|
Post by appleaddict on Jan 29, 2014 11:10:08 GMT -8
I'm sorry, but when did Apple ever explain itself or communicate with shareholders? What has changed exactly? It used to be obvious, wrote Lstream, that AAPL was on track, but hasn't Apple always only communicated via the products it sells? Phones, upon which Apple is over-reliant, are slowing down; iPods are toast. All can see that. Meanwhile, Apple is doing what it's always done: work hard on their next big thing in total secrecy. Yes, everyone wants them to sell a new product because that's what we all expect ever since the iPhone and iPad came out, but there's no surprise that they don't just come up with a finished product because the public and pundits want one. Everyone is totally impatient in this fast moving world, but, remember, Apple told us to chill out last year when they put out that nice video about things taking time, a thousand 'no's' for every yes, etc A couple things have changed: 1) Steve Jobs is no longer there; his presence instilled confidence. Tim Cook's vague references to great products coming sometime do not. Under Cook, we've seen: product releases jammed into one quarter and then being supply-constrained; an inordinate amount of time to refresh the Mac Pro line; the release of a DOA iPhone 5c; stock price plummet at a time when the market has reached all-time highs. 2) Apple is operating under the white-hot spotlight 24/7 now. It used to be the underdog; now it is a corporate behemoth. It should manage expectations and control the narrative about the company instead of letting every competitor and media outlet do that for it. Each quarter I have given Tim Cook and Apple the benefit of the doubt and held my shares. And each quarter I have been disappointed by the performance of Cook and Oppenheimer on the conference call and the subsequent performance of the stock. They have given me nothing to believe in and offered nothing to mitigate the stock failure. As has been said before, if Apple doesn't see its stock as a screaming BUY at these levels, then why should anyone else?
|
|
|
Post by incorrigible on Jan 29, 2014 11:24:59 GMT -8
.. if Apple doesn't see its stock as a screaming BUY at these levels, then why should anyone else? Bravo! Well said. Edit: Appears poised to break below $500. Ugg.
|
|
|
Post by macwire on Jan 29, 2014 11:29:34 GMT -8
It's impossible to analyze aapls previous lack of transparency because Steve Jobs was around. It's a total outlier. People were ok with it because it was helmed by a tech visionary
Those days are gone and Tim and co acting like Steve isn't cutting it for the sake of the shareholders.
In fact Tim has been at the forefront of a litany of arguable errors.
Brownett's (sp) hire Maps 2013?product rollout management iPhone 5c (let's call a rose a rose. Sure it caused ASP up because it was such a turd that people bought 5s' instead. Product has been a failure) Lack of ability to manage public perception / expectations
Every Tim Cook appearance is to cultivate the "brand" image of aapl. That worked for Steve. It doesn't work now. A regular CEOs job is to get out there and protect or add value for shareholders. Think of how many CEOS make regular appearances on financial news channels providing clarity or providing the value argument in owning their company. Steve didn't bother because he's Steve. Tim ain't Steve.
Maybe the end game is for aapl to hoarde cash, lobby for one time repatriot tax and execute a huge LBO to take the company private. If the stock price stagnates for a few years and aapl keeps adding cash like kobiyashi eating hot dogs whose to say impossible?
At this point who fucking knows.
|
|
|
Post by leonb on Jan 29, 2014 11:39:43 GMT -8
Tim Cook is also Steve Jobs' fuck-up, let's not forget - he appointed him, though "not a product person". I guess SJ's personality was too dominant too allow another SJ type in the wings, which is what the company needed/needs.
|
|
|
Post by osx10 on Jan 29, 2014 11:41:19 GMT -8
Heard a guest on CBNC say that the rules of the buyback regulations prevented Apple from buying back stock for 2 days after reporting earnings. If that's true, perhaps tomorrow they can work on putting in a floor.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,189
|
Post by JDSoCal on Jan 29, 2014 11:48:47 GMT -8
Tim Cook is also Steve Jobs' fuck-up, let's not forget - he appointed him, though "not a product person". I guess SJ's personality was too dominant too allow another SJ type in the wings, which is what the company needed/needs. Whoa now, that's a bit premature calling hiring TC a fuck up. It is entirely possible that Apple would have reported the same earnings and guidance were Jobs still around (or lower guidance, since he liked to sandbag). And from all I've read, Scott Forstall was very Steve Jobs like in the bad ways that you suggest are good. If anything, Cook needs to be less like Steve in his approach to shareholders. We could use some reassurance ATM. And Macwire, Apple can't use company money to buy itself.
|
|
|
Post by leonb on Jan 29, 2014 11:57:54 GMT -8
Tim Cook is also Steve Jobs' fuck-up, let's not forget - he appointed him, though "not a product person". I guess SJ's personality was too dominant too allow another SJ type in the wings, which is what the company needed/needs. Whoa now, that's a bit premature calling hiring TC a fuck up. It is entirely possible that Apple would have reported the same earnings and guidance were Jobs still around (or lower guidance, since he liked to sandbag). And from all I've read, Scott Forstall was very Steve Jobs like in the bad ways that you suggest are good. If anything, Cook needs to be less like Steve in his approach to shareholders. We could use some reassurance ATM. And Macwire, Apple can't use company money to buy itself. TC by now has to take chief responsibility for the appalling negative sentiment around the company. Either he has failed to deliver or he has failed to present - either way, he is failing. A little presentation would go a long way - both for shareholders and consumers. Brand magic matters. I'm not saying TC needs to kowtow to or soothe investors/analysts, just that he is projecting and probably feeling weakness, and being weak and uninspiring is unacceptable for the helm of Apple.
|
|
|
Post by macwire on Jan 29, 2014 12:01:23 GMT -8
And Macwire, Apple can't use company money to buy itself. Duh. That makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by mcharliem on Jan 29, 2014 12:02:44 GMT -8
In fact Tim has been at the forefront of a litany of arguable errors. Brownett's (sp) hire Maps 2013?product rollout management iPhone 5c (let's call a rose a rose. Sure it caused ASP up because it was such a turd that people bought 5s' instead. Product has been a failure) Lack of ability to manage public perception / expectations Don't forget that Jobs himself made a number of huge misjudgments that other executives had to convince him to change his mind, including: - Wanting to keep iTunes off of windows - Not wanting to do an App Store for iPhone (in hindsight, this looks absolutely insane) - Not wanting to do a small iPad. The good news is, if the rest of the Apple team could see the error in Jobs' ways and convince him to change his mind, I'm positive they can do the same to Tim Cook if the need arises.
|
|
|
Post by leonb on Jan 29, 2014 12:15:41 GMT -8
Not entirely true, in the sense that an LBO would involve borrowing money to buy the company at some premium to market cap, on the assumption that company cash would immediately pay down some of the buyer's debt. If Apple's market cap were based on a fair multiple of its operational earnings plus its cash then the cash wouldn't help; but this is not the case. The buyer (over)borrows against the earnings, then pays back aggressively from earnings and from excess cash, which is abundant here.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,189
|
Post by JDSoCal on Jan 29, 2014 12:35:36 GMT -8
Not entirely true, in the sense that an LBO would involve borrowing money to buy the company at some premium to market cap, on the assumption that company cash would immediately pay down some of the buyer's debt. If Apple's market cap were based on a fair multiple of its operational earnings plus its cash then the cash wouldn't help; but this is not the case. The buyer (over)borrows against the earnings, then pays back aggressively from earnings and from excess cash, which is abundant here. OK, but an outside party using cash it paid for after it bought a company is different than insiders using that cash to buy the company. So you whack off $150B from Apple's market cap, and $300B is still about 6 times the largest LBO ever. And then you have to have motive. Why would Apple's board want to do such a thing? You'd have to believe there would be way more power and pressure by a single private investment firm for Apple to abandon its culture and make profits at all costs (and fuck the customer) than there is from all of us disorganized, disenfranchised, disagreeing shareholders. Imagine a Carl Icahn type with a 80% voting stake in the company, and tell me that company would remain Apple. Not that I am hating on Icahn as an outsider. His doubling down on AAPL is a much needed vote of confidence ATM.
|
|
|
Post by dreamRaj on Jan 29, 2014 12:47:25 GMT -8
The stock is trying hard to stay above 500. Won't surprise me if we see 480s for a couple of weeks. If that does happen, I hope the asses at Apple buy back in huge numbers and make it known in some way or the other so it puts a concrete floor around 500.
|
|
|
Post by macoz on Jan 29, 2014 13:39:44 GMT -8
I believe Apple by giving free software upgrades is not recognising some $1 billion in Revenues and operating income in FY2014 and is recognising said $1 billion over the next two to four years. This is what I posted in the Braeburn Group last night: I believe Apple has shot itself in the foot when it decided to offer its software upgrades for free. It may be a great strategy in the long run but I estimate it is costing Apple over $1 billion in Revenues and net income for FY2014. In order to offer the upgrades for free Apple had to defer up to $5 for each IOS device and $20 for each Macintosh computer it sells. These deferred amounts will be recognise over two and four years respectively. This is how I calculate what it is costing Apple in FY2014. I use the actual units sold in Q1FY2014 and the actual unit sales for Q2 to Q4 of FY 2013. If actual unit sales for the rest of FY2014 are higher than the equivalent quarter in FY2013 the amount deferred is even larger. The figures are as follows: Q1FY2014 - gross deferred revenue $473 million; Q2FY2014 (est) - gross deferred revenue $310 million less recognised in Q $54 million = net deferred revenue $256 million; Q3FY2014 (est) - gross deferred revenue $263 million less recognised in Q $82 million = net deferred revenue $181 million; Q4FY2014 (est) - gross deferred revenue $291 million less recognised in Q $113 million = net deferred revenue $179 million So if Apple did not provide the free upgrade its profits will be over $1 billion better this year and recognised this year instead of over the next two to four years. There is no doubt that iPhone sales are not growing as fast as before. Is this a sign of a maturing market in smartphones or is Apple losing its mojo or just the fact that the phones are so good that the actual replacement cycle is very long. (Disclosure - in my family we have a 3G, 3GS, 2*4, a 4S and a 5) iPad sales seem to be doing well and may be maintaining its growth. Apple as it is right now is a solid value stock. In order to be a growth stock once again it needs new products and we hope this comes sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
Post by mstrmac on Jan 29, 2014 13:42:26 GMT -8
goggle sells motorola. Up after hours
|
|
|
Post by po1nt on Jan 29, 2014 13:48:30 GMT -8
goggle sells motorola. Up after hours I think its from Facebooks ad revs...
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Jan 29, 2014 14:06:32 GMT -8
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,189
|
Post by JDSoCal on Jan 29, 2014 14:08:01 GMT -8
I give up on using fundamental analysis as a predictor of stock price.
Imagine if you will, Apple made a $12.5B acquisition to compete in the mobile revolution, and then had to dump it a couple years later for a fourth of that price. Would it be up 3% in the after hours trading?
Of course, Apple caused the mobile revolution that Google has failed to prove it can be profitable in, and AAPL is the one down 10% this week.
WS is really fucked in the head. They are a bunch of monkeys in a room with typewriters.
And if one person says I am whining, I will not hesitate to cock-punch you.
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Jan 29, 2014 14:10:37 GMT -8
I give up on using fundamental analysis as a predictor of stock price. Imagine if you will, Apple made a $12.5B acquisition to compete in the mobile revolution, and then had to dump it a couple years later for a fourth of that price. Would it be up 3% in the after hours trading? Of course, Apple caused the mobile revolution that Google has failed to prove it can be profitable in, and AAPL is the one down 10% this week. WS is really fucked in the head. They are a bunch of monkeys in a room with typewriters. And if one person says I am whining, I will not hesitate to cock-punch you. You are whi right.
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Jan 29, 2014 14:13:01 GMT -8
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,189
|
Post by JDSoCal on Jan 29, 2014 14:23:20 GMT -8
Google will maintain ownership of the vast majority of the Motorola Mobility patent portfolio, including current patent applications and invention disclosures. As part of its ongoing relationship with Google, Lenovo will receive a license to this rich portfolio of patents and other intellectual property. Additionally Lenovo will receive over 2,000 patent assets, as well as the Motorola Mobility brand and trademark portfolio. LOL @ rich portfolio of patents. Florian Mueller has a different take:. Edit:"How worthless are Motorola's patents? In the MSFT case they wanted $4b/yr, only got $1.7m."
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Jan 29, 2014 14:24:43 GMT -8
I give up on using fundamental analysis as a predictor of stock price. Imagine if you will, Apple made a $12.5B acquisition to compete in the mobile revolution, and then had to dump it a couple years later for a fourth of that price. Would it be up 3% in the after hours trading? Of course, Apple caused the mobile revolution that Google has failed to prove it can be profitable in, and AAPL is the one down 10% this week. WS is really fucked in the head. They are a bunch of monkeys in a room with typewriters. And if one person says I am whining, I will not hesitate to cock-punch you. You are channeling your inner Mercel.....
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Jan 29, 2014 14:31:10 GMT -8
Under the terms of the Acquisition Agreement, Lenovo will acquire the Business for total consideration of (i) $660 million in cash, subject to adjustments for working capital, deferred revenue and net debt, (ii) $750 million in ordinary shares of Lenovo (the “Lenovo Shares”) based on the Lenovo Share price at closing, with the maximum number of Lenovo Shares not to exceed 618,301,731 and the minimum number of Lenovo Shares not to be less than 505,883,235, and (iii) a $1.5 billion promissory note payable, without interest, on the third anniversary of the closing. Lenovo is required to offer to prepay the entire principal amount outstanding under the promissory note if, among other things, Lenovo becomes a wholly-owned subsidiary of another entity during the period in which any amount payable under the promissory note is outstanding. Lenovo can elect to pay some or all of the face amount of the note in cash at closing, in which event the face amount of the note will be reduced accordingly. In lieu of issuing all or any portion of Lenovo Shares at closing, Lenovo has the option to pay an amount in cash equivalent to such portion of the Lenovo Shares which would have been issued under the share consideration. Such amount will be added to the cash consideration with a corresponding decrease in the share consideration. The Lenovo Shares will be subject to transfer restrictions until the first anniversary of the closing, subject to customary exceptions. The cash consideration payable by Lenovo is expected to be funded by a combination of Lenovo’s existing cash on its balance sheet and additional bank borrowings. www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000128877614000008/goog8-k01292014.htm
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Jan 29, 2014 14:36:29 GMT -8
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,189
|
Post by JDSoCal on Jan 29, 2014 15:01:40 GMT -8
Impressive, repelled an assailant while not even losing his mark for the standup, but that was technically a "cock-knee."
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Jan 29, 2014 15:09:31 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by mstrmac on Jan 29, 2014 15:47:52 GMT -8
Oh the tangled web goog has spawned. Children at the helm. Smart?
|
|
|
Post by incorrigible on Jan 29, 2014 16:08:51 GMT -8
Oh the tangled web goog has spawned. Children at the helm. Smart? Maybe not. But in other news: GOOG: After Hours : 1,136.88 Up 29.96 (2.71%) Oh. And FB is up 6.40 (11.96%) AH> Go figure. :/
|
|
|
Post by nagrani on Jan 29, 2014 16:12:19 GMT -8
Apple is truly the dog of the marketplace.
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Jan 29, 2014 16:20:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Jan 29, 2014 17:05:22 GMT -8
One of GOOG's comments after the Motorola announcement was that it didn't fit into where the company was headed (naturally, everyone interpreted this as pure "spin") - they went on to say that "wearables" and "the home" is where their focus is. Funny, I thought that's where AAPL's focus was but then again, I haven't seen anything yet.
By the way, what happened to Mav? Strange not to see him on the site at all during earnings, no? Did I miss a post?
|
|