Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Apr 7, 2013 9:31:38 GMT -8
You do know Oppenheimer basically DID guide EPS for fiscal Q2, right? Why would it be any different this CC? Solve for share count, there you go.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2013 9:36:11 GMT -8
You do know Oppenheimer basically DID guide EPS for fiscal Q2, right? Why would it be any different this CC? Solve for share count, there you go. I'm convinced Apple is still on the UPOD method of reporting. Again, if Apple reports 35M iPhones for the March quarter, it should handily beat WS consensus 10.15 EPS. But 35M is more lowball estimate. I'm at 37M and I'm a UPOD kind of guy too. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Apr 7, 2013 9:37:52 GMT -8
If Foxconn had more robots they could have produced more iPhone 5 last quarter. Source or link please.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2013 9:41:12 GMT -8
If Apple does 35M and above, we're going to be fine, unless Apple ISSUED 50M of shares over the quarter (j/k, they didn't). My share estimate is 947 Million. An error of 3 Million shares, one way or the other only impacts EPS by about a penny. Fifty Million shares would impact by about 17¢ (up or down). Not enough, in and of itself, to change sentiment. I don't expect management to guide EPS, but if they did, I'd expect guidance to $10.20 implying expectations to $11.80. Prior to April 2012 guidance to $10.20 would have implied ~$15.30. The major influencer to this quarter's results is GM%. Last year Apple reported 47+%. This year I'm expecting 40%. FQ1/2010 through FQ4/2011, Apple's average GM% was 39.96%, so reporting 40% is not GM% erosion, but a return to historical levels. FQ1/2012 (45+%), FQ2/2012 (47+%) and FQ3/2012 (42+%) were outliers, and should not be considered anywhere near normal (although that didn't stop the empty suits on CNBC from declaring subsequent GM%s a disaster). I'm tracking GM by product category, and I'm showing approx. 850 basis point drop in YOY margin on the iPhones. Overall, I'm at 39.339%, which is near a rounding error to your 40%. For every 1M iPhones sold above 37M, you can add approx. 24 cents to the overall EPS #
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2013 9:48:32 GMT -8
5. Android growth is from dumb phones users switching to their first smart phones. A dumb phone user who pays very little will never consider an unsubsidized iPhone costing over $500. But once he starts using a smart phone he got free, he is a possible future iPhone user. So I see androids growth as a positive for apple in the long term. If you look at growth patterns on Horace's charts, you will note that during Androids ascent the losers were everybody EXCEPT iOS. Now with Blackberry, Symbian and Windows Mobile reduced to irrelevance iOS is taking share from Android. Android was never a true competitor to iOS, it only looked that way because of relative growth rates between the two. The deal though was that Android was gobbling up the low end of the Blackberry, Symbian and Windows Mobile markets, while iOS was taking the high end. Now, six years into the paradigm shift initiated by iOS, you have Android users switching UP to iOS (enter your reasons why here). The actual competitiveness of Android is being revealed, now that the low price (not necessarily low end) buyer has had experience with it. In my estimation what Android has done is clear the path for iOS in the "low price mindset" space. You get what you pay for. Expressed another way, Android was Apple's low price iPhone, and it wasn't very satisfying to the hordes that bought it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2013 9:50:15 GMT -8
I'm thinking 37M is the dastardly "whisper number"/minimum WS target. And I would hope Apple could manage ~15% YOY sellthrough growth despite the compressed 4S demand curve. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by sponge on Apr 7, 2013 9:57:25 GMT -8
If Foxconn had more robots they could have produced more iPhone 5 last quarter. Source or link please. You are not going to find one. You will just have to trust me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2013 10:16:59 GMT -8
You are not going to find one. You will just have to trust me. Our worst fears realized... ;D I kid the Sponge. I trust him, sometimes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2013 10:17:54 GMT -8
Agreed. Makes me wonder what happens to Google when Apple Maps exceed parity (and I thoroughly believe it will). Maps are a key element in search. Case in point: Friday one of my cars stopped running. The symptoms were familiar (electrical). I used Apple Maps to find a tow company (based on proximity to car location), then looked for an auto electric repair facility using the same criteria. I did not use Google, Bing or Yahoo search, because their results are obscured by ads and redirection to other search engines. Using Maps found exactly what I wanted/needed, without the clutter. In my estimation, Maps is Apple's trojan horse to disrupt Google search.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2013 10:27:14 GMT -8
If Foxconn had more robots they could have produced more iPhone 5 last quarter. Source or link please. I doubt that a link for that statement exists. But logic says a robot will produce at a determinable pace, consistently, without taking breaks/days off, and without ramp up training time requirements of a human. Robotic production capacity is a programmed function, not influenced by how the assembler feels that day. Throwing more people at Apple's production needs is not the answer to increased production needs. Henry Ford proved that 90 years ago. Besides, I like the thought of CNBC trying to get some half-baked theory proven by interviewing 6 robots.
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Apr 7, 2013 10:44:51 GMT -8
You are not going to find one. You will just have to trust me. That is what I figured. And no I don't trust you, and I think this statement is pure baloney. You clearly know nothing about high volume electronics manufacturing, and you attempt to pass yourself off as some kind of expert. Laughable.
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Apr 7, 2013 10:57:01 GMT -8
I doubt that a link for that statement exists. But logic says a robot will produce at a determinable pace, consistently, without taking breaks/days off, and without ramp up training time requirements of a human. Robotic production capacity is a programmed function, not influenced by how the assembler feels that day. Throwing more people at Apple's production needs is not the answer to increased production needs. Henry Ford proved that 90 years ago. Besides, I like the thought of CNBC trying to get some half-baked theory proven by interviewing 6 robots. Sponge spouted some nonsense about using "more" robots last quarter. In the future what you say could turn out to be true, but robotic final assembly in volume is not ready for prime time yet. A huge part of the process is already done entirely with machines. Been that way for years. The implication that Foxconn could have increased production just by throwing more robots at the problem is pure bull shit. I don't understand the desire to just make crap up and post it here. What is the value?
|
|
|
Post by mace on Apr 7, 2013 11:17:29 GMT -8
4. Phil Schiller statement about 4 android switcher for every iPhone switcher. Well here's the Maths Assumption : 200 million iPhone user base Assume 10% iPhone users switched in a year. 10% of 200 is 20 million, 4 times android switcher for every iPhone switcher means 80 million android users switched to iPhone. 80 minus 20 means a net gain of 60 million for iPhone user base. 260 over the original 200 million user base means a 30% gain per year from switchers alone. Percentage gain varies with assumptions but it is a net gain for iPhone. Phil is being cheeky. Phil's statement: Four times as many iPhone users switched away from Android than to a handset running Google's mobile OS. Start: 40 million iPhone users, 160 million Android users. Transaction: 10 million switched place. Statistics: 1 out of 4 iPhone users are ex-Android 1 out of 16 Android users are ex-iPhone 1/4 divide by 1/16 = 4 times
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2013 11:46:48 GMT -8
Sponge spouted some nonsense about using "more" robots last quarter. In the future what you say could turn out to be true, but robotic final assembly in volume is not ready for prime time yet. A huge part of the process is already done entirely with machines. Been that way for years. The implication that Foxconn could have increased production just by throwing more robots at the problem is pure bull shit. I don't understand the desire to just make crap up and post it here. What [where?] is the value?Probably the same as that posted by some here (and I have on Ignore). I have been asked (politely) to hold my comments about their collective motives/intelligence in check. I struggle with that in the same way you seem to struggle with Sponge's comments. Nevertheless, its good advice. I'm looking forward to your next post, because, by and large, I appreciate your insights.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2013 11:57:14 GMT -8
4. Phil Schiller statement about 4 android switcher for every iPhone switcher. Well here's the Maths Assumption : 200 million iPhone user base Assume 10% iPhone users switched in a year. 10% of 200 is 20 million, 4 times android switcher for every iPhone switcher means 80 million android users switched to iPhone. 80 minus 20 means a net gain of 60 million for iPhone user base. 260 over the original 200 million user base means a 30% gain per year from switchers alone. Percentage gain varies with assumptions but it is a net gain for iPhone. Phil is being cheeky. Phil's statement: Four times as many iPhone users switched away from Android than to a handset running Google's mobile OS. Start: 40 million iPhone users, 160 million Android users. Transaction: 10 million switched place. Statistics: 1 out of 4 iPhone users are ex-Android 1 out of 16 Android users are ex-iPhone 1/4 divide by 1/16 = 4 times I like the way you approached Phil's statement, but your approach (which appears to have a zero sum result) only works if Android's installed base is 4X that of iPhones installed base. That is not the case. How does the math work out if Android's installed base is only 2X (more likely 1.7X) iPhone's installed base? In that scenario, it appears that iPhone is a net gainer, and Android is a net loser, which is what market share reports are showing.
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Apr 7, 2013 11:59:45 GMT -8
I struggle with that in the same way you seem to struggle with Sponge's comments. Yes I certainly do struggle with this, as I have a real problem with people presenting their unfounded opinions as a fact. Especially on an investing site. To me it is is flat out irresponsible, and devalues the whole place. As a small community, I think we owe it to others here to be thoughtful and informed when we present information. And it frustrates me to no end when I see complete garbage presented as fact. I will never understand the motivation for such reckless and irresponsible behaviour. I ignore most of the nonsense, but once in a while I feel compelled to jump in, like this time. Likely because I am in the tech industry and I am reasonably familiar with what it takes to get complex products built.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Apr 7, 2013 12:31:23 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by sponge on Apr 7, 2013 12:56:59 GMT -8
I doubt that a link for that statement exists. But logic says a robot will produce at a determinable pace, consistently, without taking breaks/days off, and without ramp up training time requirements of a human. Robotic production capacity is a programmed function, not influenced by how the assembler feels that day. Throwing more people at Apple's production needs is not the answer to increased production needs. Henry Ford proved that 90 years ago. Besides, I like the thought of CNBC trying to get some half-baked theory proven by interviewing 6 robots. Actually Foxconn admitted to having issues and there are articles that confirm they are have 30,000 already working with 100k planned by 2014.
|
|
|
Post by lucy on Apr 7, 2013 13:05:55 GMT -8
My post has been misread. Quantum is adding more functionality, not making smartphones or ipads. Quantum Home - www.quantuminnovators.com/Worth checking out!
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Apr 7, 2013 13:20:34 GMT -8
My post has been misread. Quantum is adding more functionality, not making smartphones or ipads. Quantum Home - www.quantuminnovators.com/Worth checking out! First impression - all hype and no substance. Feels like the company's strategy is to suck in investors by flinging around as many buzzwords as possible.
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on Apr 7, 2013 13:43:35 GMT -8
I'm long-term Bull + Ok, I'll bite: What is your long term, dear trader? ;D Heehee. I was an investor before I was a trader. Well, for myself, I mean. I guess I was a trader first, but that was for others (when I was in my wee 20s back in the dark ages). Answer: 3+ years = long-term for me
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Apr 7, 2013 14:25:37 GMT -8
3+ years sounds more than fine as a "long-term"/buy-and-hold timeframe (just a bit on the shorter side when you can go all the way up to 50+ years, is all)
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Apr 7, 2013 16:24:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Apr 7, 2013 16:47:58 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on Apr 7, 2013 17:22:15 GMT -8
I've heard a few folks say that we are going to see a "3 handle" at least briefly before the march upwards begins again. I've been very skeptical about that, but at this point, who knows? Just be prepared for the possibility, that's all I have to say.
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,552
Member is Online
|
Post by mark on Apr 7, 2013 17:37:14 GMT -8
I've heard a few folks say that we are going to see a "3 handle" at least briefly before the march upwards begins again. I've been very skeptical about that, but at this point, who knows? Just be prepared for the possibility, that's all I have to say. And indeed I am. It's part of why I haven't made any sizable purchases (shares, options, or spreads) since late-December when most of what I was doing was replacing sold positions (sold to capture the potentially lower LTCG rate at the time) with new ones. But as soon as I see 3XX, I will buy (likely both shares and Jan '15 spreads - or even Jan '16 ones if they exist at the time).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2013 18:04:26 GMT -8
Just be prepared for the possibility, that's all I have to say. And indeed I am. It's part of why I haven't made any sizable purchases (shares, options, or spreads) since late-December when most of what I was doing was replacing sold positions (sold to capture the potentially lower LTCG rate at the time) with new ones. But as soon as I see 3XX, I will buy (likely both shares and Jan '15 spreads - or even Jan '16 ones if they exist at the time). Where Apple closed at on Friday, aren't you risking far more upside if you hold out for the last $20. Is it worth it? Personally, I don't see a 3 handle, but the stock market is gamed so anything is possible.
|
|
|
Post by sponge on Apr 7, 2013 18:08:04 GMT -8
All I know is that I had a great round of golf and aapl closed up in AH on Friday:
We should be up tomorrow and do just fine.
|
|
|
Post by nagrani on Apr 7, 2013 18:17:27 GMT -8
It will be interesting to see if apple gets pushed below its 52 week low before market opens causing limit sell orders to trigger.
Sent from my iPad using ProBoards app
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on Apr 7, 2013 18:39:59 GMT -8
Where Apple closed at on Friday, aren't you risking far more upside if you hold out for the last $20. Is it worth it? Personally, I don't see a 3 handle, but the stock market is gamed so anything is possible. Can't tell you how many times during this downtrend (especially in the 500s), I've thought something similar. Upside risk greater than downside risk at this point, blah, blah. And every time, I was wrong.
|
|