If not, that might explain why Apple has so much money but never uses it.

They would have to pay the taxes owed to repatriate the profits.
[doublepost=1468609877][/doublepost]

It isn't income here while over there....if it was, they would pay taxes. So as they bring it over it is then income. But there is more to it than that. Any finance experts here?

It is revenue to Apple, Inc. Where they pay taxes on it is, and where they park that money, are separate matters.

 

[You are the One]

While preparing:

US Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has thrown a hissy fit over the refusal of Apple CEO Tim Cook to attend a Senate hearing on encryption.

McCain: Come to my encryption hearing. Tim Cook: No, I'm good. McCain: I hate you, I hate you, I hate you

 

[Michael Scrip]

Rather sad you'd spend so much time calculating this out.

Now please, do the same for Dell, HP or Lenovo and show us all the amazing innovation they've done recently. We buy hundreds of these at work and I haven't seen anything new in the PC or laptop world for 5 years (or more). Innovation has stalled in the entire PC industry.

Hey... at least Dell, HP and Lenovo offer machines with current-generation processors and modern graphics cards. They refresh frequently.

What's Apple's excuse for keeping the same products on the market for 2-3 years? (at the same price!)

EDIT: sudo1996 nailed it!

 

[britboyj]

I bought in right after the stock split a couple of years ago, but I think it's time to let it go. This isn't the same Apple that went from $67 to $700 in 4 years before splitting.

 

[vooke]

You know why Apple is going places? iphones remain deposed dictators' phone of choice! Especially FaceTime

 

[SBlue1]

15" MBP: Last updated 483 days ago, while 13" was updated 423 days ago.

You mean RMBP 13" was updated 423 days ago. MBP 13" was updated 1495 days ago. Just pathetic!

And don't tell me that I should just switch to the RMBP. The 512 Gig 13" is $1799 compared to the $1099 for the almost identical 512 Gig 13" MBP. 700 Bucks more for the same configuration??!

 

[sudo1996]

You mean RMBP 13" was updated 423 days ago. MBP 13" was updated 1495 days ago. Just pathetic!

And don't tell me that I should just switch to the RMBP. The 512 Gig 13" is $1799 compared to the $1099 for the almost identical 512 Gig 13" MBP. 700 Bucks more for the same configuration??!

It's not the same configuration. The rMBP is much, much faster. I didn't even know they still sold the MBP, but wow, they do. It's got ancient parts in it.

Here's the one-stop place for Mac specs, if you want to compare them: http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook_pro/index-macbookpro.html

 

[anthorumor]

I'm glad these shareholders have trust in the iPhone, because I don't have trust in their computer business anymore judging from the outdated piece of tech people are still buying, even though the trend is generally going down.

 

[Solomani]

No ruthless, cut throat visionary; no good Apple.

Give SJ's DNA to the Koreans. If they can clone extinct dinosaurs and sheep, certainly they can bring SJ back from the dead.

 

[Denmac1]

Give SJ's DNA to the Koreans. If they can clone extinct dinosaurs and sheep, certainly they can bring SJ back from the dead.

Maybe it wasn't in the genes,but the turtleneck (sorry, couldn't resist.)

With that, the second coming had already occurred....

Steve is gone..we need to give it up. I had always hoped that Ive would carry on the vision and that Steve had laid out a long term roadmap.........guess we have a change in the map...Forestall?

 

[NickD73]

Look for Apple stock to linger around $85 for a while. Earnings report is going to be an absolute train wreck.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Look for Apple stock to linger around $85 for a while. Earnings report is going to be an absolute train wreck.

You are shorting it heavily.

Right?

 

[tw1ll]

As long as Apple continues to buy back shares, nothing should be done to juice the share price. Let it stay low so Apple can get more bang for the buck and so will shareholders. There's nothing Apple can do to make the company more of an attractive investment than Amazon, Tesla, Microsoft or a host of other tech companies, so shareholders might as well give up. Shareholders will simply have to suck it up. I'm still getting paid my dividends and the faster the share count drops, the better it is for me in the long run. Tim Cook is a loser. He's nothing when compared to Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk. He's even behind Reed Hastings and Satya Nadella. I'm sure everyone knows this much. He's always got his nose into some business outside of Apple. I guess that's his thing. Apple will remain undervalued compared to other stocks as it's become a really boring company lead by an extremely boring CEO. As a shareholder, I've seen the good times and now I'm seeing the not so good times. Steve Jobs is gone and that's that. There's nothing to look forward to. A wealthy company getting its ass kicked by companies far poorer is one of the things that happens to companies set on merely protecting what they have and nothing more.

With all the money they have, Apple should be able to build the most powerful Pro computer on the planet but they don't seem interested in doing so for reasons I'm not exactly certain. The current Mac Pro is merely paying lip service to Jony Ive as a designer and very little attention to end users. All those powerful graphic cards are being created and Apple doesn't give a damn because they'd rather build underpowered green computers instead of beast machines. I'd heard that even the high-end processor iMacs have to throttle back because lack of proper cooling doesn't allow them to run flat-out as intended in Turbo-boost mode. Apple has to build these super-thin computers in order to make them look good at the expense of functionality. I get it. Apple doesn't want iMacs to be used as gaming machines so they handicap them. I guess Apple is being run by committee and the bean counters are in charge. There's nothing can be done about that and I'm not sure even a new CEO would help.

I still like the company but I don't understand what their goals are. They never say. Investors don't give a damn about green policies or gender policies even if they're important. I sure wish Apple had some space program just to make things a little interesting to dream about. All Apple seems to be interested in is selling iPhones and they're not even accomplishing that to a great degree. Apple's product mix isn't that high in number so why are they having such a hard time focusing on the few things they have.

Spot on. I agree that Apple's goals are completely opaque. Keeping new products secret pre-launch I guess makes sense, but the company as a whole has no declared direction of travel or culture (other than the culture of "thin" and "flat" - Ive has had his time and now has run out of ideas, bugger off to your $millions and let a real thinker take charge of truly integrated hardware/software/cloud design). At the moment the product stagnation makes Apple unattractive and boring - no buzz.

 

[NickD73]

You are shorting it heavily.

Right?

Absolutely not. I do not gamble.

 

[dragje]

I don't understand all this crying about Apple here. The company is about to unleash a whole range of new products with the latest intel chipsets, memory and flashdrives with everything else you can think of as soon these products are available.

It's WAY early to state that Apple has lost it's touch, if any. If Apple will not launch a whole range of new products by the end of this year (few months to go) then the critics do have a point. Until then I'm in the waiting mode.

 

[Cineplex]

But can they use the revenue stranded in Ireland for acquisitions of, say, a U.S. company? If not, that might explain why Apple has so much money but never uses it.

I don't understand all this crying about Apple here. The company is about to unleash a whole range of new products with the latest intel chipsets, memory and flashdrives with everything else you can think of as soon these products are available.

It's WAY early to state that Apple has lost it's touch, if any. If Apple will not launch a whole range of new products by the end of this year (few months to go) then the critics do have a point. Until then I'm in the waiting mode.

I can't wait for the new identical looking MacBook Pro with integrated graphics, the new uninspired super thin iMac with soldered mobile hardware, an iPhone that looks like the last 2 generations except a large bump on the back, a useless watch with millions of bands, a MacMini more pathetic than the last, a new iPad Pro lacking pro software, and emojis on the AppleTV.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Absolutely not. I do not gamble.

So your mouth and your money are not in the same place. What a surprise.
[doublepost=1468682202][/doublepost]

Spot on. I agree that Apple's goals are completely opaque. Keeping new products secret pre-launch I guess makes sense, but the company as a whole has no declared direction of travel or culture (other than the culture of "thin" and "flat" - Ive has had his time and now has run out of ideas, bugger off to your $millions and let a real thinker take charge of truly integrated hardware/software/cloud design). At the moment the product stagnation makes Apple unattractive and boring - no buzz.

You answered your own critique, even if you don't entirely know it. The biggest change in Apple under Cook is they keep secrets even more completely than before. The entire company is now vacuum packed and hermitically sealed. We can tell just by reading this site that the rumor mill has almost nothing to chew on, and it isn't because Apple isn't doing anything, but that the leaks are all but gone. I question whether this is a good way to run a company, because it does as you say, snuff out the buzz. But the fact remains this is the path Apple chose to follow a long time ago. Secrecy is very much integral to the company culture, and it is a modus operandi that Cook, for better or worse, has perfected.

 

[tw1ll]

So your mouth and your money are not in the same place. What a surprise.
[doublepost=1468682202][/doublepost]

You answered your own critique, even if you don't entirely know it. The biggest change in Apple under Cook is they keep secrets even more completely than before. The entire company is now vacuum packed and hermitically sealed. We can tell just by reading this site that the rumor mill has almost nothing to chew on, and it isn't because Apple isn't doing anything, but that the leaks are all but gone. I question whether this is a good way to run a company, because it does as you say, snuff out the buzz. But the fact remains this is the path Apple chose to follow a long time ago. Secrecy is very much integral to the company culture, and it is a modus operandi that Cook, for better or worse, has perfected.

Agreed. I think what I hate as an investor is the inability to know what I am buying into. Many good companies do an excellent job of articulating their investment thesis for you. Apple do not. If they had a knack of using that secrecy to regularly blow the market away with something fresh, exciting, boat-rocking that would be good, but that seems to be the very thing the exec team are incapable of doing right now.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Agreed. I think what I hate as an investor is the inability to know what I am buying into. Many good companies do an excellent job of articulating their investment thesis for you. Apple do not. If they had a knack of using that secrecy to regularly blow the market away with something fresh, exciting, boat-rocking that would be good, but that seems to be the very thing the exec team are incapable of doing right now.

It depends on what you mean by regularly. Apple's development cycle has always been fairly long, 3-4 years on average for new products. That has always seemed too protracted to me, but then it's difficult to argue that it hasn't worked for Apple (and as someone who's been in the stock for nearly 20 years, for patient investors as well). I do give credit to Cook for being a lot more investor-friendly than Steve Jobs ever was or would be. The dividends and buybacks are evidence of that, and Cook is more open at annual shareholder meetings than Jobs, who was often vaguely if not clearly hostile.

The management team might well be somewhat distracted by the massive construction project they are undertaking currently (ironically, a legacy of Jobs not Cook). Difficult to say but it would hardly be a surprise if it was so. Still, I feel certain that Cook is very keenly aware of his own legacy and hasn't engaged the cruise control and walked away. Just because they aren't in the habit of laying down hints doesn't mean they aren't up to a lot. Having chosen this path of secrecy they can't very well start playing the game the other way just to keep investors happy.

 

[American Hero]

Tim Cook = Kenneth I. Chenault.

Both take once proud and prestigious companies in their sector and turn them into a laughing stock that looks inferior to the competition who offers better products for less.