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 to Announce 4Q 2012 Earnings on October 25
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I believe about the same, slightly more, 800 Euro also for the 32GB model back in july 2009 launch date Netherlands.
Don't want to pay this amount of money and be stuck for three years again with the same phone. I'd upgrade one or two yearly if it costs' about 300-500 I have the money but I prefer yearly updates. . Since no such pricing exists I rather ride this one out and replace on fail.
(don't get me started on telecom provider prices here in Europe)
----------
Sell, because I have a crazy feeling Microsoft is coming back in the game , tablet + phones, whatever the current critics. And the pricing will be right.
The problem with FQ3 was TOO much supply, not too little:
In the last conference call, Apple was asked why iPhone 4S sales had dropped off much more than would be expected from just people holding back for a new model.
Apple had to make an unusual admission that their FQ2 sales numbers had included millions of iPhones that ended up sitting on retail store shelves until the next quarter:
Thus FQ2 (35 million) looked better than it actually was, while FQ3 (26 million) looked worse than it actually was. Retailers bought much less than expected in FQ3, simply because they still had extra inventory left over from buying too much in FQ2.
Last edited:
haha a little dyslexia when I posted. Yeah I know small potatoes, but gotta start somewhere. lol
Why do I feel the delay in new Mac hardware means that there will be a lightning port on all new Mac's. It'll be high-speed syncing of content so you don't have to sync over wifi for hours if you have large library collections. Then again, they could just make a thunderbolt or USB 3 adapter or cable.
I also wonder if the iPod Classic will ever get an update to lightning.
I also wonder if the iPod Classic will ever get an update to lightning.
How factually incorrect.
----------
You should read a book on trading options. A much better way to leverage the $7000 than 10 shares.
----------
And where else would you put your money? AAPL has 100+ Billion in cash, very low P/E ratio and great forward earnings.
We'll see 800$ per Apple share soon
Only the rich can afford to buy Apple stocks then.
What is the point for a person to own 1 Apple share and get a dividend of $2?
Fiscal year. Some companies go from Sept to Sept.... Or July to July for the year.
It isn't calendar year.
----------
Especially if you are thinking short term. Think long term. Investing over time. Not saying you should buy AAPL but more of a generalized statement.
Several things I want to add to the discussion, which some have already touched on:
1) AAPL current stock price is still considered "cheap" for how much the company has in cash and cash flows. any intro to finance course will show how this is calculated. don't let a high stock price fool you into thinking "it's going to crash back down, it's too high!". if AAPL feels its stock price is too high, they will do a stock split - which will be highly unlikely at this point
2) AAPL is floating $0 in debt - not many companies can do this, and no other company can do this of comparable size and growth
3) iPhone 5 profit margin was increased to 70%, higher than both the iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S
4) A large cluster of customers have yet to upgrade to the iPhone 5 - the Verizon iPhone 4 customers who purchased at the end of February. Analysts are aware of this, and it will push the stock even higher if the numbers are good on October 25
1) AAPL current stock price is still considered "cheap" for how much the company has in cash and cash flows. any intro to finance course will show how this is calculated. don't let a high stock price fool you into thinking "it's going to crash back down, it's too high!". if AAPL feels its stock price is too high, they will do a stock split - which will be highly unlikely at this point
2) AAPL is floating $0 in debt - not many companies can do this, and no other company can do this of comparable size and growth
3) iPhone 5 profit margin was increased to 70%, higher than both the iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S
4) A large cluster of customers have yet to upgrade to the iPhone 5 - the Verizon iPhone 4 customers who purchased at the end of February. Analysts are aware of this, and it will push the stock even higher if the numbers are good on October 25
This is incorrect by most fundamentals (not "technical analysis" measures, which are anything but technical or analysis in the financial sense).
How most M&A consultants do a business valuation, which is what the institutional investors would pay if they wanted to shrewdly acquire a stake... and what a shrewd investor has to compete with if you don't want to be left holding the bag, it's a triangulation of three factors:
1. Comparable industry P/E multiples
2. Net working capital (current assets minus current liabilities) plus projected operating cash flows (discounted to net present value)
3. Extrinsic factors (e.g. currency risk exposure)
Personally, I ignore P/E multiples because all they tell you is how many times over actual earnings the market was dumb enough to pay for a stock on the supposed basis of future speculation. But a shrewd investor always concentrates on what the stock is worth right now. There are two key measures for this: 1) Tangible book value and 2) Intrinsic value. The former is inarguable, but the second has a few basic approaches.... I tend to stick to the valuation method embraced by Buffett and other value investors.
Apple is currently trading at about 5.8 times its tangible book value. A good baseline comparison is the Price to Book ratio of the S&P, which is about 2.36. While AAPL has had higher one year growth than the S&P, the S&P has more room for overall growth than AAPL because the overall index is still not as overpriced relative to book as Apple is and there's significant growth opportunity for other companies in the index that aren't yet as proliferated in their respective markets as Apple is.
Regarding intrinsic value, I made a recent calculation that placed Apple's intrinsic value (while Steve Jobs was still around), at $100 per share below their current market price. Note that I didn't include anything like a "Steve Jobs factor" in my intrinsic calculations because I don't care what the market overprices the asset to.... I care what that asset is worth to me right now, so I can profit off the difference rather than be swept up by the market.
The reason I stick with operating cash and net working capital is this: The number of gold toilets at Apple HQ has no bearing on their ability to generate cash from their primary business. The cash from financing activities can be manipulated. But operating cash ticks and ties to how good they are at the thing they do that makes them uniquely Apple, and net working capital (current assets minus current liabilities and intangibles, e.g. good will--a measure of the excess over carrying value paid for an asset) is the engine that generates the operating cash. So to me, these are the only items on the books that really matter, not including accounting irregularities (which are easy to spot if you read the annual reports from back to front).
Extrinsic factors are harder to target and I just try to keep it simple by investing in companies that aren't exposed to tremendous currency risk, that aren't ADR's, and whose business I can easily understand. Manufacturers are easy because their working capital (inventories) tick and tie to their sales. Banks are nearly impossible because if you can find anyone who clearly understands what Level 3 assets are really worth, that person should be President of the Universe.
Apple is not a "cheap" stock and I have picked far more discounted securities that match the gains I would have had on Apple in the past year without the risk. That's not to say you would pick a lot of them, but overall you're not going to find many Apples in your life. Get used to the idea... and heed the words of Ben Graham who has been right decade after decade about the difference between investing and speculating:
An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and an adequate return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative.
The only other thing required is unswerving patience. Over time, you'll compound far greater gains by investing shrewdly and consistently, than you will by speculating wildly, betting the farm where everyone else is and exposing yourself to risk because any number times zero is still zero. Remember Steve Jobs' favorite quote from Wayne Gretzsky: "Skate to where the puck is going to be."
Last edited:
We will probably see the stocks sky rocket...
If the rumors are true, and the iPad mini is revealed on the 17th, with Quarter 4 earnings announced on the 25th... The stocks are going to get a huge boost.
Especially if the Pre-order opens for the iPad mini on the 19th (in similar fashion to the iPhone 5), then we would hear about the quantity of pre-orders for the first 24 Hours on the 22nd...
It could potentially be big news after big news after big news...
What possibly could happen (in order):
17 - iPad Mini Reveal
19 - Pre-Orders
22 - Pre-Orders in the first 24 hours
25 - Quarter 4 Earnings
If the rumors are true, and the iPad mini is revealed on the 17th, with Quarter 4 earnings announced on the 25th... The stocks are going to get a huge boost.
Especially if the Pre-order opens for the iPad mini on the 19th (in similar fashion to the iPhone 5), then we would hear about the quantity of pre-orders for the first 24 Hours on the 22nd...
It could potentially be big news after big news after big news...
What possibly could happen (in order):
17 - iPad Mini Reveal
19 - Pre-Orders
22 - Pre-Orders in the first 24 hours
25 - Quarter 4 Earnings
What what a terrific insight.
Would you say "Whoever is born also dies" when someone is having a baby?
This is a commonly held misconception by inexperienced investors. The number of shares you own is irrelevant. What's important is how much money you have invested and what % yield they pay or % growth in earnings.
Example: Let's say you have only $700 to invest. If you own 1 Apple share at $700 and it pays a dividend of $2.65, then every 3 months you receive $2.65, or 0.38%. Now, if you find some other company that is $7/share and you can buy 100 shares. Let's say their dividend yield is approximately equal (the % is what matters). So then you would receive $0.0265 per share. You still only get $2.65 at the end of three months. The number of shares you own is COMPLETELY irrelevant.
Saying that Apple shares are too expensive is like saying I bought a car for $40,000 while you bought 2 cars for $40,000. Who got the better deal? Well, that depends on what car(s) we each bought, right? It has nothing to do with how many cars you can buy for the $40,000. The trick (and skill) to investing is being able to figure out what each share of a company SHOULD be worth. Then determine how much money you're willing to invest in it, not how many shares you would like to own.
Last edited:
You should definitely go to Vegas.
I'm not saying you should gamble there, but it's an amazing place to see. Don't forget to tour Hoover Dam while you're there.
Not a place for the nostalgic, though. They regularly tear down buildings and put bigger ones up in their place.
----------
Terrible analogy. The person buying two cars for $40,000 owns two cars. If you have more than one driver in the family, two cars means you can go two places at the same time.
The rest I agree with.
This is just flat out false. If you're a trader, this short term up and down stuff matters. If you're a buy and hold investor, it doesn't.
DJI today = 13,454
DJI in Oct 1992 (20 yrs ago) = 3,226
DJI in Oct 1962 (50 yrs ago) = a little under 600
----------
You're taking the analogy too far. I'm just referring to the intrinsic market value of the cars, not how you can utilize them. The point I'm making is that you can't base their value on the quantity.
If you had bought $100 worth of CocaCola shares fifty years ago, it would be worth 15,352.00 today.
That's not counting the dividends, which have increased every year for 40 years.
Or see this graph of one share of CocaCola over 92 years if you reinvested the dividends.
Image source: http://seekingalpha.com/article/271536-coca-cola-triumphing-through-3-separate-bear-markets
This is a good point. An example is Partner Re. I have far less money tied up for more shares in Partner Re than I would Apple, but I'm collecting a much higher dividend yield per share. Now, there are other things that you have to take into consideration, including whether or not the money you've tied up is besting the Risk Free Rate (30 year Treasuries) or the dividend yield from a no-load S&P index fund or ETF, whether you're beating inflation or not, etc. .... but the idea is basically predicated on opportunity cost of tying that money up elsewhere for x% return.
However, when we talk about "expensive".... Apple is more expensive relative to its tangible book or intrinsic value at $700 per share than Berkshire Hathaway is at $133,000 per share. Along with it are some key differences: Berkshire's value has never seen dilution by splits, and is never going to. Berkshire's businesses are far more diversified and run by managers who have a 40 year track record of returning 22% year over year growth in tangible book value. Lastly, the high per share price and steady (as opposed to volatile) growth makes Berkshire less attractive to speculators so that it always tracks pretty closely to book. BRKA grows when carrying value grows... making it a very favorable investment to people who are less interested in trying to chance short term gains on outguessing the market's rollercoaster movement and more interested in stable, long-term compounded annual growth.