Apple to Release Q1 2009 Financial Results on January 21st

[dejo]

My friend works at an apple store and their sales weren't as good as last christmas 07/08. Sad that Apple never has sales after xmas, and obscenely charges $$$ for ANY software/upgrades/instore maintenance. Guess that's the 'image' Apple portrays (we're too good for sales)

Um, Apple has sales before Christmas (see Black Friday) so I guess they're not too good for sales. As for "obscenely charging $$$ for ANY software/upgrades/instore maintenance", would you care to tell us how much you had to pay for any of your OS X point.point releases (like, say, 10.5.n to 10.5.n+1)? Mine were free.

 

[IJ Reilly]

"The fact is" . Perhaps the strong form efficiency hypothesis is correct, but it is certainly an opinion, not a fact. If the share price is "always correctly valued" we would not need any "market analysts", "serious" or otherwise. The whole point is to try to find which stocks to buy and sell, whether it be due to technical or fundamental considerations. What do you think analysts are saying when they say buy or sell or hold?

They are expressing their opinions, yes. One hopes based on some sort of understanding of financial conditions, but even this seems to be absent much of the time.

Speaking of which, the blogger I referenced previously has added another post as of today, explaining why he believes that Apple is valued the way it is by the markets, due mainly to Apple's choice of deferring iPhone revenues. In his opinion at least, the analysts aren't understanding the vast quantity of revenue represented by this deferral, even though Apple has explained it. True or not true? I don't know. Either way, he does point out that AAPL is selling at the same level today as it did before the iPhone even existed. That's a pretty startling fact to consider.

The markets are ignoring a number of other factors which are objectively in Apple's favor, including their cash position and revenue growth. Whatever means you use to explain this, I don't think it's covered by the typical undervalued/overvalued paradigm. If that was the case, analysts would be making bullish recommendations for Apple now, even if the market wasn't biting yet. Good luck finding one who is. Justified or not, the story-line as it is being told by the analysts is currently quite negative.

 

[MattInOz]

Noone to buy the mac micro atom because they think it should be like a mac pro. People switching to windows mobile because it supports tomtom and tethering and never buying an apple phone again. Not buying the 17inch because they can't remove the battery, 15inch going that way.

Not bringing out a netbook that everybody wants or bringing out a pc netbook with a apple shell and charging twice as much. OS X running on PC's natively so the need for apple hardware dies.

Your Hella Funny.
the New 15" and 17" where redesigned at exactly the same time the 17" had a hold up so plan B 17" was released at notebook event.

the 15" has maybe the most accessible HD and Battery it has every had.
the 17" has maybe the least accessible HD and Battery it has every had.

Oh the clearest thing that tells us is the 15" isn't going that way. Not till the next case revision at least.

 

[stridemat]

Ooo that's my birthday

 

[iOrlando]

The $20 bill analogy is probably confusing to some, but it's certainly true that the markets exist for the sole purpose of pricing stocks. I have to laugh when someone says with great confidence that this-or-that stock is "over valued" or "under valued." The fact is, it's alway "correctly" valued -- which is why most serious market analysts rarely speak in these terms.

emotion plays a large part in the market...

Today everyone seems to think apple is a horrible company..tomorrow people might look at apple as a gem... point of investing is to buy when the stock is hated and "under-valued"..i.e. a dollar of earnings is worth less today than it was yesterday while business is still just as good..and the future remains bright...which is key.

vice versa..one should sell when "over-valued" or when a dollar of earnings is worth more now than yesterday even though business prospects havent changed.

it worked for warren buffett and ben graham so it contains some truth for success.

 

[cameronjpu]

Too bad a cheaper/new Mini and iMac isn't out it might have helped this and next quarter!

China iPhones!

 

[aaarrrgggh]

This guy forecasts $11.3 billion in revenue and $1.96 EPS for Q109, and explains in detail why he believes the analysts are getting it very wrong -- mostly on the basis of deferred income from iPhone sales.

At the time, the investor argument for subscription based accounting was that it would help smooth out the quarter-to-quarter earnings values, which makes it much easier to predict where earnings will come in. The down-side is obviously earnings trail reality.

With the "financial crisis," I'm actually glad to have the subscription based accounting. Apple will still show great numbers, even though things are slowing down. Hopefully that will help change how people look at Apple.

 

[IJ Reilly]

At the time, the investor argument for subscription based accounting was that it would help smooth out the quarter-to-quarter earnings values, which makes it much easier to predict where earnings will come in. The down-side is obviously earnings trail reality.

With the "financial crisis," I'm actually glad to have the subscription based accounting. Apple will still show great numbers, even though things are slowing down. Hopefully that will help change how people look at Apple.

I agree. I can certainly see the value of this form of accounting in the current economic environment. There's a veritable tsunami of cash coming onto Apple's books, it just hasn't been officially counted yet.

 

[Bryan Bowler]

I definitely think AAPL is undervalued and is currently a great buy. That's why I have an order in for 1,200 shares.

 

[Kevster89]

in a way results wont matter...

the stock price is already priced for near doom. (no steve ever coming back....ipods shutting down...noone wanting iphones...palm pre winning (to which i still say HA too) )...

this company has $27/share cash...should get another $3 cash this quarter.....and then about $7-$8 a year in cash after that..and its trading for $80.....unreal....

If you're kidding, well, interesting joke. If not, then I have no comment because that is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[cameronjpu]

If you're kidding, well, interesting joke. If not, then I have no comment because that is absolutely ridiculous.

I'm not sure why anything he said is ridiculous. What specifically did you find crazy?

The stock very well may be priced for the worst case. Apple does have that much cash, and it is generally generating that much cash per year. So what's the objection?

 

[hacksaw-C87]

God could you imagine if Apple crashed and got liquidated or something. Windows would rule the world. Again.

 

[Bryan Bowler]

God could you imagine if Apple crashed and got liquidated or something. Windows would rule the world. Again.

I think you're missing the point. Financially, Apple is one of the strongest companies in the world.

 

[thesheep]

Shares are a strange thing. At least they seem that way to me.

If you own shares in a company you legally own part of that company. So if the company is worth a lot of money then you own something valuable - I get that.

But on the other hand, if I own 1000 shares in Apple, what does this really give me, on a practical level? They never pay any dividends, so I don't get any money that way. The only value they have is that I hope someone else wants to buy them from me later for more than I paid for them. It seems a bit 'unreal' to me, but I guess you could say the same about money itself.

What I can't completely square this with is the traditional view of 'investment'. An investor pays a bunch of money to a company - say $100K - so that company can expand/buy more equipement/whatever. But he will only do this if he can get a return on that investment. Maybe he wants $500K back after 10 years. OK that makes sense. I guess that would usually be handled as a loan? But instead maybe he gets a 10% stake in that company - owning 10% of the shares. What is that really worth to him, if the company doesn't issue any dividends? Only what he can sell it to someone else for. Otherwise it is useless: he can't 'do' anything with those shares. His 10% is not enough to influence the policy of the company to make them issue dividends. If the company continues operating and not issuing dividends from now until eternity then his 10% isn't really worth anything 'real' (except what someone else will pay him for it).

Maybe the value in Apple shares is that people hope that one day in the distant future Apple will start issuing huge dividends?

I don't write this to attack people who buy Apple shares - I'm kind of interested in buying some myself - but just to try and understand the system, which seems a bit strange to me. Maybe there's some concept I haven't understood.

 

[Digitalclips]

i guess we'll see how the new macbooks are doing. and that new monitor - i don't think it's selling all that well at that price, considering it can only work with the new macbooks

It should be! I bought my wife the new MacBook and LCD monitor for Christmas. It is an amazing combo. She has used it as a desktop 95% of the time, i.e. with the MacBook's lid shut. It automatically moves the dock to the 24" screen and stays almost cold. I am amazed how cool it runs, her last MacBook could fry eggs. On the few occasions she needs to take the MacBook with her she simply unplugs the three small connectors and the dock zooms to the MacBook's screen and she's off. The power cable and adapter is already in her case as it is not needed anymore as the LCD feeds the power. Pure genius.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Shares are a strange thing. At least they seem that way to me.

Shares are an abstraction, in a way. The process of trading shares in a company begins when they go public. They go public to raise equity for the expansion of their business. Investors in effect are lending the company money, in the hope that the company will do well, and their share in the company will become more valuable. The abstract process of trading shares is the one that makes the raising of that initial stake of public capital possible.

Dividends are a way for a company to reward its investors for their patience. Apple has never seen fit to offer a dividend, which is unfortunate considering how easily they could afford to do so.

 

[Ramashalanka]

Apple has never seen fit to offer a dividend, which is unfortunate considering how easily they could afford to do so.

I agree. Usually companies justify it by being able to earn more with the money through their business than we can in the bank. But with all those cash reserves, we'd expect them to either do something with it or pay it out. If we're running out of patience though, we could always cash in a few shares - if only their value had accumulated more!