|
Post by prazan on Jan 18, 2013 20:41:53 GMT -8
I'm not sure investment reports like this can be linked to by the general public. I'm happy to read it, though I'm not sure of the source.
|
|
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 18, 2013 21:01:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by applemuncher on Jan 18, 2013 21:49:17 GMT -8
Can't post the link, but the format should be better.
17 January 2013 Americas/United States Equity Research IT Hardware Apple Inc (AAPL)
PRE RESULTS COMMENT Q1FY13 – Supply chain noise, demand solid
■ Results on 23rd January, reiterate Outperform. For F1Q13, we expect revenues / EPS of $57.2bn (+59% qoq/+23% yoy)/$14.59 vs. consensus at $54.6bn/$13.34. With strong iPhone 5 shipments we expect possible upside to our GM estimates of 39.3%. Our CY12/CY13 EPS estimates stand at $44.88/$60.36. Apple remains well positioned with a privileged advantage in the compute market and will be able to maintain momentum across key product lines driven by continued innovation in hardware, software and services. As such, we reiterate our Outperform rating and TP of $750.
■ Supply chain noise or end demand weakness, we think more of an adjustment. We believe the recent and consistent reports of iPhone order cuts are on balance accurate (i.e. that builds may fall 30-40% qoq in Q113). However equally we believe that they are not reflective of end demand and are evidence of Apple ramping its supply chain more aggressively than the past as the product cycle accelerates. Specifically we believe strength in smartphone shipments at Verizon, ATT a decent launch weekend in China support our 49.8mn estimates up 85% qoq and 34% yoy. We project above consensus iPhone volumes of 138mn/192mn for CY12/CY13 driven by high end smartphone growth and the scope for Apple to add additional carriers.
■ iPad – continued strength through platform dominance. We forecast 23.8 mn iPad units (70% qoq/+55% yoy) in F1Q13. Within the competitive landscape, we forecast Apple’s tablet share at ~59% in 2013 and ~50% long-term, though this may prove conservative given the company’s compute advantage, aggressive pricing and superior margin structure.
■ Valuation remains attractive. Trading on a P/E of ~8x our CY13 EPS estimate of $60.34, valuation remains attractive given earnings CAGR of 25% between CY11-13E, LT EPS power of $75, and net cash of $128/share.
|
|
|
Post by firestorm on Jan 18, 2013 22:32:21 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Jan 18, 2013 22:46:55 GMT -8
I read it as a backhanded slap at Microsoft, albeit no love for Apple.
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Jan 19, 2013 4:20:24 GMT -8
I saw the segment - the comments are a bit out of context. The subject was beta stocks and which ones would qualify as of right now. Najarian's point was that he thought all the catalysts for 2013 in AAPL were back-ended. He thought that other than this quarter's strong earnings - everything else the world is waiting for should be happening in the second half of 2013 (China Mobile announcement and the TV in particular). He acknowledged that sentiment was just not there in AAPL right now and felt that it might take these two things to actually turn sentiment around - which he felt was a big factor. As soon as he finished speaking, Joe Terranova argued that the caveat was the extent of the blowout and the strength of the guidance. I don't think these guys said anything that we don't know or feel ... again, the media slants it to make it sound like a big news story but both Najarian and Terranova are long AAPL. Anyway, that was my take when I watched...and based on how I understood it, it sounded right.
|
|
|
Post by rob_london on Jan 19, 2013 8:29:11 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jeffi on Jan 19, 2013 8:43:34 GMT -8
pinning is separate from "manipulation". closing at 500 today is just math as a result of puts and calls closing out. MM tanking the stock down to the 500ish area in the first place, now that's a different matter. I find it amazing how many on this board think options expiration day results in a "manipulated" closing price. It is really just math. Closing out options drives the price in the opposite direction. A bullish option purchase drives the common price up, while closing the position drives it down. If the option holder exercises instead of closing the position than there is no pinning effect. I understand that the price movement appears manipulated as the pinning frequently causes the buyers of the options to perform sub optimally. But... Appearances can be deceiving. Those that don't understand this and make money in the options market should consider themselves very fortunate (and a novice). FUD on the other hand can and is used to manipulate the market.
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on Jan 19, 2013 8:56:03 GMT -8
I find it amazing that we continue to debate semantics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2013 9:04:00 GMT -8
I'm just glad this massive option expiry is out of the way - we got a clear runway ahead of us now, with the ER afterburners next week giving us a quick takeoff. Apple missing expectations next week is about as probable as a plane exploding a few yards down the Tarmac (presuming its not a Dreamliner). Odds a good we will never see these levels again after Wednesday. Never say never
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2013 9:10:35 GMT -8
...we can each make the choice to do as we deem best for our individual financial plan. Perfect, as long as crying about our choice is not a choice.
|
|
|
Post by jeffi on Jan 19, 2013 9:14:27 GMT -8
I find it amazing that we continue to debate semantics. It's not semantics. One involves blaming phantom manipulator(s). The other is science.
|
|
|
Post by Gridlock on Jan 19, 2013 9:35:56 GMT -8
OK, January options are out of the way. The MM's should be congratulated for a perfectly played game. My question: what's next? This Seeking Alpha article has been mentioned a few times: seekingalpha.com/article/1002601-buy-apple-on-january-18In relation to what to expect post-opex, two ideas jumped out at me: "The institutional money managers that wrote those call options and bought common stock to cover will make a lot of money if a) those options expire worthless, and then b) Apple runs after that expiration date" and "Whereas, if Apple stays put, then runs to $700 after the expiration date, the call writers get the capital gain from the common stock they covered with, AND the entire amount for which they sold the option." This goes along with my gut feeling that the game is not over; we're only at halftime. If I am understanding the above quoted ideas, then the path of least resistance for AAPL is up, at least for the short term. I know that Gregg and others here know the mechanics of the options game much better than I do. I'd be interested in hearing how you think Friday's close sets up the next few plays: up, or down?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2013 9:43:01 GMT -8
I saw the segment - the comments are a bit out of context. The subject was beta stocks and which ones would qualify as of right now. Najarian's point was that he thought all the catalysts for 2013 in AAPL were back-ended. He thought that other than this quarter's strong earnings - everything else the world is waiting for should be happening in the second half of 2013 (China Mobile announcement and the TV in particular). He acknowledged that sentiment was just not there in AAPL right now and felt that it might take these two things to actually turn sentiment around - which he felt was a big factor. As soon as he finished speaking, Joe Terranova argued that the caveat was the extent of the blowout and the strength of the guidance. I don't think these guys said anything that we don't know or feel ... again, the media slants it to make it sound like a big news story but both Najarian and Terranova are long AAPL. Anyway, that was my take when I watched...and based on how I understood it, it sounded right. New products matter so long as the market believes they will generate new revenue streams of significance. The important takeaway from that comment is 'revenue streams of significance'. Najarian is right for the wrong reasons. Apple has been generating 'revenue streams of significance', albeit less than expected due to Apple's own guidance, for the past 9 months. Real gains in AAPL will occur when investor confidence in Apple guidance and execution returns. It took two consecutive quarters (FQ3/12-FQ4/12) of missed numbers to get us here, it will take two, possibly three, consecutive quarters (FQ1/13 - FQ2/13. FQ3/13?) of meeting/exceeding numbers to re-establish that confidence. The earnings report I'm most looking for is April's with its all important GUIDANCE. That guidance, coupled with meeting/exceeding January and April expectations, with launch AAPL.
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on Jan 19, 2013 10:04:12 GMT -8
I find it amazing that we continue to debate semantics. It's not semantics. One involves blaming phantom manipulator(s). The other is science. Semantics: the language used to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings.
|
|
|
Post by kloot on Jan 19, 2013 10:50:06 GMT -8
this week's critical path podcast is excellent. Horace makes a lot of great points about the "iphone5 demand drop" meme. wish we could sit the CNBC producers and hosts down to listen to it.
|
|
|
Post by jeffi on Jan 19, 2013 11:19:17 GMT -8
It's not semantics. One involves blaming phantom manipulator(s). The other is science. Semantics: the language used to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings. semantics plural of se·man·tics (Noun) Noun The branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text: "such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff". Manipulation as the cause (as compared to unwinding of open options) for the pinning action in Apple's stock price is not semantics. The meaning is different. It is not semantics.
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Jan 19, 2013 11:25:07 GMT -8
Manipulation - option expiration - stories in the press - people calling bottoms....Travis Lewis (AAPL Pain) tries to explain how he sees what happened on Friday. I really think it is worth the watch: aaplpain.com/?p=4497PEEPS - THIS IS WORTH THE WATCH - PLEASE LOOK AT IT
|
|
|
Post by jeffi on Jan 19, 2013 11:29:33 GMT -8
OK, January options are out of the way. The MM's should be congratulated for a perfectly played game. My question: what's next? This Seeking Alpha article has been mentioned a few times: seekingalpha.com/article/1002601-buy-apple-on-january-18In relation to what to expect post-opex, two ideas jumped out at me: "The institutional money managers that wrote those call options and bought common stock to cover will make a lot of money if a) those options expire worthless, and then b) Apple runs after that expiration date" and "Whereas, if Apple stays put, then runs to $700 after the expiration date, the call writers get the capital gain from the common stock they covered with, AND the entire amount for which they sold the option." This goes along with my gut feeling that the game is not over; we're only at halftime. If I am understanding the above quoted ideas, then the path of least resistance for AAPL is up, at least for the short term. I know that Gregg and others here know the mechanics of the options game much better than I do. I'd be interested in hearing how you think Friday's close sets up the next few plays: up, or down? Unfortunately, your premises that MM drove the price to $500 on Friday is largely wrong. The overwhelming number of open puts and calls at the $500 strike price that were closed on Friday were the likely cause. Interestingly, most managed money underperforms the indexes and specifically Apple over the past year as well as most of the past decade. Therefore, I find it odd that so many think these institutions are taking our money when we are regularly out performing them. Certainly, the long term buy and hold Apple investor has out performed most institutional money.
|
|
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 19, 2013 11:50:03 GMT -8
Since chas encouraged me to speak up and empower others when special situations can maybe generate alpha, I'll say again:
You can hate the game and have opinions but still play it. That's how chas and I, who believe that AAPL "manipulation" is real, generated some cash flow through butterfly options yesterday.
Bridge that gap! The world is NOT absolute! Sure, neither of us made a fortune (though chas walked away with enough to buy a few dozen A6X chocolate chip cookies (/inside joke, ask chas)), but despite our hopeless bias, we ain't novices. Hell, chas was a floor trader IIRC! We try to trade what we see, and sometimes, it works.
We stay accountable to only ourselves the whole time. Most of us here do, I think.
|
|
|
Post by mbeauch on Jan 19, 2013 12:20:04 GMT -8
Tammy was able to join the mini club today. She sold her ipad1 in the parking lot of the PeachMac store and we went in and got her a white mini. The girl said they did not have all versions in stock. That is not very comforting.
The funny part was she sold it to one of her FB friends who was buying it for her granddaughter. The reason it is funny is because she bought the girl a Kindle for Christmas. The little girl said, "I asked for an ipad, but got a Kindle instead". If I were to guess I would say she was 8. That pretty much says that Apple has a good future when an 8 year old actually knows what she wants and is dissatisfied with imitations. Now the case can be made that the little girl is spoiled, I would agree, but she was happy to get a used ipad over a brand new Kindle. So maybe she is not really spoiled and just recognizes quality. ;D
|
|
|
Post by appledoc on Jan 19, 2013 12:25:24 GMT -8
Not spoiled. It's the equivalent of having a SNES or Sega Genesis when I was a kid. Everybody had one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2013 12:26:21 GMT -8
this week's critical path podcast is excellent. Horace makes a lot of great points about the "iphone5 demand drop" meme. wish we could sit the CNBC producers and hosts down to listen to it. Wouldn't do any good. They don't care. To change their behavior you'd have to get in front of their audience (be on their show) and call them out as intellectually lazy.
|
|
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 19, 2013 12:38:29 GMT -8
Not spoiled. It's the equivalent of having a SNES or Sega Genesis when I was a kid. Everybody had one. Hah! If the online inflation calculator I just used is correct, a $199 SNES would've retailed for about $330 today. I was gonna say that the base iPad mini (ignoring the Marianas Trench of difference in capabilities) won the TCO battle hands down as far as cheap/free apps and content, but apparently, it was never even close... Kids these days _are_ spoiled. Cool tech is more affordable than ever.
|
|
|
Post by mbeauch on Jan 19, 2013 12:55:37 GMT -8
My first video game was pong.
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on Jan 19, 2013 13:00:27 GMT -8
Semantics: the language used to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings. semantics plural of se·man·tics (Noun) Noun The branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text: "such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff". Manipulation as the cause (as compared to unwinding of open options) for the pinning action in Apple's stock price is not semantics. The meaning is different. It is not semantics. Yeah, I'll pass on debating the semantics of the definition of semantics. ;D "Manipulation" is often used (correctly or incorrectly) to mean the pinning that results from the unwinding of open options. "Manipulation" is often mistaken for "collusion." There is no collusion; therefore there is nothing for the SEC to prosecute. Personifying market forces (e.g., Mr. Market, Evil Overlord) falls under the realm of behavioral finance.
|
|
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 19, 2013 13:09:30 GMT -8
What worries me longer-term is the erosion of retail investor confidence that on-the-dot closes inevitably cause. You think some of us HERE are low-information? How about those who only get their investing information from TV, or get advice from Jim Cramer all day and ignore the disclaimers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2013 13:09:59 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jeffi on Jan 19, 2013 13:11:02 GMT -8
Since chas encouraged me to speak up and empower others when special situations can maybe generate alpha, I'll say again: You can hate the game and have opinions but still play it. That's how chas and I, who believe that AAPL "manipulation" is real, generated some cash flow through butterfly options yesterday. Bridge that gap! The world is NOT absolute! Sure, neither of us made a fortune (though chas walked away with enough to buy a few dozen A6X chocolate chip cookies (/inside joke, ask chas)), but despite our hopeless bias, we ain't novices. Hell, chas was a floor trader IIRC! We try to trade what we see, and sometimes, it works. We stay accountable to only ourselves the whole time. Most of us here do, I think. I'm glad that you made money. Kudos! You believe the stock was manipulated and therefore closed at $500. Right? Do you understand how the unwinding of the options impacts the price of the stock? Can you explain it to me? We will all likely improve as traders and investors if we better understand the impact that options have on the stock price. Right?
|
|
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 19, 2013 13:12:15 GMT -8
I think that A6 question may matter more for iPad mini 2 than iPhone 5. Apple is almost certainly gonna rev up the A7-series this year, and assuming that's with TSMC's foundries, I'm even _more_ excited. After all, TSMC doesn't make Android smartphones. A7...
|
|