Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Soulivar said:
this is off topic and maybe you already know, but check out this link on speed tests done on the new intel based imacs:
http://www.macworld.com/2006/01/features/imaclabtest1/index.php

they actually run twice as slow when they need to use rosetta for native applications??

i'm not sold on the switch to the intel chips yet.
It's not off topic. This subject was brought up in the conference call.

Apple dodged questions about how G4/G5 Mac sales and prices would be affected by the Intel Macs, while saying vague words about their plans taking all factors into account.

Apple touted its native code in iLife, iWork, Mac OS X, and the apps that ship with it, such as Mail. Apple said we'd have to ask Microsoft and Adobe about the status of native code for their applications, but Apple did claim that MS Office runs well under Rosetta. Of course, "runs well" is in the eye of the beholder.
 
Some_Big_Spoon said:
If Jesus himself was CEO and turning water into $100 bills the stock would still go down 10% because the analysts are "concerned that the Son of God isn't choosing to turn water into $500 bills".

Wait.. wait.. wait.. you mean Steve Jobs isn't the son of God? 😱

Dang.
 
FoxyKaye said:
So, for example, if Apple were to make an expansion to pull production of the Intel PowerMacs back under its own roof (instead of outsourcing), even if they have all the cash up front, it might actually be better to do this with a loan to maintain a better overall business standing (which, I'm guessing, would in turn affect its stock favoribly). I suppose then, what they might have paid off was the debt from the 1990s so that they're not paying for things in the past - so now any new debt will be incurred for things that advance the company's current agenda.

Well, actually, it's m'am. 😛 But yeah, it is really nice to see pro-Apple stuff in the media again. Kind of brings back some early 1980s nostalgia.

HaHa...sorry about that. I was doing more for dramatic effect than anything else 🙂
 
Reasons for price decline

I read every single post in this thread, and I'm here to say that you all are off-base on why AAPL was lower today. A few seconds of Googling would have given you all the answer:

After the close, Apple Computer (Research) reported fiscal first quarter earnings that rose from a year ago and met forecasts. However, the company also warned that fiscal second-quarter earnings and revenue will come in below analysts' forecasts and that sent shares lower in extended-hours trade.

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/18/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm?section=cnn_topstories

Also, there has always been a dip in the price of AAPL shortly after a stock split. Past performance is no guarantee of what will occur in the future, but it still can serve as a guide.

Therefore, it would make sense to wait until the price declines a bit after the split before you buy more. And at current prices, Apple should split the stock sometime in February.
 
FoxyKaye said:
Maybe I'm crossing wires here, but didn't I read somewhere a year or so ago that Apple took a chunk of its corporate savings and paid off all of its debts in full? If so, that would seem to mean that the company is now operating entirely in the black - and doesn't that make it a bit of an anomaly in the corporate world?


Yup, they did pay off all their debt a while back. It wasn't all that much, only about 100 million or so (I think).

Debt really has no effect on whether a company is running in the black... unless of course, the debt is so big that all the money is going to pay it off.

And yes, Apple is a bit of an anomaly. But that isn't necessarily a good thing. Generally accepted and basic business theory is that all companies should have some debt because it maximizes profit. Every company should be leveraged a little. The trick is finding the right balance.

A very simplified illustration:

Company A spends $100 of its own money and makes $150. It makes $50 profit or 50%.

Company B spends $75 of its own money and borrows the other $25. It makes $150. It just made $75 profit, or 100%.

Obviously, you have to account for paying that money back. But its still better.
 
macidiot said:
Company A spends $100 of its own money and makes $150. It makes $50 profit or 50%.

Company B spends $75 of its own money and borrows the other $25. It makes $150. It just made $75 profit, or 100%.
To modify your example:
Company B makes $48.5 (150-75-25-0.06*25) of profit having paid back the money plus 6% interest, corresponding to 64% of return on its capital invested.
 
jholzner said:
Their gross margins are down from the year ago quarter. I suppose that could be part of the reason. Not that I care! This was an awsome quarter for Apple! Can't have lower priced products and expect your gross margins to go up...but people want to eat their cake and have it too!

Its largely because their forward guidance is lower than what people expected.

However, the initial reaction was absurd. Down to 76-77...

I will say that the same thing happened last quarter. Apple guided lower, to .48. The stock took a hit. Then the analysts and wall st. spent the rest of the quarter raising estimates and watching the stock go up. And of course Apple reports .68.

Apple management is excellent. They don't let Wall St. morons dictate to them and they are conservative in their forecasting. Underpromise and overdeliver.

BTW, I have to comment on some moron that was on cnbc earlier today. This fool was saying that if Apple doesn't report .66/share and 6billion in revenue, the stock would go to 77. Seriously, how stupid is he? They pre-announce that revenue was around 5.7. He's looking for an extra 300 million to magically appear from a quarter that ended?

Unfortunately, this retard will get to say that he got the call right in that Apple did drop to 77. Thing is, his reasoning is completely wrong. Kind of like saying that Apple stock hit 77 because it rained 2 weeks ago.

I'm only sorry that I didn't get what brokerage he worked for, so I could avoid that company like the plague. Then again, I don't base my decisions on what stock analysts say. Following analysts is a great way to not make much money for yourself. But it is a great way for the companies the analysts work for to make a lot of money off of you.
 
macidiot said:
A very simplified illustration:

Company A spends $100 of its own money and makes $150. It makes $50 profit or 50%.

Company B spends $75 of its own money and borrows the other $25. It makes $150. It just made $75 profit, or 100%.

Obviously, you have to account for paying that money back. But its still better.

That just seems retarded, unless you plan on grabbing the profit yourself and then claiming the company is bust and thus never paying back the loan.

It's that sort of business thinking (fiddling with numbers, debt? what debt?) that gets businesses into trouble in the first place. Only borrow if you need it to create more earning potential. i.e.,

Company A has $50. It takes $100 to invent a $foo. It borrows $50. It then sells 100 $foos, making $200. Profit: $150, Debt: $50. Repeat.

Company B has $50. It never invents a $foo, and thus never makes money, or it invents a crappy $foo_lite that loses to $foo anyway.
 
Hattig said:
That just seems retarded, unless you plan on grabbing the profit yourself and then claiming the company is bust and thus never paying back the loan.

Well, I think it might make more sense to think of it like this.

Company has $100 total

Company spends $50 of it's own money and $50 borrowed money to make kiiler product #1
and
Company spends $50 of it's own money and $50 borrowed money to make killer product #2

vs

Company spends $100 to make a single killer product (#1 or #2, they have to pick)

Assume the chance of your "killer product" succeeding is 50:50. The first scenario has less risk (25% chance of two killer products, 50% chance of one killer product, and 25% chance of bankrupcy) and more profit.

Scenario 2, you have a 50% chance of one killer product, and 50% chance of bankrupcy.

of course, a very simplified example
arn
 
Well I expect from this with the Mac lines now buried in supply demand issues and the migration to intel, the ipod line needs to keep people buying iPods and Apple iPod accessories. New Shuffles for sure come March/April (no earlier or they would have made the keynote). New Nanos, bigger memory (and video?) And definetly a new (bigger screen?) better battery life and maybe wireless headphone iPod by summer...
 
Hattig said:
That just seems retarded, unless you plan on grabbing the profit yourself and then claiming the company is bust and thus never paying back the loan.

It's that sort of business thinking (fiddling with numbers, debt? what debt?) that gets businesses into trouble in the first place. Only borrow if you need it to create more earning potential. i.e.,

Company A has $50. It takes $100 to invent a $foo. It borrows $50. It then sells 100 $foos, making $200. Profit: $150, Debt: $50. Repeat.

Company B has $50. It never invents a $foo, and thus never makes money, or it invents a crappy $foo_lite that loses to $foo anyway.

It might seem retarded to you, but you'd be wrong. Because it makes absolute sense. Actually, your numbers don't seem to make sense to me. I'm not sure what your example is supposed to show. I get what your trying to say, but I don't get how it applies here.

It is not fiddling with numbers. It is using leverage to maximize the returns on what money you do have. Where in my example is there fiddling? The numbers don't lie. I tried to make it as simple as possible. Its obviously more complicated than that but the principle is the same. I didn't bother including things like interest rates, short term revolving lines of credit, exotic debt vehicles, etc.

And as someone else posted, even after you pay back the money plus interest, your making a higher percentage than if you didn't borrow the money.

Obviously, adding debt increases risk. If adding debt increases your return when sales are good, it also increases your losses when sales are bad.

Using my same example:

Company A spends 100. It makes 50. Its loss is 50. Or 50%.

Company B spends 75. It borrows another 25. Total cost is 100. It makes 50. Its loss is 50. Or 66%.

This doesn't account for having to pay interest. If included, your loss is even greater.

As I said, the trick is to figure out the right balance of debt to maximize return while minimizing risk. Some people and companies can't handle the risk, so they never borrow money. Its a matter of risk tolerance.

Seriously, this is basic finance 101 stuff.
 
Doctor Q said:
The conference call is over. Conference call audio replay will be available here starting no later than 5pm Pacific time (2 hours from now).
And for listening offline, Apple offer this and prior conference calls in a podcast.
 
plinden said:
That's because of the "conservative" estimates for next quarter, of $4.3 Billion. Apple always seem to do that, then beat their own estimates.
Its known as under promise and over deliver.
 
strange days said:
aaaargh, i just bought AAPL at 84.10; in after-hours trading it went down to 75.xx...

sob, sob...

...ok, it's back to around 79.xx, but still, what a bitch; i should have waited one day... 🙁
I bought mine back in December for $73 so I am still ahead 😎
 
plinden said:
56% of Apple's income is now iPod/music related.
Is that 56% of revenue? Or actual profit? I know a lot of that music revenue i the Music Store which is close to break even.

I'm curious whether the music side has surpassed the Mac side in this quarter in terms of actual money MADE for Apple.
 
winmacguy said:
I bought mine back in December for $73 so I am still ahead 😎

well, since you asked for it...

...i bought exactly the same amount of shares back when it was at 60.xx, so that gives me :

60.xx + 84.xx = 145.00 ( approx, in reality it's a few cents less )
145 divided by 2 lots of equal xxx shares gives an average of 72.5 per share...

so i'm 0.5 per share ahead of you in the end... 😛
 
plinden said:
That's because of the "conservative" estimates for next quarter, of $4.3 Billion. Apple always seem to do that, then beat their own estimates.

Apple is very smart in doing that, because it keeps expectations much more realistic and fairly low to the next quarter; in this context, shares typically fall a bit in the next days, instead of taking a huge plunge downwards if guidance are not met (just remember '98 days, when Apple's shares fell to less than half their value, due to the same problem).

Apple is doing extremely well and is more valued and important than commodity companies such as Dell and even Sony; and naysayers are now an almost extinct species. GO APPLE!
 
macidiot said:
It might seem retarded to you, but you'd be wrong. Because it makes absolute sense.

Seriously, this is basic finance 101 stuff.

Well I haven't done any such course.

It just seems logical that for a company with billions in the bank, that can afford to research pretty much anything entirely from those billions, that it doesn't need to rely on external funding ever. It doesn't take $10b to research anything that Apple's made.

If they get into spaceship design then maybe there'd be a high R&D cost up front that would require borrowing beyond Apple's saved billions.

Sure, if it is a small company it may help them to spread the risk when developing an idea, and the don't have billions anyway, but borrowed money isn't free. Your own money is. Unless you get a loan deal where the interest rate is lower than the interest rate on the company's savings account and it's simply better to borrow than to spend your own money.
 
plinden said:
Of course, the breakdown in numbers is more interesting.

Desktop sales up 11% on last quarter, or 7% on last year. Laptops down 7% on last quarter, up 39% on last year.

56% of Apple's income is now iPod/music related.

There's nothing surprising there. Laptop sales were sure to decline due to the rumours of an imminent release of the intels.. and it cam true 😱

As I said in another thread, it is the results for Q1 2007 that we really have to hope are good otherwise long-term faith in Apple will suffer.

I am thinking that analysts will want to see a 40% growth on Macs to be happy. You heard it here first. 40% or bust!
 
macidiot said:
Its largely because their forward guidance is lower than what people expected.

However, the initial reaction was absurd. Down to 76-77...

I will say that the same thing happened last quarter. Apple guided lower, to .48. The stock took a hit. Then the analysts and wall st. spent the rest of the quarter raising estimates and watching the stock go up. And of course Apple reports .68.

Apple management is excellent. They don't let Wall St. morons dictate to them and they are conservative in their forecasting. Underpromise and overdeliver.

BTW, I have to comment on some moron that was on cnbc earlier today. This fool was saying that if Apple doesn't report .66/share and 6billion in revenue, the stock would go to 77. Seriously, how stupid is he? They pre-announce that revenue was around 5.7. He's looking for an extra 300 million to magically appear from a quarter that ended?

Unfortunately, this retard will get to say that he got the call right in that Apple did drop to 77. Thing is, his reasoning is completely wrong. Kind of like saying that Apple stock hit 77 because it rained 2 weeks ago.

I'm only sorry that I didn't get what brokerage he worked for, so I could avoid that company like the plague. Then again, I don't base my decisions on what stock analysts say. Following analysts is a great way to not make much money for yourself. But it is a great way for the companies the analysts work for to make a lot of money off of you.


You make some good points. Analysts are sheep following each other around without any of them knowing who's the leader.

The truth is that Sheep are usefully stupid and simple and their behaviour can be predicted. We can therefore make money by predicting the whims.

Having said that, they are also dangerous because they are more often than not overly optimistic, like a small child opening a present hoping for a real spacehip only to find a model. They like it, but part of them is disappointed so they start throwing their toys out of the pram only to realise that they actually want them back.

Apple shares will take a small(ish) hit in the short-term, recover strongly throughout 2006 and then be judged seriously in 2007. I keep saying it but Q1 2007 is what we are waiting for when looking at Apple's long-term future.

If you follow the markets shares tend to go up pre profit announcement and then drop on the announcement itself. Our only concern should be that Michael Dell will be a smug sh*t today.
 
bobajoul said:
Wall Street is the ultimate example of how a good deed never goes unpunished.

I shorted AAPL at the beginning of the week, as I thought this would probably happen. Yes, the stock market is a wonderful thing - trust me, I've lived and breathed it for quite a few years now... 😎
 
laptop prospects

plinden said:
Laptops down 7% on last quarter, up 39% on last year.
Interesting... it seems Apple has two seasonal trends: holiday (for iPods—14 million!) and back to school (for laptops).

I imagine the entire portable line will be updated in 2-3 months, but for sure by this summer. My worthless prediction is Apple will release 10" and 13" iBooks (or MacBooks) and that they will be _everywhere_ on campus in the fall.

As an informal observation, in coffee houses in Chicago's suburbs, I see most users are on PCs. In Chapel Hill, North Carolina (UNC), Apples are at least a 2-1 majority. To the extent that 15-25 years olds drive notebook sales, Apple portables will do _very_ well this year.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.