Nice chunk of Apple stock! And nice to get those dividends tax free for the next 20 years.
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 2Q 2017 Results: $11B Profit on $52.9B Revenue, 50.8M iPhones
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nice chunk of Apple stock! And nice to get those dividends tax free for the next 20 years.
My experience with a 1-to-1 computing initiative in a school tells me that unless there is buy-in from the ground and the staff is invested in making it work, any such programme is doomed to fail.
There was practically zero guidance on how to use the iPads for serious productivity, nor was there any incentive to want to make it work. That it failed speaks more about the culture of your workplace than any limitations on part of the iPad. Not saying the iPad didn't have its shortcomings, but that wasn't the key factor.
Here's some food for thought: If Apple stops selling iPhones completely, the rest of the company is still bigger in revenue and profits than all of Samsung Mobile.
And if you haven't noticed, Apple's market share in the phone market has been growing, growing, growing. What has changed is who their top competitor was, they started far behind Nokia and Blackberry, and now these two are gone and replaced by Samsung. But Apple's trajectory is _up_.
Apple today announced financial results for the second fiscal quarter of 2017, which corresponds to the first calendar quarter of the year. For the quarter, Apple posted revenue of $52.9 billion and net quarterly profit of $11.0 billion, or $2.10 per diluted share, compared to revenue of $50.6 billion and net quarterly profit of $10.5 billion, or $1.90 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter.
Gross margin for the quarter was 38.9 percent compared to 39.4 percent in the year-ago quarter, with international sales accounting for 65 percent of revenue. Apple also declared an increased quarterly dividend payment of $0.63 per share, up from $0.57. The dividend is payable on May 18 to shareholders of record as of May 15.
In addition to the increase in the dividend payment, Apple says it will once again expand its share repurchase authorization by an additional $50 billion and the company says it expects to spend a total $300 billion in cash under its overall capital return program by the end of March 2019.
Apple sold 50.8 million iPhones during the quarter, down slightly from 51.1 million a year earlier, while Mac sales rose slightly to 4.20 million units from 4.03 million units in the year-ago quarter. iPad sales continued to decline, falling to 8.92 million from 10.25 million.
Apple's guidance for the third quarter of fiscal 2017 includes expected revenue of $43.5-45.5 billion and gross margin between 37.5 and 38.5 percent.
Apple will provide live streaming of its fiscal Q2 2017 financial results conference call at 2:00 PM Pacific, and MacRumors will update this story with coverage of the conference call highlights.
Conference call transcript herein...
Click here to read rest of article...
Article Link: Apple Reports 2Q 2017 Results: $11B Profit on $52.9B Revenue, 50.8M iPhones
Based on the pie chart I can see why Apple has paid little attention (compared to the iPhone) to their Mac's (MacBook Pro, etc).
Last edited by a moderator:
Mac unit sales are up 4% and revenue is up 14%. To me that's much more than "keeps its users"...
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/Q2FY17DataSummary.pdf[/QUOTE]
Remember they are comparing Mac sales to the same quarter last year... that did not have the advantage of the awesome new MacBook Pros that are flying off the shelves, or the promise of an actual desktop in 18 months. So revenues are up because of the higher prices on the products. Sales up 4% is not that great when you look at what they were offering 12 months ago compared to their line of products today.
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/Q2FY17DataSummary.pdf[/QUOTE]
Remember they are comparing Mac sales to the same quarter last year... that did not have the advantage of the awesome new MacBook Pros that are flying off the shelves, or the promise of an actual desktop in 18 months. So revenues are up because of the higher prices on the products. Sales up 4% is not that great when you look at what they were offering 12 months ago compared to their line of products today.
Anybody has any idea about the sawtooth pattern, especially becoming more pronounced over the years.
I can think of a number of things. But the first one to come to mind is the convergence of new product release cycles with what was already the strongest quarter - the holiday quarter.
For instance, starting in Q1 2012 (the holiday quarter 2011), new iPhone models started being released in or just before the holiday quarter rather than earlier in the year.
If I had to guess, after the initial excitement of a full-fledged OS running on a tablet died down (which wasn't a new thing from Microsoft at all, but they positioned it as such), it started to dawn on people that what they had really wasn't that much better, and worse in some ways, than your average touchscreen laptop. It doesn't really fill any kind of major market that I'm aware of.
Plus, the iPad Pro.
Well, the stock performance on any one day isn't statistically relevant unless you're a day trader. If you are investing for the long term, you need to look at long term returns.
Since you mentioned two of the FANG stocks, let's analyze a hypothetical portfolio of FANG stocks, AAPL, Berkshire-Hathaway, and a few index ETFs and how $10,000 in each would have performed over five years.
Let's say you have $100K in April 30th 2012 and invest $10K in five stocks: Amazon (AMZN), Netflix (NFLX), Google (GOOG), Apple (AAPL), Berkshire Hathaway Class B (BRKB), plus the following four index ETFs: Vanguard S&P 500 Growth (VOOG), PowerShares Nasdaq "Cubes" (QQQ), Russell 1000 (IWB), Russell 2000 (IWM). Facebook wasn't trading at the time, so let's say you purchase $10K of FB at year later on April 30th, 2013.
Here are the market value results at today's close (May 3rd 2017 adjusted for splits), ranked by ROI, not accounting for dividend payouts:
- NFLX: $132,251 (+1222%, no that is not a typo)
- FB: $56,014 (+460%, one year less in portfolio)
- AMZN: $41,405 (+314%)
- GOOG: $30,592 (+205%)
- BRKB: $20,674 (+106%)
- QQQ: $20,411 (+104%)
- VOOG: $17,868 (+78%)
- AAPL: $17,353 (+73%)
- IWB: $17,129 (+71%)
- IWM: $16,871 (+68%)
That $100K invested five years ago would be worth $370K today, an increase of +270%. The ROI increase of your portfolio would have been largely carried by the FANG stocks.
Now if you invested $25K apiece in just the four FANGs (with Facebook a year later), that FANG-only $100K investment would be worth $650,665 (+550%).
If you had invested all $100K in AAPL, the market value would be $173,530 (+73%).
If you had invested all $100K in "Cubes" and ignored the price of any given stock and just followed the Nasdaq market, the market value would be $204,110 (+104%).
If you were a more conservative investor and split the $100K between Nasdaq (QQQ) and S&P 500 Growth (VOOG), you still will have ended with $191,395 (+91%).
Or if you thought Warren Buffett was a canny investor and split the $100K three ways between QQQ, VOOG, and BRK, you will have ended up with $196,510 (+96%).
Sort of interesting to view it that way, no?
Disclaimer: I have own all of these securities in the past five years at some point in time. The only ones in my current portfolio from the list above are BRKB, QQQ, and VOOG. Of course, as an owner of those three symbols, I'm still an indirect shareholder of Apple. I'm happy that Apple has done well over the past few years, especially in the past year even though I dumped half of my AAPL shares a couple of years ago. The last lot was sold a couple of months ago.
The main takeaway here is that a diversified portfolio is a savvy investor's strategy. If you had invested in AAPL at certain points in their history, yes, you could have made a huge pile of money, but most people aren't that lucky.
Last edited:
Anybody seen an infopraphic about units sold ratio between iphone and macs over the quarters and years?
I don't see them slipping up but there could be a small shift in Samsung's favour over the coming years. Then there's OnePlus, Huawei, Xiaomi coming up behind and who knows what they're capable of. Two things Apple have over everyone else is consistency and crazy customer loyalty so I think AAPL remains a very safe bet for now.
The dividends in a traditional IRA aren't tax free, they are tax deferred. You need to pay the taxes at some point, just not now.
Depending on how your income increases, you may actually end up paying more taxes later if you jump tax brackets.
If you have the cash and you think you will end up retiring in a higher tax bracket than your current one, one option is to convert your traditional IRA into a Roth IRA and pay the taxes now and not ever pay taxes again. Of course, with the current administration's recent tax reform proposals, it might be worth tabling this for a year, but there's no guarantee that future governments will keep tax rates the same.
These days, I'm more keen on keeping my high ROI/high risk/high volatility investments in my Roth IRA (I have a taxable individual account and a Rollover IRA as well). By doing most of my high return trading in my Roth, I get to keep every penny.
I cashed out a ten-year old investment in AAPL in my Roth a couple of years ago and I'm not going to pay a dime in taxes. Sure, it was one of my better investments I've ever made, but perhaps the more important decision I made was to do it my Roth.
I am thinking of converting my Rollover IRA to a Roth, but I'm going to wait and see if I change tax brackets (unlikely I imagine) if the tax reforms pass (probably a long shot). If I do drop brackets, I might pull the trigger next year and convert.
Last edited:
What is your point?
All Apple products start their product history with 0% of company revenue. All Apple products start with 0% of product family marketshare.
How many iPhones did Apple sell in 2006? Zero. The big names in 2006 for smartphones were Nokia, Blackberry, Motorola and some others.
Today, they sell a few more. Sure, there's market share, but more importantly is profitability. Apple and Samsung basically are the two smartphone manufacturers who end up taking home a profit. Everyone else is losing money. Apple is probably taking home 90% of the industry's profits so even if Apple isn't walking away with the highest marketshare, they are putting the profits in their shareholders' hands.
Probably the same thing with smartwatches. Regardless of how much Apple Watch contributes to Apple's bottom line right now, it is the most profitable wearable on the planet.
Congrats on the Roth. Here is a loophole that I've heard of that takes advantage of this. An entrepreneur takes some of his salary in the form of stock for in his startup, pays taxes on that stock grant, sticks the stock in the Roth, gets multiple increases in value. I can't remember the guys, but in the article I read these CEOs now had many millions of dollars in their Roth IRAs which they will never pay taxes on. You basically did the same thing, though you had, I guess 5x or 10x gains, while these guys had 1,000x gains that are all tax free.
For most people though, I would assume they will retire into much lower tax brackets than they are in their peak earning years. I'm certainly not expecting to be taking retirement income between ages 75 and 85 that exceed my current income. If I were, then I "over saved" because I won't have the energy to spend and enjoy that much money at that time. And I won't have housing (mortgages presumably paid off by then) or kid related costs either.
I think not yet, Apple is not a regular company. Apple needs loads of engineers that get partially compensated with stock, so Apple needs a way to control the price of it's stock. They need a steady growth without the spikes and dividends seem to be a good technique to do that. The dividend is a direct income for the engineers and and by gradually growing the percentage it keeps the stock-price in a steady growth pace.
Apple doesn't need a expensive stock, it needs a attractive stock with a gradual growth potential to lure new engineers (or company buyouts), thousands of them. The buyback will eventually lower the dividend payout so these buyback-loans will earn them big, that's a no-brainer.
I do see some hiccups as they lowered the speed after Steve's death but not the innovation stop, i think they are working on lots of things we don't know yet, car and medical to name a few that have huge growth potential and need lots of cash to develop.
While I fully agree with your point, the financials are no where near $300 billion. The current cash / equivalents are around $256 billion AND Apple now has $100 billion in debt (was $0 in 2003). So, net net, $156 billion.
We are 2 years now in Apple Watch. And they invested more than in iPad and Mac, both of them were left behind.