|
Post by mbeauch on Jan 27, 2013 19:05:35 GMT -8
JD,I do agree with you as to what TC's responsibilities are. I have to call you out on this point though. I have argued this for years and have gotten quite a bit of push back from you. Please do not make me go archiving. You have been pretty ardent about trusting Apple to do whatever. Mav, I get the "EPS" missing theory. If you recall I have been pushing for a buyback for what, 5 years? I do not know if Mace remembers, but years ago I was standing alone (except for Mace's support) ranting abut share dilution and the long term impacts. I do think there will be an increase in the buyback. The only question is, will it be meaningful? If less than 100 billion over 2-3 years I will be upset. The MM's have accumulated a lot of shares, I am sure they would unload some large blocks once they have bottomed AAPL out.
|
|
|
Post by mbeauch on Jan 27, 2013 19:20:00 GMT -8
Proof that Apple's share is stagnating? Did you listen to the call? TC himself said iPhone share was flat YoY. I'll take his word for it. Stagnating is not the right word. Apple grew its market share significantly in the US. China is a different animal. Apple does not have to gain market share for its sales to grow substantially for years. I firmly believe the "smartphone" market has been expanded. Any device running Android now is probably considered a smartphone. Apple completely destroyed Android in the US this quarter. I see no reason for Apple to not do the same in China. I actually think China by itself will pass Europe by the end of the year in revenue. For whatever reason the media is misleading the public (Shocked face) that Apple SALES are declining by way of the earnings going flat. Does not matter if you use 13 or 14 weeks, sales wise, Apple kicked ass. The only problem was poor execution from the Mac line. Just a couple of 100k Macs and EPS is over 14 and rev are over 55, happy days again. Did Apple have a bad quarter, no way. For those who do not believe in the EO's, maybe you better start.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jan 27, 2013 19:23:44 GMT -8
AAPL quarter decent due to a bunch of extra Macs? Fine, but then everyone would look at guidance.
Looking at iMacs is an invalid excuse and WS knows it, considering the fraction of revenues iMacs contribute to the top line. $41-43B revs and 38.5% GM "top end" and "no EPS guidance" for Q2, now that's a little spooky.
|
|
|
Post by mbeauch on Jan 27, 2013 19:25:45 GMT -8
You say that Mav, but a Mac is 4 to one on the Mini with better margins.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2013 19:29:16 GMT -8
My take on Samsung's statement is that there is tremendous growth in the number of smaller smartphone manufacturers popping up in China. They have no presence and market into segments that are local to them. Their production costs are very low and they have very little, if any, software development costs. Samsung also stated that hardware costs are beginning to stiffen. This would be a detriment to a generic hardware based competitor, but irrelevant to a firm that competes with value-added software. Who are there, other than Apple, MSFT and RIMM that is trying to compete on software? How is that working out for MSFT and RIMM? In other words, the market for low end handsets, of any type, has been reduced to commodity status (see long term valuations of Dell, HP, MOT, HTC, Palm, Sony and MSFT). As long as Apple's share of industry profits remains greater than 51%, competing with the multitude (5, 10, 15, 20?) of firms competing for the other 49% is fighting over crumbs. Unit market share be damned. Profitability is the only thing that matters. Apple lost this game once before, when it rested on its laurels and stopped innovating (unless you count a myriad of product variables such as Quadra, Centris, Performa, followed by several numeric designations, innovation).
|
|
|
Post by jeffi on Jan 27, 2013 19:29:21 GMT -8
I have a design business and my mantra to my staff has always been that we provide good design first and because we do that we expect to be paid well. If we started out with the premises that our aim was to make a lot of money then I don't believe I would have succeeded. There are lots of people out there that can design and for me to be successful means that I have to differentiate from the rest of the market and the way I choose to do that is by providing the best service I can, consistently. If my main aim was to make as much money as possible then I would probably compromise on service and design quality. Apple stands alone in its sector, where all others commoditise their products and race to the bottom in the margin squeeze. Apple must stay focused on what it is that they do best and that is to provide their customers with the best experience they can. And revenue and share price is the resultant by product of that. Yes, it is true that at the moment there is a disconnect - I too have lost so much in the last few months, both real and paper value. But Apple is not totally responsible for AAPLs woes. Over the long run AAPL will be fine. No offense, but you don't run a Fortune 500 publicly-traded company with a fiduciary duty to shareholders. False dichotomy is false. Apple can make awesome products and chew gum/concern itself with shareholders at the same time. Jony Ive's job is to make great products. As the lone inside director on Apple's board, Tim Cook's job is to make Apple a profitable company and increase shareholder wealth (i.e, enrich my life). And when Apple streams an earnings call on its Investor Relations Web page, analysts and investors want to hear some confidence in Apple as an investment coming from Cook, not just that they will continue to make cool stuff. Instead, Cook got really quiet when Huberty asked that question about the stock drop. Instead of this "we are constantly assessing blah blah blah" by Oppenheimer, listeners wanted to hear some actual action being taken, or at the very least some new words of concern for shareholders than just the usual bullshit. Cook needs to do more than just talk about great products. He needs to tie that in to why it makes Apple a great investment. As much as I dislike Jim Cramer, I'd like to see Cook go on his show (and others) and evangelize why Apple and AAPL are an awesome bet, like other CEO's do. I mean seriously, "don't bet against us" is the best rhetorical flourish we've gotten from Cook? Repeat after me: "The purpose of a publicly-held corporation is to make profits and increase shareholder wealth." Spot on.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jan 27, 2013 19:29:49 GMT -8
I say it because I _mean_ it.
75-80% of Macs sold today are MacBooks. iMac ASP is higher then the $1350ish average for Q1, yes, and it helps, but it's not the big problem in the Q1 results/Q2 picture.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,182
|
Post by JDSoCal on Jan 27, 2013 19:31:28 GMT -8
A broken record that skips back the start before it plays the part where it offers some proof that iPhone's share is stagnating. Tell that to people with 4 figures of AAPL common shares on margin. Proof that Apple's share is stagnating? Did you listen to the call? TC himself said iPhone share was flat YoY. I'll take his word for it. Except that you are extrapolating lack of demand, rather than lack of ability to supply. Cook suggested the latter, not the former.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2013 19:42:10 GMT -8
Gregg: Thank you for your last two posts. I FEAR you are correct about Apple management. ( I have ALWAYS said: Apple management does NOT care about the short term price of AAPL) But your supposition may be true and is almost frightening. here is the Friday close for this weeks weeklys. It will be interesting to watch the $425 AAPL Puts. Management's job is to manage and grow the Company profitably. It is not go on a round of talk shows pumping the Company like authors pump a book, or actors pump a movie. THEY do this because of the short window they have to generate profit their short lived efforts. Management is responsible for investor sentiment only should it make a detrimental business decision. I have seen no evidence of this from current Apple management. What I have seen, is an unjustified selloff based on false rumors, assumptions and suppositions. The only group that responds to the above are those that are ignorant of the Company's true results and strengths. I'm speaking of that 30% of ownership that isn't institutional. In the short term this group can overwhelm the smarter investor with the number of shares being offered for sale. In the longer term the smarter investors are taking advantage of stupid sellers.
|
|
|
Post by fas550 on Jan 27, 2013 19:44:54 GMT -8
First of all can we get off Android. Android is basically a software platform that makes no money for GOOG. Its about hardware manufactures. Android is only the select OS of hardware vendors because its free and therefore free of licensing. Have a look at GOOGs earnings release and they aren't making any money from Android. The challenge is from Samsung et al and not Android. Secondly this is all about EPS, rev and guidance. Based on Apple's new guidance structure see what the guidance is. If we choose to ignore the CFOs new guidance guidelines then we are basically ignorant. If we assume he is he's having a laugh and about to pull a fast by sandbagging then how blindsided we have become. Why the hell would he play that? We need to quit living in the land of unicorns and face facts. Up to you but if we meet guidance but planned on exceeding it we only have ourselves to blame.
|
|
|
Post by fas550 on Jan 27, 2013 19:48:31 GMT -8
Apple can make good products, products customers LOVE and at the same time work on issues to prevent devaluation of the company. Its not an "either or" proposition. we pay these people hundreds of millions of dollars IN ONE YEAR to do both.
|
|
|
Post by sponge on Jan 27, 2013 19:52:57 GMT -8
Gregg: Thank you for your last two posts. I FEAR you are correct about Apple management. ( I have ALWAYS said: Apple management does NOT care about the short term price of AAPL) But your supposition may be true and is almost frightening. here is the Friday close for this weeks weeklys. It will be interesting to watch the $425 AAPL Puts. Management's job is to manage and grow the Company profitably. It is not go on a round of talk shows pumping the Company like authors pump a book, or actors pump a movie. THEY do this because of the short window they have to generate profit their short lived efforts. Management is responsible for investor sentiment only should it make a detrimental business decision. I have seen no evidence of this from current Apple management. What I have seen, is an unjustified selloff based on false rumors, assumptions and suppositions. The only group that responds to the above are those that are ignorant of the Company's true results and strengths. I'm speaking of that 30% of ownership that isn't institutional. In the short term this group can overwhelm the smarter investor with the number of shares being offered for sale. In the longer term the smarter investors are taking advantage of stupid sellers. I agree. I have now listened to the conf. call two times and read the transcript three times. I have studied the financial documents and read Roberts latest post on his page. www.postsateventide.com/2013/01/the-mysterious-case-of-apples-missing.htmlCash flow from operations grew 30% from last year. That is not important but the fact that we generated 23 billion in cash and added 16 billion to the balance is. And the reason they did that was because they improved efficiency in operations. TC and OP are running a very well oiled machine that is generating cash. There is not other company on earth able to do this and get better each quarter. Forget iPhone and iPad numbers. Concentrate on the cash cow. The stock will eventually come back when the folks who wanted to get rich over night are gone. I am taking anyone who bought shares and options in the last two years. I was one of them in options and learned my lesson. Buy and HOld the best company in the world.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2013 19:54:17 GMT -8
It has been reported that Apple is looking at IGZO display technology for future iOS devices. I’m still learning about IGZO, but what I am reading sounds fantastic. iPhones could last two days between charges and the display can provide edge-to-edge coverage on a smartphone. www.idownloadblog.com/2013/01/08/ces-2013-sharp-igzo/I hope Apple comes out with this display technology before Samsung. I don't think Apple has to be first, they just have to be best.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,182
|
Post by JDSoCal on Jan 27, 2013 19:56:50 GMT -8
Nice article, JD. What a perfect setup. Android in China is totally fragmented (or, utterly "forked" - get it); the strongest of the name brands is friggin' Lenovo trend-wise; Apple has iPhones that China Mobile desperately wants, despite the admirable tough front it's putting up in the face of being saddled with "homegrown" proprietary data standards. We already see that Apple resonates with Greater China - the big test is Greater China YOY growth in Q2. Unlike most people here, the MSM has yet to figure out that Apple's competitor in the smartphone war is Samsung, not Google. But a key takeaway from China is that, regardless of Android share, Google gets jack squat there. The ChiComs do not trust Google, so its services are largely absent from it regardless of Android's penetration there. The Church of Market Share of course will never acknowledge this, but hopefully the media will at some point. Speaking of market share, Ben Bajarin makes the point that, Bajarin also makes the point of Apple's increasing verticality as a unique strength, and others are trying to emulate it. This is likely why Samsung wants to wean itself off of Android in favor of Tizen. That would be a disruption for Google and a starting-from-scratch mountain to climb for Samsung that would be nice to watch from the perch of an already vertically-integrated company.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2013 19:58:41 GMT -8
Cash flow from operations grew 30% from last year. That is not important but the fact that we generated 23 billion in cash and added 16 billion to the balance is. And the reason they did that was because they improved efficiency in operations. TC and OP are running a very well oiled machine that is generating cash. There is not other company on earth able to do this and get better each quarter. Forget iPhone and iPad numbers. Concentrate on the cash cow. The stock will eventually come back when the folks who wanted to get rich over night are gone. I am talking to anyone who bought shares and options in the last two years. I was one of them in options and learned my lesson. Buy and HOld the best company in the world. Ovi gets it.
|
|
|
Post by fas550 on Jan 27, 2013 20:16:40 GMT -8
its pretty simple really: Tim Cs #1 priority of a public company is to the share holders (owners). Does he think a 200,000,000,000 plus loss of shareholder value is not worthy of an action or any explanation? If not then how much would the value of the company have to decline before he took the podium to say something in explanation to the owners.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,182
|
Post by JDSoCal on Jan 27, 2013 20:18:57 GMT -8
Gregg: Thank you for your last two posts. I FEAR you are correct about Apple management. ( I have ALWAYS said: Apple management does NOT care about the short term price of AAPL) But your supposition may be true and is almost frightening. here is the Friday close for this weeks weeklys. It will be interesting to watch the $425 AAPL Puts. Management's job is to manage and grow the Company profitably. It is not go on a round of talk shows pumping the Company like authors pump a book, or actors pump a movie. THEY do this because of the short window they have to generate profit their short lived efforts. Management is responsible for investor sentiment only should it make a detrimental business decision. I have seen no evidence of this from current Apple management. What I have seen, is an unjustified selloff based on false rumors, assumptions and suppositions. The only group that responds to the above are those that are ignorant of the Company's true results and strengths. I'm speaking of that 30% of ownership that isn't institutional. In the short term this group can overwhelm the smarter investor with the number of shares being offered for sale. In the longer term the smarter investors are taking advantage of stupid sellers. I have to disagree Gregg. Apple is unique in that it has - like no other company I have seen that didn't have some of its property explode and damage an aquatic ecosystem - succumbed to a ton of FUD despite terrific profitability. The fact is the best company on earth has just dropped $250 off its share price. That is either justified fundamentally, or it is not. If you believe it isn't, then there's a messaging problem. Would it be too much to ask of Cook to say on a conference call, "the recent share price action is 180 degrees at odds with Apple's performance and outlook, and if there is a company that is better suited to dominate and profit from the mobile revolution - let alone, caused it to occur - I'd love to hear the name of that company."? "When the eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber." You've said here repeatedly that retail doesn't control this stock, but now you are blaming its recent fall on retail dummies? Was it retail that dumped 800,000 shares the last 30 minutes of trading on Friday? I think a lot of pro analysts and fund managers were unimpressed with that earnings call. Analysts to Apple: Bend your knee to Wall Street In case you hadn't noticed, WHAT THEY ARE DOING AIN'T WORKING.
|
|
|
Post by fas550 on Jan 27, 2013 20:20:38 GMT -8
Management's job is to manage and grow the Company profitably. It is not go on a round of talk shows pumping the Company like authors pump a book, or actors pump a movie. THEY do this because of the short window they have to generate profit their short lived efforts. Management is responsible for investor sentiment only should it make a detrimental business decision. I have seen no evidence of this from current Apple management. What I have seen, is an unjustified selloff based on false rumors, assumptions and suppositions. The only group that responds to the above are those that are ignorant of the Company's true results and strengths. I'm speaking of that 30% of ownership that isn't institutional. In the short term this group can overwhelm the smarter investor with the number of shares being offered for sale. In the longer term the smarter investors are taking advantage of stupid sellers. I agree. I have now listened to the conf. call two times and read the transcript three times. I have studied the financial documents and read Roberts latest post on his page. www.postsateventide.com/2013/01/the-mysterious-case-of-apples-missing.htmlCash flow from operations grew 30% from last year. That is not important but the fact that we generated 23 billion in cash and added 16 billion to the balance is. And the reason they did that was because they improved efficiency in operations. TC and OP are running a very well oiled machine that is generating cash. There is not other company on earth able to do this and get better each quarter. Forget iPhone and iPad numbers. Concentrate on the cash cow. The stock will eventually come back when the folks who wanted to get rich over night are gone. I am taking anyone who bought shares and options in the last two years. I was one of them in options and learned my lesson. Buy and HOld the best company in the world. Fine Sponge. What are possible uses for 132B in cash?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2013 20:20:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by newton on Jan 27, 2013 20:37:57 GMT -8
Crazy question and thought. What if Apple decided to license MacOSX or iOS to other companies? I don't think it would ever happen in a million years but it could be another software revenue stream.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2013 20:39:17 GMT -8
Bajarin also makes the point of Apple's increasing verticality as a unique strength, and others are trying to emulate it. This is likely why Samsung wants to wean itself off of Android in favor of Tizen. That would be a disruption for Google and a starting-from-scratch mountain to climb for Samsung that would be nice to watch from the perch of an already vertically-integrated company. Or why Apple is structuring it's financials to reflect hardware vs software revenue-expense streams, or has made many of its acquisitions of the last few years. Of all the acquisitions that Apple could use its cash horde for, the one that makes the most sense to me is Sharp. IGZO is the future of much more than is being discussed today. Samsung is the only other manufacturer, but I don't think they really know what to do with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2013 20:41:19 GMT -8
Crazy question and thought. What if Apple decided to license MacOSX or iOS to other companies? I don't think it would ever happen in a million years but it could be another software revenue stream. If Apple did that, they would end up spending the profits forcing quality control on their licensees. If they didn't force quality control, iOS on other's hardware designs would lead to the mess that is MSFT.
|
|
|
Post by nathanstevens on Jan 27, 2013 20:42:26 GMT -8
It has been reported that Apple is looking at IGZO display technology for future iOS devices. IÂ’m still learning about IGZO, but what I am reading sounds fantastic. iPhones could last two days between charges and the display can provide edge-to-edge coverage on a smartphone. www.idownloadblog.com/2013/01/08/ces-2013-sharp-igzo/I hope Apple comes out with this display technology before Samsung. I don't think Apple has to be first, they just have to be best. It would be possible to have a 4.7"-5" display, in the current iPhone form factor, if an edge to edge display was used. Resolution could be dropped to 277ppi to maintain a 640 x 1136 display using the 2.31" width of the iPhone 5. That resolution would be higher than the retina iPad at 263 PPI but lower than the current iPhone at 326. You could maintain the 640x1136 display using the 263 PPI if the phone width was increased by only about .125" (3mm). Assuming the phone could be slightly thinner with igzo, Apple could stick to their "one handed operation" mantra and accommodate those wanting a larger display. Just thinking out loud and I'm sure that there are technical hurdles that I'm not aware of.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2013 20:44:31 GMT -8
You've said here repeatedly that retail doesn't control this stock, but now you are blaming its recent fall on retail dummies? Was it retail that dumped 800,000 shares the last 30 minutes of trading on Friday? Yes I did. The internet just ate my response, and I'm pissed, frustrated and tired. PM me a reminder and I'll reconstruct my response in the morning.
|
|
|
Post by sponge on Jan 27, 2013 20:51:19 GMT -8
its pretty simple really: Tim Cs #1 priority of a public company is to the share holders (owners). Does he think a 200,000,000,000 plus loss of shareholder value is not worthy of an action or any explanation? If not then how much would the value of the company have to decline before he took the podium to say something in explanation to the owners. I agree with you to a point. However one needs to look at a longer time frame. Like I pointed out aapl stock is up 145% in three years. i think it should be up 600% but the market decides that not TC. As far as what to do with the cash, I say accumulate more and more. I have suggested they need $300 billion ( in about 3.5 years they will have that) to start a mobile payment system via iTunes. Take those 500 million credit card accounts and make them iTunes credit cards. They have the folks use their phones to buy everything from gas to cars. Apple pays the vendors gets 1% and then charges your iTunes card which you pay off directly or with interest. Gregg talked about this but I have been reading about it in the Mobile Wave. You can get the book on iBooks. By the way on a separate subject, you all need to read this. www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/siri-do-engine-apple-iphone_n_2499165.htmlEven more importantly watch the video on the huffingtonpost app. Apple is about to give Amazon a run for its money in shopping with Siri.
|
|
|
Post by mbeauch on Jan 27, 2013 21:19:22 GMT -8
AAPL is now negative YOY. The rest is just BS. Apple has grown earnings dramatically, cash dramatically and sold millions of products. Get off the 3 year BS. The market is at 5 year highs and AAPL has a sub 10 p/e. It is not about getting rich overnight, it is about being rewarded for the above reasons.
|
|
|
Post by leonb on Jan 27, 2013 21:29:52 GMT -8
Some unconnected thoughts:
Gregg's analysis relies too heavily on regressing earnings against guidance - with the implicit assumptions that management can predict earnings, deliberately low balls by a given percentage, and can be counted on not to vary this. Guidance behaviour has changed, and Gregg has changed in line with this - but it's all historical, so unreliable. Essentially an amateurish guess dressed up in numbers and charts.
Gregg (again - sorry, I don't mean to be personal) thinks Apple are excluding earnings guidance because it's too focused on. But this time EPS was the only metric that beat guidance, and yet Apple has clearly failed to impress.
Something rather obvious struck me today - not for the first time, of course, but more forcefully. Apple's revenues are around 60% from iPhone. If the iPhone division was spun off, what PE could you justify for this single product entity? I know the picture is more complex, there's an ecosystem and shared iOS, etc. But I think it's reasonable to discount future revenue from a single product with an uncertain future, especially one which has already consumed so much of the market. An ex-cash PE of 8 for Apple at this point is not as crazy as I used to think. And the cash is not worth $144, because most is abroad and taxable. Fair value is probably in the $500s, unfortunately, at least until we get a new type of product, something disruptive. I have my doubts about the TV - there's less left to design, since they're already thin and borderless; and they are on a longer replacement cycle (less worried about the industry's margins, as I think Apple commands a premium).
Still, I'm holding fast (on a large margined position, 15,800 shares) - especially because other tech companies are relatively overvalued - but a brief dip below $400 would no longer surprise me, though it would enormously upset me!
|
|
|
Post by jeffi on Jan 27, 2013 21:53:03 GMT -8
Some unconnected thoughts: Gregg's analysis relies too heavily on regressing earnings against guidance - with the implicit assumptions that management can predict earnings, deliberately low balls by a given percentage, and can be counted on not to vary this. Guidance behaviour has changed, and Gregg has changed in line with this - but it's all historical, so unreliable. Essentially an amateurish guess dressed up in numbers and charts. Gregg (again - sorry, I don't mean to be personal) thinks Apple are excluding earnings guidance because it's too focused on. But this time EPS was the only metric that beat guidance, and yet Apple has clearly failed to impress. Something rather obvious struck me today - not for the first time, of course, but more forcefully. Apple's revenues are around 60% from iPhone. If the iPhone division was spun off, what PE could you justify for this single product entity? I know the picture is more complex, there's an ecosystem and shared iOS, etc. But I think it's reasonable to discount future revenue from a single product with an uncertain future, especially one which has already consumed so much of the market. An ex-cash PE of 8 for Apple at this point is not as crazy as I used to think. And the cash is not worth $144, because most is abroad and taxable. Fair value is probably in the $500s, unfortunately, at least until we get a new type of product, something disruptive. I have my doubts about the TV - there's less left to design, since they're already thin and borderless; and they are on a longer replacement cycle (less worried about the industry's margins, as I think Apple commands a premium). Still, I'm holding fast (on a large margined position, 15,800 shares) - especially because other tech companies are relatively overvalued - but a brief dip below $400 would no longer surprise me, though it would enormously upset me! You think the iPhone is a product with an uncertain future? Nothing is certain, but the ASP's have held up for 5 years and the unit numbers have grown robustly every quarter YOY. The iPhone's market share relative to the entire cell phone market share is still relatively low leaving much upside headroom. As long as Apple innovates, there is a massive replacement cycle as well. You state you are "holding a large margined position"? I presume the margin is either small or a relative pittance of your asset base. Otherwise... Good luck!
|
|
|
Post by bryanyc on Jan 27, 2013 21:56:16 GMT -8
Still, I'm holding fast (on a large margined position, 15,800 shares) - especially because other tech companies are relatively overvalued - but a brief dip below $400 would no longer surprise me, though it would enormously upset me! Whoa, that's an investment! First off, the tax on foreign earnings is accounted for in the earnings already. So scratch that. Second: Apple TV is not basically about the cool design, it is really about content delivery and that is what is taking so long. Third: about the brief dip: yes, it could be into the 300's. But I think when the "*REAL*" bottom happens it will be something to remember. Just waiting for the future to pass....
|
|
|
Post by jeffi on Jan 27, 2013 22:02:52 GMT -8
Still, I'm holding fast (on a large margined position, 15,800 shares) - especially because other tech companies are relatively overvalued - but a brief dip below $400 would no longer surprise me, though it would enormously upset me! Whoa, that's an investment! First off, the tax on foreign earnings is accounted for in the earnings already. So scratch that. Second: Apple TV is not basically about the cool design, it is really about content delivery and that is what is taking so long. Third: about the brief dip: yes, it could be into the 300's. But I think when the "*REAL*" bottom happens it will be something to remember. Just waiting for the future to pass.... Not exactly. Some of the repatriation tax has been accounted for (an amount less then the current rate). Of course, no one knows what the rate will be when and if they repatriate. The estimated tax has not been paid. Therefore, the eventual tax will reduce the asset by a like amount, unless offset against losses.
|
|