|
Post by mbeauch on Jan 9, 2013 10:02:26 GMT -8
Chas, looking at your chart I see 9.8 for AT&T for this quarter, typo I hope? I do think China will skew the int numbers some this quarter.
|
|
|
Post by fas550 on Jan 9, 2013 10:03:28 GMT -8
Updated that table to Percentages of Units for International. ATT, VZ and S are %s of US units. Are there not any additional sales in the US apart from the big 3 carriers? I forget where I got the data from, but I had 2M iPhones last year in the "other US" category. This could have a large impact when applying the factor to international sales. Care to shed some light on this? Sorry for such a basic question but where would the sales of phones from apple stores but activated to a carrier come in? AND if a phone is bought through the apple website and say AT&T is the selected carrier, what bucket does that fall under?
|
|
|
Post by kloot on Jan 9, 2013 10:05:37 GMT -8
Are there not any additional sales in the US apart from the big 3 carriers? I forget where I got the data from, but I had 2M iPhones last year in the "other US" category. This could have a large impact when applying the factor to international sales. Care to shed some light on this? Sorry for such a basic question but where would the sales of phones from apple stores but activated to a carrier come in? AND if a phone is bought through the apple website and say AT&T is the selected carrier, what bucket does that fall under? fas, I'm wondering the same thing. I assume the spreadsheet ninjas here know the answer...
|
|
|
Post by appledoc on Jan 9, 2013 10:07:38 GMT -8
I remember specifically in the conf call when an analyst brought up the supply issues, TC said the number in their guidance was basically a number they knew they could produce, comfortably i.e. that there is no risk in supply chain with the number they guided. Any more than that they simply did not know at that time. I think TC is a straight shooter. We can take what he says to be truth. The supply chain for the 5 significantly improved from the day of the conference call to the end of the quarter. It was 3-4 weeks the day of the call. I still think we smash guidance and last year's record quarter. The argument against beating guidance in the manner we did last year is that the last two quarters have not been the typical guidance beats we are used to. Q3 and most of Q4 was in the setting of predictable decline in iPhone demand, which could be easily matched by the supply chain. There wasn't ever going to be a supply chain problem during those quarters (except obviously at the end of Q4 when the 5 was released), so TC could more accurately guide. This past quarter there has been extreme uncertainty in the ability of the supply chain to match the enormous demand of the 5. TC guided to what he knew the chain was able to produce based on its strength at that moment. He wasn't accounting for significant improvements in the chain, because that simply can't be assumed. Look at the rumors of the iPad mini supply issues for example. Making those assumptions and then not delivering would have led to mid-quarter guidance adjustments. Nobody wants that. So TC plays it safe and guides to what he absolutely knows he can deliver.
|
|
|
Post by mbeauch on Jan 9, 2013 10:08:27 GMT -8
Are there not any additional sales in the US apart from the big 3 carriers? I forget where I got the data from, but I had 2M iPhones last year in the "other US" category. This could have a large impact when applying the factor to international sales. Care to shed some light on this? Yes, there are some regional carriers that sell the iphone, like Virgin mobile & Cricket. 2 mil for them though is pretty high, because those are customers looking for a low cost phone usually. It does impact the mix, but not much when dealing with these large numbers.
|
|
|
Post by appledoc on Jan 9, 2013 10:08:29 GMT -8
Sorry for such a basic question but where would the sales of phones from apple stores but activated to a carrier come in? AND if a phone is bought through the apple website and say AT&T is the selected carrier, what bucket does that fall under? fas, I'm wondering the same thing. I assume the spreadsheet ninjas here know the answer... AT&T sales include all first and third party sales of AT&T devices.
|
|
|
Post by terps530 on Jan 9, 2013 10:13:42 GMT -8
Chas, looking at your chart I see 9.8 for AT&T for this quarter, typo I hope? I do think China will skew the int numbers some this quarter. Chas- update your link to this image. img534.imageshack.us/img534/3707/aapliphonesales.pngI deleted the old projections to clear up confusion:
|
|
|
Post by mbeauch on Jan 9, 2013 10:14:28 GMT -8
Making those assumptions and then not delivering would have led to mid-quarter guidance adjustments. Nobody wants that. So TC plays it safe and guides to what he absolutely knows he can deliver. Apple always plays it safe. The problem is that Apple guided significantly lower than the previous years EPS. That is where our bread is buttered. It was highly unusual. The revenue guide was very good and he emphasized that in the CC. Nobody listened.
|
|
|
Post by mbeauch on Jan 9, 2013 10:23:53 GMT -8
Terps, I am scratching my head looking at the YOY numbers. 36% US/58% Int ??
|
|
|
Post by Rupert on Jan 9, 2013 10:31:36 GMT -8
Nick Nansen: Verizon Sheds Light On Global iphone SalesPosted on January 9, 2013
|
|
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 9, 2013 11:00:32 GMT -8
Yup MB, Apple's guidance was 100% bullish.
Relistened to the CC recently and my conviction is unchanged.
The only thing the bears have to hang their bear hats on is lower GM, and it's very obvious why Oppenheimer got so conservative. I figure over 75% of quarterly revenue is from still-ramping iPhone, iPads that only launched mid-quarter, and iMacs that barely started shipping in the quarter. All this and still a $52B revs call bodes very well.
|
|
|
Post by alice on Jan 9, 2013 11:08:50 GMT -8
Revenue guidance was good. EPS guidance was not good. Why the difference?
|
|
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 9, 2013 11:12:08 GMT -8
Uh...868 basis point difference in GM guidance vs. actual year-ago quarter? Ring a bell?
We've already gone over this. If you hold AAPL, I say tracking the prior year's results is an absolute due diligence requirement.
|
|
|
Post by mcharliem on Jan 9, 2013 11:20:57 GMT -8
I remember specifically in the conf call when an analyst brought up the supply issues, TC said the number in their guidance was basically a number they knew they could produce, comfortably i.e. that there is no risk in supply chain with the number they guided. Any more than that they simply did not know at that time. I think TC is a straight shooter. We can take what he says to be truth. The supply chain for the 5 significantly improved from the day of the conference call to the end of the quarter. It was 3-4 weeks the day of the call. I still think we smash guidance and last year's record quarter. The argument against beating guidance in the manner we did last year is that the last two quarters have not been the typical guidance beats we are used to. Q3 and most of Q4 was in the setting of predictable decline in iPhone demand, which could be easily matched by the supply chain. There wasn't ever going to be a supply chain problem during those quarters (except obviously at the end of Q4 when the 5 was released), so TC could more accurately guide. This past quarter there has been extreme uncertainty in the ability of the supply chain to match the enormous demand of the 5. TC guided to what he knew the chain was able to produce based on its strength at that moment. He wasn't accounting for significant improvements in the chain, because that simply can't be assumed. Look at the rumors of the iPad mini supply issues for example. Making those assumptions and then not delivering would have led to mid-quarter guidance adjustments. Nobody wants that. So TC plays it safe and guides to what he absolutely knows he can deliver. A lot of times, we look at the difference between their guidance and eventual results as a percentage beat. As if they have an estimate of a realistic amount of revenue and EPS and they cut some consistent % amount off of it and use that as their guidance. But what if they aren't doing that at all, along the lines of what you already said, and instead their guidance is based on the maximum amount they know for sure they will beat (or are 99% sure)? Like you said above, in quarters where there is very limit supply chain risk they can guide a lot closer to actual results. When new products are about to be launched, or have just launched, they have to factor the chance that things go wrong in the ramp and assuming there are no major problems, there ends up being a bigger gap between guidance and results.
|
|
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 9, 2013 11:33:54 GMT -8
More recently: "When we give you guidance, we give you guidance that we have reasonable confidence in achieving." m.seekingalpha.com/article/524451If you follow the CCs, Oppenheimer/Anderson? have said variations of that statement from time to time over the years.
|
|
|
Post by alice on Jan 9, 2013 11:45:55 GMT -8
I see the big difference in GM. But why the lack of concern regarding low EPS guidance? Aapl share price, I believe, is reflecting this concern and does not seem to care about the GM differences. Apple guided good rev but low EPS and GM. Good rev + low Eps + low GM does not equal to bullish guidance for aapl share price.
Mav, you say the guidance was bullish. It doesn't add up to me - guidance does not seem bullish for aapl share price.
|
|
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 9, 2013 11:49:32 GMT -8
Uh...
I don't have to explain why a huge GM drop leads to reduced net income, do I?
And listen to the CC. Heck, Oppenheimer even said "bullish" during the CC!
|
|
|
Post by alice on Jan 9, 2013 11:55:41 GMT -8
I don't see bullish in aapl share price. I am talking about bullish/bearish in aapl share price only.
|
|
|
Post by appledoc on Jan 9, 2013 11:56:23 GMT -8
Making those assumptions and then not delivering would have led to mid-quarter guidance adjustments. Nobody wants that. So TC plays it safe and guides to what he absolutely knows he can deliver. Apple always plays it safe. The problem is that Apple guided significantly lower than the previous years EPS. That is where our bread is buttered. It was highly unusual. The revenue guide was very good and he emphasized that in the CC. Nobody listened. I listened. Great revenue + not so great gross margin = lower EPS. Here's the way I see it... At the end of October TC knew how many iPhone 5s were being produced on a daily basis. For the sake of making a more simplified argument, let's say that number was 10 iPhones. TC knew that at worst, he could get 10 iPhones produced per day x 92 days in the quarter = 920 iPhones in the quarter. His guidance assumes this number of iPhones, because there is no guarantee that the supply chain can do any better. It is an UNKNOWN, and he will not guide using unknowns. In actuality, the chain averages 15 iPhones per day, resulting in a 50% higher iPhone number than what was used in guidance. TC also knew that 5 iPad minis were being produced on a daily basis. Again, the supply chain may improve, but he guides based on the known quantity. Unfortunately, the mini chain does not see the improvements that the iPhone chain does. The chain is only able to produce 5.5 minis on average throughout the quarter. Guidance more closely matches what we actually get. See where I'm going with this? At the end of October, the iPhone rate may have already been at a level which would have matched last year's record 37M. But gross margin knocks down EPS. iPhone chain improved, and we're getting 55M versus the guided 37M. ;D
|
|
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 9, 2013 12:02:26 GMT -8
I say the "guided iPhone" was more in the 45M range, but yup, Apple doesn't do unknowns.
And despite the uncertainty Oppy still says $52B revs? It's gonna be a solid quarter at the absolute minimum when the normalizations are applied.
|
|
|
Post by ibuyer on Jan 9, 2013 12:10:09 GMT -8
FWIW, I am not worried about Rev/EPS for the Dec quarter.
However, after much thought, the way the market will look at the earnings will be the combining the Dec quarter and Mar guidance together.
Only a blowout of maybe 15.75 or greater might negate this.
If there is a solid beat say 14s and crappy guidance. Market will read Dec quarter as peak earnings and slowing. Dec EPS will be viewed as pull forward.
|
|
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 9, 2013 12:11:22 GMT -8
You need to solve for X there (guidance).
|
|
|
Post by fas550 on Jan 9, 2013 12:11:34 GMT -8
I don't see bullish in aapl share price. I am talking about bullish/bearish in aapl share price only. Have a look at this and decide yourself. The FA is good. The problem recently is the TA has been crap however it's getting better (i.e bears are weaker than they were). If I sell now I am basically selling at the bottom. Damn I wish I had what I had two months ago to buy at these levels. The following tells me to stay put: Moving Average Convergence/Divergence (MACD) indicates a Bullish Trend. Chart pattern indicates a Weak Downward Trend. Relative Strength is Bearish. Up/Down volume pattern indicates that the stock is under Accumulation. We are under most MA so that indicates bearish but not surprising given the other factors.
|
|
|
Post by lance on Jan 9, 2013 12:36:28 GMT -8
FB and AAPL seem to trade inversely to one another. AAPL peak was FB bottom. My hope is FB is peaking sparking an AAPL bottom. This allows tech traders to always have a stock going up and down ie always making money. Interesting....
|
|
|
Post by frqntflr on Jan 9, 2013 12:36:39 GMT -8
been reading the back and forth regarding the numbers expected in the coming quarterly report
did some back-of-the-envelope type review of the numbers reported in past couple of years ...
Revenue Earnings Guidance Actual Beat by Beat by Actual YOY Growth $B $B % % $B % 2010 15.68 3.38 11.2 13.50 20 3.07 13.2 15.70 18 3.25 18.0 20.34 13 4.31 2011 23.0 26.74 16 70 6.00 77 22.0 24.67 12 82 5.99 95 23.0 28.57 24 81 7.31 124 25.0 28.27 13 38 6.62 53 2012 37.0 46.33 25 73 13.06 117 32.50 39.2 20 58 11.6 93 34.00 35.0 3 22 8.8 20 34.00 36.0 6 27 8.2 23 2013 52.0
obviously the last two quarters stand out as weak ... who's betting that TC will let it happen three times in a row? so far, my plan is to hold through earnings ... still sorry i sold 10% of my shares prior to last years' FQ1 ... even at today's depressed levels, those shares would have gained over 20% in the year
sorry the formatting isn't getting through well ... 2010 is missing rev guidance column ... 2013 just has the rev guidance
|
|
|
Post by ibuyer on Jan 9, 2013 12:41:22 GMT -8
FB and AAPL seem to trade inversely to one another. AAPL peak was FB bottom. My hope is FB is peaking sparking an AAPL bottom. This allows tech traders to always have a stock going up and down ie always making money. Interesting.... probably because growth tech investors are rotating from AAPL to FB, AMZN, GOOG, Samsung to name a few. update: LOD - crap
|
|
|
Post by kloot on Jan 9, 2013 12:42:22 GMT -8
I say the "guided iPhone" was more in the 45M range, but yup, Apple doesn't do unknowns. And despite the uncertainty Oppy still says $52B revs? It's gonna be a solid quarter at the absolute minimum when the normalizations are applied. I'm with you, 52 damn billion is a lot of money. they explained the GM issues. GM should go up during the year. I think a problem is that WS thinks in simplistic and formulaic terms and Apple is a unique situation that doesn't meld with the old world views. e.g. for tech hardware companies, declining margins are a huge red flag. but apple is not just a hardware company. it's retail, it's consumer discretionary, premium brand co, and also software. and they have shown a constant ability to innovate new product categories. anyway, we now fully understand what "overshoot on the down side" means.
|
|
|
Post by prazan on Jan 9, 2013 12:50:45 GMT -8
Apple always plays it safe. The problem is that Apple guided significantly lower than the previous years EPS. That is where our bread is buttered. It was highly unusual. The revenue guide was very good and he emphasized that in the CC. Nobody listened. I listened. Great revenue + not so great gross margin = lower EPS. Here's the way I see it... At the end of October TC knew how many iPhone 5s were being produced on a daily basis. For the sake of making a more simplified argument, let's say that number was 10 iPhones. TC knew that at worst, he could get 10 iPhones produced per day x 92 days in the quarter = 920 iPhones in the quarter. His guidance assumes this number of iPhones, because there is no guarantee that the supply chain can do any better. It is an UNKNOWN, and he will not guide using unknowns. In actuality, the chain averages 15 iPhones per day, resulting in a 50% higher iPhone number than what was used in guidance. TC also knew that 5 iPad minis were being produced on a daily basis. Again, the supply chain may improve, but he guides based on the known quantity. Unfortunately, the mini chain does not see the improvements that the iPhone chain does. The chain is only able to produce 5.5 minis on average throughout the quarter. Guidance more closely matches what we actually get. See where I'm going with this? At the end of October, the iPhone rate may have already been at a level which would have matched last year's record 37M. But gross margin knocks down EPS. iPhone chain improved, and we're getting 55M versus the guided 37M. ;D Appledoc, this is a beautifully described example of how guidance works.
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Jan 9, 2013 12:50:50 GMT -8
Truth of the matter is that January 23rd seems like a frigging eternity from now and I worry about the technical damage that continues to be done day after day after day. That said - it's out of my control but is immensely frustrating.
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Jan 9, 2013 12:54:11 GMT -8
This price action is just disgusting.
|
|