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.
Surprise, Surprise: Merryl Lynch down on Apple
- Thread starter trebblekicked
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The strongest broker recommendation i've seen in, maybe 5 years is Neutral/hold... generally no matter what they're pessimistic. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that Apple does not follow any traditional business plans...
ignore them all. they're just pen-pushers who can't do any real analytical thinking.
pnw
ignore them all. they're just pen-pushers who can't do any real analytical thinking.
pnw
i know. i always laugh at financial types analyzing tech companies. apple is always an imac away from the top.
what caught my eye is the three companies they took the time to mention as losers:
apple, sun, gateway.
we all know gateway sucks and has no future, but apple and sun both have a lot to offer the industry. continued innovation, worthwhile oppostition to the wintell/dell empire make these companies necessities in the market.
what caught my eye is the three companies they took the time to mention as losers:
apple, sun, gateway.
we all know gateway sucks and has no future, but apple and sun both have a lot to offer the industry. continued innovation, worthwhile oppostition to the wintell/dell empire make these companies necessities in the market.
Here's a snippet from the article....
"IBM's stock price is about flat with where it was at the beginning of 2001, and Dell's shares are up 70 percent.
By comparison, Gateway is off 70 percent, Sun is off 88 percent, and Apple is off 1 percent in the same period. "
Now how exactly can you lump Apple in with stock that is off 1% with companies that are off 70% and 88%? That just sounds insane.
And how do they come up with a 2% global marketshare? Even the most pessimistic estimates of late have been 3.5%. How did this 2% suddenly get in there?
This is just as crappy as the BusinessWeek online article for 04/23 that boldly states Apple has no hope of getting into a music service because of their low marketshare. Where do these people come from?
"IBM's stock price is about flat with where it was at the beginning of 2001, and Dell's shares are up 70 percent.
By comparison, Gateway is off 70 percent, Sun is off 88 percent, and Apple is off 1 percent in the same period. "
Now how exactly can you lump Apple in with stock that is off 1% with companies that are off 70% and 88%? That just sounds insane.
And how do they come up with a 2% global marketshare? Even the most pessimistic estimates of late have been 3.5%. How did this 2% suddenly get in there?
This is just as crappy as the BusinessWeek online article for 04/23 that boldly states Apple has no hope of getting into a music service because of their low marketshare. Where do these people come from?
Especially considering that IBM, with flat stock performance, is in the leader category.
Just another "Apple is dying" article. Don't give it another thought.
You'd think that after years of reporting that Apple is supposedly dying, people would get it through their heads that Apple isn't going anywhere.
Maybe I'll start publishing my own pro-Apple magazine. My first cover article will be called, "Apple criticizers one Windows crash away from switching."
We all know the 'Apple is dying' thing is a load of rubbish....but the average reader of the article may not (actually, I hope I have several billion dollars to pay around with when I am in the possition that people think I am dying...that way I could go out in style!).
If someone reads the article, sees a handful of Apple products in the corner of a computer store...you are going to think Apple is dying.
We all trust what we read in newspapers and are told on TV (most of the time) because these outlets are respected. However, when they get things wrong (and they do sometimes) they don't want to admit it. Well, neither do analysts...especially when they may have an interest or motive not to. At the end of the day the analysts can say that there is always a degree of uncertanty with predicting markets and company stock performace - and this is there escape, but they will never say they are wrong, even if what they do say is proven completely inaccurate.
I wish I could get away with that...
If someone reads the article, sees a handful of Apple products in the corner of a computer store...you are going to think Apple is dying.
We all trust what we read in newspapers and are told on TV (most of the time) because these outlets are respected. However, when they get things wrong (and they do sometimes) they don't want to admit it. Well, neither do analysts...especially when they may have an interest or motive not to. At the end of the day the analysts can say that there is always a degree of uncertanty with predicting markets and company stock performace - and this is there escape, but they will never say they are wrong, even if what they do say is proven completely inaccurate.
I wish I could get away with that...
Even better
I find it humorous to read a so-called tech journalists articles when they are blatently incorrect or use incorrect terminology. Recently, I think it was Walt Mossberg from WSJ who called Sony's same-as-FireWire I-link when it is named i.LINK.
As if... really... for sure.
I find it humorous to read a so-called tech journalists articles when they are blatently incorrect or use incorrect terminology. Recently, I think it was Walt Mossberg from WSJ who called Sony's same-as-FireWire I-link when it is named i.LINK.
As if... really... for sure.
-All
I always find it disturbing when analysts use past stock performance to predict future stock performance, which is really going on there.
These two sides are never related.
One should always base future stock performance, on Bueller? Bueller?
Company performance.
Perhaps it's insights like this that Morgan Stanley retained my services...
...now where's that bottle..?
I always find it disturbing when analysts use past stock performance to predict future stock performance, which is really going on there.
These two sides are never related.
One should always base future stock performance, on Bueller? Bueller?
Company performance.
Perhaps it's insights like this that Morgan Stanley retained my services...
...now where's that bottle..?