Épargne-Pension

07:20 - 22 janvier 2013 par Peter Van Maldegem

Versez votre épargne-pension en janvier, c'est plus intéresssant!

De nom­breux Belges at­tendent la fin de l’année pour ef­fec­tuer leur ver­se­ment an­nuel dans leur fonds d’épargne-pen­sion ou leur as­su­rance-pen­sion. Pour­tant, ver­ser en jan­vier rap­porte 7% de plus.

Quelque 2,7 mil­lions de Belges ont un plan d’épargne-pen­sion. Pour les re­ve­nus de l’année 2013, vous pour­rez dé­duire jusqu’à 940 euros, dont vous ré­cu­pé­re­rez 30% - soit 282 euros - via votre dé­cla­ra­tion fis­cale 2014.

La date de votre ver­se­ment n’a aucun im­pact sur l’avan­tage fis­cal. Vous pou­vez en outre choi­sir de ver­ser le mon­tant en une seule fois, ou par ver­se­ments pé­rio­diques. Une en­quête au­près des banques et des as­su­reurs montre que la grande ma­jo­ri­té des épar­gnants optent pour des ver­se­ments men­suels. Chez BNP Pa­ri­bas For­tis, c’est le cas de 91% des épar­gnants. Chez AG In­su­rance, KBC et ING, en­vi­ron 80%. La moi­tié des 20% res­tants ont opté pour un ver­se­ment unique, en dé­cembre. Il y a en­core un "effet dé­cembre", dit-on en chœur chez KBC et AG In­su­rance. De nom­breux épar­gnants at­tendent en effet la der­nière mi­nute - sou­vent suite à un rap­pel de la banque - pour ef­fec­tuer leur ver­se­ment. Ce se­rait le cas de plus de 200.​000 épar­gnants.

Le ti­ming

Mais le mois de dé­cembre est-il le meilleur mo­ment pour ef­fec­tuer votre ver­se­ment? Pour les as­su­rances-pen­sion, la ré­ponse est clai­re­ment né­ga­tive. Le rai­son­ne­ment est très simple: comme pour les comptes d’épargne, l’ar­gent in­ves­ti dans une as­su­rance-pen­sion com­mence à pro­duire des in­té­rêts au mo­ment du ver­se­ment. "Ceux qui versent plus tôt dans l’année, bé­né­fi­cient donc plus tôt des in­té­rêts et de la par­ti­ci­pa­tion aux bé­né­fices", ex­plique Ger­rit Feyaerts d’AG In­su­rance. Si votre as­su­rance-pen­sion rap­porte da­van­tage que votre compte d’épargne, il sera donc plus ren­table de ver­ser le mon­tant le plus tôt pos­sible, dans la me­sure de vos moyens.

La plu­part des as­su­rances-pen­sion offrent au­jourd’hui un taux ga­ran­ti su­pé­rieur à 2%, le taux le plus élevé étant 2,5%. Et au taux ga­ran­ti vient s’ajou­ter la par­ti­ci­pa­tion aux bé­né­fices.

Cli­quez sur l'image pour agran­dir.

La si­tua­tion est un peu dif­fé­rente si vous avez opté pour un fonds d’épargne-pen­sion: contrai­re­ment aux as­su­rances, la va­leur des fonds peut for­te­ment fluc­tuer, et cer­taines an­nées, les cours sont en baisse. Nous nous sommes pen­chés sur l’im­pact du ti­ming des ver­se­ments sur les huit fonds d’épargne-pen­sion qui existent en Bel­gique de­puis 1989. Nous avons ana­ly­sé la stra­té­gie la plus ren­table sur les 24 ans, selon trois scé­na­rios: ver­se­ment unique en jan­vier, ver­se­ments men­suels, ou ver­se­ment unique en dé­cembre. Les chiffres sont sans appel: c’est le ver­se­ment sys­té­ma­tique du mon­tant total en jan­vier qui rap­porte le plus.

• Ceux qui, chaque année de­puis 1989, ont versé le mon­tant maxi­mum dé­duc­tible en jan­vier, dis­po­saient fin 2012 d’en­vi­ron 30.​722 euros (mon­tant final moyen des huit fonds).
• Ceux qui ont sys­té­ma­ti­que­ment versé en dé­cembre em­pochent 28.​805 euros
• Ceux qui ont opté pour des ver­se­ments men­suels re­ce­vront en moyenne 29.​616 euros.

Conclu­sion: les ver­se­ments uniques en jan­vier rap­portent un sup­plé­ment de 7% par rap­port à un ver­se­ment en dé­cembre et près de 4% de plus que les ver­se­ments men­suels. Ex­pli­ca­tion: dans la ma­jo­ri­té des cas, les Bourses clô­turent l’exer­cice avec un bé­né­fice. Il est donc plus in­té­res­sant de ver­ser en début d’année, car vous re­ce­vez plus de parts pour le même mon­tant, la va­leur d’in­ven­taire du fonds étant plus basse. Vous vous consti­tuez ainsi un ca­pi­tal plus im­por­tant. Des re­cherches dé­montrent que pen­dant 16 des 24 der­nières an­nées, la va­leur d’in­ven­taire de jan­vier était in­fé­rieure à celle de dé­cembre. 2008 fut une ex­cep­tion: pen­dant la crise bour­sière, les fonds d’épargne-pen­sion ont re­cu­lé de plus de 20%. Cette an­née-là, il au­rait donc mieux valu ver­ser en dé­cembre.

Dis­pa­ri­tés

Le choix du fonds peut aussi conduire à des dif­fé­rences si­gni­fi­ca­tives, comme l’illustre notre ta­bleau sur les ren­de­ments (voir plus haut). Si vous avez sous­crit le Me­tro­po­li­tan-Ren­tas­tro Growth de BNP Pa­ri­bas For­tis et Fin­tro en 1989, et que vous avez ef­fec­tué des ver­se­ments men­suels, vous serez à la tête d’un ca­pi­tal de 35.​312 euros. Avec l’Ac­cent Pen­sion Fund de So­cié­té Gé­né­rale Pri­vate Ban­king, vous ar­ri­vez à 23.​991 euros (ver­se­ments men­suels éga­le­ment), soit 32% de moins. Pour des pro­duits à long terme, même les plus pe­tites dif­fé­rences dans les ren­de­ments moyens peuvent avoir un im­pact non né­gli­geable sur votre ca­pi­tal final.

Les mon­tants men­tion­nés ne tiennent pas compte de la taxe de 6,5% qui a été pré­le­vée en 2012 sur les ver­se­ments an­té­rieurs à 1993. Notez que le ti­ming du ver­se­ment dans les fonds n’a par contre pas d’im­pact sur la taxe de 10% dont vous de­vrez vous ac­quit­ter à vos 60 ans. Pour les fonds, cette taxe est cal­cu­lée sur un ren­de­ment fic­tif. Le cal­cul part du prin­cipe que les ver­se­ments ne com­mencent à rap­por­ter des in­té­rêts qu’au début de l’année sui­vante.

Nos cal­culs in­tègrent les frais de ges­tion, mais pas les frais d’en­trée payés lors de chaque ver­se­ment. Or, cer­tains fonds d’épargne-pen­sion, comme celui d’Ar­gen­ta, ne fac­turent aucun droit d’en­trée. La plu­part des autres fonds ap­pliquent des frais de 2 ou 3%, même s’il existe des "su­per­mar­chés" de fonds qui laissent tom­ber ces frais. Pour les as­su­rances-pen­sions, les frais sont plus éle­vés; dans cer­tains cas, ils peuvent at­teindre 7%. Il est donc cru­cial de né­go­cier - c’est d’ailleurs pos­sible au­près de nom­breuses banques et com­pa­gnies d'as­su­rances -, car l’im­pact d’une baisse des frais peut être au moins aussi im­por­tant que le ti­ming de vos ver­se­ments.

Ma Pomme ...

APPLE (AAPL)

439,88 USD 
-2,36% | -10,62 
 25/01/2013 22:00

Headlines Making You Feel Anxious? January 24, 2013 Apple misses iPhone forecasts; shares skid 10% When I saw this headline yesterday, I had to a laugh for two reasons: Apple naysayers (i.e., gurus) will have a field day claiming they were proven right; the stock is in “decline.” Investors looking for the “best” investment will tell themselves that Apple’s time has passed. Gurus and their guesses make for great headlines. But here’s the part that the headlines (and the gurus) glossed over: Apple is a ginormous corporation that just set company records for revenue, earnings (barely, and that's the worry for some investors), iPhones sold, and iPads sold in a quarter. Think about that for a minute. Apple’s stock didn’t drop because they revealed some horrible news like a ship sank with the next 20 million iPhones on board. Instead, the price drop was attributed to Apple not meeting analysts’ forecasts. And this is the trap that trips up gurus and investors alike. Focusing on a single detail rarely gives you enough information to make a decision. By focusing on the individual trees instead of the forest, we don’t stop to ask the questions that should matter, like: Does owning Apple stock make sense based on my plan? If I own Apple stock, do I have a plan that takes the emotion out of owning it? So the next time you see a headline that touts a guru’s prediction or hints that something great no longer is, do me a favor. Take a look around and see if the headline actually helps you answer a question that matters or just makes you feel more anxious. Carl

Apple No Longer the World's Largest Company. Does It Matter?

By Eric Bleeker, CFA | More Articles | Save For Later 
January 25, 2013 | Comments (11)

If Apple  (NASDAQ: AAPL  ) investors were hoping for a rebound today after yesterday's 12% post-earnings sell-off, little relief came today. In fact, Apple shares have shed another $10.62 today, or 2.36%. 

Perhaps more interesting is that Apple's drop, for the time being, has pushed its market capitalization back below ExxonMobil  (NYSE: XOM  ) , making it the U.S.' second-largest company. Exxon is currently worth $418 billion, while Apple sits slightly below at $413 billion.

Apple first passed ExxonMobil's value in August 2011, though its passing of the energy giant was brief. While Apple gave back the title of largest company to Exxon during the remainder of 2011, on Jan. 25, 2012, it once again passed Exxon. As Apple's shares rallied for the first nine months of 2012, it cemented its lead as the United States' (and the world's) largest publicly traded company. 

The battle over big: Exxon vs. Apple

Source: S&P CapitalIQ. Market values for each company are quarterly.

In August, Apple's rally led it to attain the largest market cap in the history of American markets. At its peak, Apple was worth about $660 billion. 

Let's get real

Apple's loss over the past few months has been especially fascinating in part because of the sheer size and speed of its shares decline. Apple has lost about $249 billion in market value since its peak. To put that in perspective, its value loss in that time is greater than Microsoft and Google's entire market caps today! Below is a comparison of the value Apple's lost since its peak relative to some of the market's largest tech companies. 

Source: S&P CapitalIQ

That's a fantastically large reduction in Apple's value. However, comparing the market caps of companies like Exxon and Apple comes with a laundry list of caveats long enough to take up a whole column of its own. When Apple became the largest American company in history, fellow Fool Alex Planes did just that. 

Among the key areas that make market capitalization comparisons silly is they don't incorporate total returns. That is, while Exxon is worth $416 billion today, its been returning cash to shareholders since 1882, when it was a part of Standard Oil. Exxon has also increased its dividend for 30 straight years!

The implication here being, when a company pays out a dividend, that actually decreases its market cap as that capital is sent to its shareholders. Exxon has paid out over $75 billion to shareholders in the past decade and repurchased $190 billion of its own stock. Today it has $13 billion in cash. Without returning that capital across the past decade, the company would have $278 billion in cash sitting around. Such a figure would make Apple's much-discussed $137 billion cash hoard look puny in comparison. 

The big implicationsApple's just beginning to use its cash, with its pledge to return $45 billion to shareholders. As the company continues accumulating cash -- it had $23 billion in operating cash flow last quarter! -- it'll likely increase those actions. 

This is all to say, ranking market caps is more a beauty contest than anything useful to investors. The fact Apple had passed ExxonMobil was interesting because it showed how transformative mobile was as an idea. As the company generating the majority of mobile profits, Apple had passed ExxonMobil, the corporate titan of our time. 

That narrative was interesting. The second act of this narrative is whether Apple can continue holding such a large market cap as it's besieged by low-cost Android devices. Historically  we've seen other hardware companies -- whether in mainframes, mini-computers, or PCs -- fall as competition reduced their profits. Last quarter, Apple saw its gross margin contract from 44.7% the year before to 38.6% now. 

Yet, the counterpoint is that Apple's as much a software company as a hardware company. With iPad Minis selling at $330, Apple's pricing strategy isn't too different from Microsoft's. It's essentially collecting the profits from the operating system, but choosing to control all the hardware itself. Each new technology wave is different, and the second act of Apple's battle to be the defining company of the mobile revolution is yet to be written. 

Scared by Apple's plunge? We've got expert advice for youAs traders dump their Apple shares for a second straight day, will you have the resolve to hold your ground -- or possibly buy more? Emotions aside, Apple's growth story is far from over and it still has massive opportunities ahead. We've outlined them right here in The Motley Fool's premium Apple research service, and it may give you the courage to be greedy when others are fearful. If you're looking for some guidance on Apple's prospects, get started by clicking here.

Eric Bleeker and Jeremy Phillips has no position in any stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends Apple and Google. The Motley Fool owns shares of Apple, Google, and Microsoft. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Les chiffres qui dérangent chez Apple

Trends Tendances

Source: L'Expansion
jeudi 24 janvier 2013 à 21h25

Ralentissement de la croissance, baisse de la profitabilité, chute des ventes de Mac... La Bourse sanctionne durement les résultats trimestriels d'Apple, malgré quelques résultats records. Explications.

© Reuters

La Bourse a réagi violemment ce mercredi à la publication des résultats d'Apple, le titre perdant 10% à l'ouverture de Wall Street ce jeudi, ce qui ramène l'action au niveau où elle était il y a an. Une claque infligée au groupe, qui a pourtant battu un certain nombre de records sur le quatrième trimestre 2012. Le niveau de son chiffre d'affaires, notamment : 54,5 milliards de dollars. Du jamais vu. Les ventes d'iPhone, également : 47,8 millions d'unités écoulées sur le trimestre, qui comptait une semaine de moins que le 4e trimestre 2011. Mais du point de vue des investisseurs, les problèmes s'accumulent pour Apple. 

Les indicateurs du pessimisme

Le taux de croissance. La croissance du chiffre d'affaires trimestriel sur une année glissante est tombée en dessous des 20%, à +18%. Elle s'inscrit sous les 30% depuis les résultats de fin juin 2012, alors que la croissance des revenus est déjà montée jusqu'à plus de 80% en mars et en juin 2011. Les seuls trimestres durant lesquels Apple a fait moins bien, ces cinq dernières années, étaient le T4 2008, le T1 2009, et le pire, le T3 2009, au plus fort de la crise.

La baisse de la profitabilité. Certes, le bénéfice du dernier trimestre, 13,1 milliards de dollars, égale le record établi il y a un an. Mais cette stabilité peut également être qualifiée de stagnation. Et comme elle s'accompagne d'une hausse de 18% des revenus, cela signifie mathématiquement que la profitabilité de l'entreprise s'est dégradée. La marge brute perd un peu plus de 6 points sur un an, à 38,6% contre 44,7%. Et Apple estime qu'elle devrait encore légèrement reculer au premier trimestre 2013. C'est un signe extrêmement négatif pour les investisseurs. Une des raisons des records enregistrés par le titre en Bourse était justement cette insolence des marges, par rapport à celles des concurrents (Apple capte environ 70% des profits du marché des smartphones). 

Il y a plusieurs explications à cette baisse des marges

Forbes indique que les revenus par iPad vendu ont chuté de 17,3% sur un an, à 470 dollars, alors que le revenu par iPhone (les smartphones représente 56% du chiffre d'affaires) est resté relativement stable, et que les revenus par iPod et par Mac ont augmenté. Les ventes de tablettes ont progressé de 48,1% en volumes, à 22,9 millions d'unités sur le trimestre. Mais cette croissance ne rapporte donc pas autant qu'auparavant.

Est-ce la faute à l'iPad mini ? La firme ne divulgue pas la répartition des ventes de tablettes. Mais, contrairement aux informations qui circulent dans la presse, Apple avait précisé en octobre dernier que la marge de son iPad mini était "significativement en dessous" de celle des autres produits de la marque. Par ailleurs, la marge brute des iPad est estimée par l'analyste Horace Dediu à 28%, contre 48% sur les iPhone.

Les ventes de Mac

Elles sont en recul de 16% par rapport au trimestre précédent et de 21% sur un an à 4,1 millions d'unités. En cause : des retards d'approvisionnement, et la cannibalisation par les tablettes, confirmée par Tim Cook. Cependant, ce dernier se veut rassurant. "Je vois la cannibalisation comme une immense chance pour nous", a-t-il dit. "Nous avons la plus grande des opportunités parce que le marché de Windows est bien, bien plus gros que le marché des Mac. Il est clair qu'il le grignote déjà en partie. Je crois toujours qu'il viendra un temps où le marché des tablettes sera plus gros que celui du PC." "Si vous vous souvenez de ce que nous avons appelé 'l'effet de halo' pour l'iPod sur les Mac, nous sommes persuadés qu'il se passera la même chose avec l'iPad", a-t-il ajouté, rapporte AllThingsD.

La croissance du bénéfice par action A +7% alors qu'elle tournait depuis juin 2012 autour de 20%, elle n'était pas descendue si bas depuis le T3 2009.

Les bons indicateurs qui recèlent des inquiétudes

La croissance des ventes d'iPhone et d'iPad. Les ventes ont augmenté, mais pas autant qu'elles auraient dû. En effet, Tim Cook a acté les retards de livraison et de production qui ont empêché Apple de répondre à la demande. Ces difficultés concernent l'iPad mini, l'iPhone 5, mais aussi l'iPhone 4. C'est un double souci : la logistique fait défaut, et, de plus, la demande pour l'iPhone 4 semble plus soutenue que prévu. Les consommateurs préféreraient-ils payer moins cher plutôt que posséder le dernier né de la gamme ? C'est un mauvais signal envoyé au marché sur les capacités d'innovation de la marque. Les nouveaux produits Apple sont moins désirables qu'avant. Et le groupe n'a pas détaillé les chiffres de l'iPhone 5, seule façon de répondre aux doutes d'une partie de la presse.

Les réserves de cash. Elles s'élèvent désormais à 137,5 milliards de dollars (+ 16 milliards de dollars sur 3 mois). A titre de comparaison, le chiffre d'affaires annuel de Samsung avoisine les 180 milliards... Mais d'une part, 45 milliards en trois ans seront distribués aux actionnaires via des rachats d'actions et le versement de dividendes. D'autre part, c'est bien d'être assis sur un tas d'or, mais les investisseurs préféreraient connaître les intentions de la firme quant à son utilisation. Si l'innovation ralentit, il sera peut-être temps de songer à investir davantage en R&D ou de faire quelques acquisitions bien ciblées.

Par Raphaële Karayan

Jan. 24, 2013, 3:26 p.m. EST

Apple’s next challenge: finding a catalyst

Analysts say new products could reignite the battered stock

By Dan Gallagher, MarketWatch

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — As Apple Inc. faced its latest harsh selloff Thursday, analysts turned their focus to new products that might revive interest in the heavily battered stock.

Reuters

Analysts believe Apple needs a lower-end iPhone — cheaper than the 5 and 4S models — to address new markets.

Those products exist only in rumor and speculation at this point, as AppleAAPL -2.36%  is famously tight-lipped about plans for upcoming devices. CEO Tim Cook said on a conference call Wednesday that the company’s planned pipeline is “chock full” for the year, but he gave no further detail.

Expectations are mixed for new Apple products this year. The company essentially redesigned its entire lineup in late 2012, with the iPhone, iPad, iPod and even iMac getting significant refreshes. That suggests this year may see more modest updates, with existing designs getting better chips and software without major physical overhauls.

That said, expectations are growing for a new iPhone that could appeal to low-end customers in developing markets. Also, rumors still abound about Apple’s launching its own TV set at some point this year. And some believe the company needs to address the market for larger smartphone screens that has been dominated by Android-powered devices like the Samsung Galaxy.

APPLE: FULL COVERAGE
• Apple's fall triggers circuit breakers
• How Apple ate Wall Street
• Are older iPhones a gateway drug?
• Apple shares held in 5,000 funds worldwide
• Why Apple is worth less than Netflix
• Will Apple lose Wall Street's support?

“This spring, Apple should be readying a bevy of new products and services — and when the builds for these products become known, shares may act a lot better,” wrote Ben Reitzes of Barclays in a note to clients Thursday.

Reitzes maintained an outperform rating on the stock but slashed his price target by 22% to $575. He wrote that while the recent selloff “has tested our patience, we will evaluate Apple from here based on whether these products and services create the kind of excitement we are used to.”

The most commonly held expectation is that Apple will launch a low-end iPhone appealing to more price-conscious customers. The iPhone 4 — currently available for free with a two-year contract in the U.S. — is still a big seller but is believed to be still too pricey as far as its build cost is concerned, given its aluminum-and-glass body and high-definition screen.

Brian Marshall of ISI Group wrote that a low-priced iPhone “is paramount to financial re-acceleration” for Apple. He cut his price target by 15% to $600 but still rates the stock as a buy. He believes Apple could roughly double its penetration rate of the lower-end market with such a device, he said.

AAPL 439.88, -10.62, -2.36%

800

700

600

500

400

A

S

O

N

13

“We believe the end result would be price elasticity kicking in and driving a new phase of revenue/earnings re-acceleration, and Apple shares would likely get their ‘mojo’ back,” he wrote.

Tavis McCourt of Raymond James cut his price target to $600 from $690. He said that while his current forecast “assumes no Apple TV, no new iPhone models, and no early launch of 5S, it is a possibility that all three may happen this year.” He rates the stock outperform.

“Management’s reaction to the slowing growth, and how it addresses new markets (balancing growth vs. cannibalization) will determine if in retrospect Apple proves to be a ‘value trap,’ or in a slowing period before a re-acceleration catalyzed by new market entry,” he wrote.

Increased competition from larger-screen smartphones cost the company at least one supporter Thursday, when Peter Misek of Jefferies & Co. downgraded the shares to hold, citing in part his belief that “Apple is losing the screen-size wars,” with demand “moving away” from the iPhone and toward larger screens in the neighborhood of 5 inches.

Click to Play

How does Apple re-energize?

A look at current iPhone popularity and how Apple can re-energize its stock.

More rumors have surfaced of late that Apple may be looking at a larger-screen iPhone, possibly in the so-called phablet category — a name given to devices whose sizes fall between those of phones and tablets. Apple made the iPhone 5 screen larger then its predecessors without increasing the width, though many of the popular Android smartphones are notably larger.

Asked about this distinction on Wednesday’s call, Cook defended the design of the iPhone 5, adding that “we put a lot of thinking into screen size and believe we’ve picked the right one.”

In his own note to clients, Stuart Jeffrey of Nomura said that while the expected iOS7 update in June or a launch with China Mobile could help the stock, the impact of either is far from certain.

• Need to Know: Crucial gut checks before the U.S. markets open

“This leaves only a $300 iPhone or a premium iPhone as likely catalysts,” he wrote, cutting his price target to $490 from $530 and maintaining his neutral call. Unfortunately, he added, the former is likely to dilute average selling price and margin, while Cook’s comments “undermined our confidence in the latter being launched.” 

Dan Gallagher is MarketWatch's technology editor, based in San Francisco. Follow him on Twitter @MWDanGallagher.

Jan. 24, 2013, 4:25 p.m. EST

Apple rocked by cuts, trips circuit breaker

Analysts slash price targets, estimates following lackluster results

By Dan Gallagher and William L. Watts, MarketWatch

Reuters

Apple CEO Tim Cook with the Foo Fighters at the iPhone 5 media event last September. The stock peaked above $700 soon afterward before beginning a sharp slide that has erased about 35% of the company’s market value.

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Shares of Apple Inc. slid more than 12% Thursday, having tripped a Nasdaq circuit breaker earlier as analysts rushed to cut their price targets for the once-favored company, following a lackluster earnings report.

By the closing bell, Apple AAPL -2.36% had shed 12.4% to rest at $450.50, down more than $63 from the previous close. That put the stock back to its level from last January — effectively erasing the entire year’s gains that saw the shares run up to $700 by late September only to come crashing down in the final weeks of the year.

APPLE: FULL COVERAGE
• Apple's fall triggers circuit breakers
• How Apple ate Wall Street
• Are older iPhones a gateway drug?
• Apple shares held in 5,000 funds worldwide
• Why Apple is worth less than Netflix
• Will Apple lose Wall Street's support?

While the results late Wednesday came roughly in line with Wall Street’s estimates, the forecast disappointed analysts who have already been worried about slowing demand for the company’s flagship iPhone. See: Apple shares tumble on results, forecast

At least two have downgraded the stock to neutral ratings, though nearly 80% of the covering brokers still rate the shares as a buy. Most analysts still bullish on the shares are pointing to expected new products that may re-ignite interest in the company. Read: Apple's next challenge: Finding a catalyst

“We think Apple is losing the screen-size wars as demand is moving away from the iPhone’s 3.5”/4” and more toward ~5”,” wrote Peter Misek of Jefferies & Co., who cut the stock to a hold rating and slashed his price target to $500 from $800. He called the slowdown in iPhone sales “real and material.”

Several others cut back their price targets on Apple’s shares on Thursday in response to the report.

“Momentum is a powerful thing, both on the positive and negative side, and it is tough to try to call a bottom in Apple’s negative stock momentum,” wrote Toni Sacconaghi of Bernstein Research, who trimmed his target to $725 from $750.

Several analysts made more drastic cuts, though most retain their buy ratings on the stock. At least 30 analysts cut their targets on Apple following the report, with the average reduction totaling about 15%, according to data from Thomson Reuters.

Gene Munster of Piper Jaffray cut his target to $767 from $875, citing Apple’s gross-margin forecast for the March quarter that remained below the 40% level that most investors were hoping to see.

“Given new guidance, it appears highly likely that gross margins will be down sequentially in March despite coming off of a launch quarter,” Munster wrote. “The implication of a down sequential gross margin from a launch quarter fuels fears that gross margins will be structurally different than they have in the past.”

Click to Play

Should iPhone fans fear Google?

Apple recorded a flat profit despite selling 18 million more iPhones and iPads, as it spent heavily to roll out new products to fend off intensifying competition. MarketWatch columnist John Shinal reports.

Before the report, the highest price target on Apple was $1,111, set by Brian White of Topeka Capital Markets. He cut his target to $888 on Thursday, citing the decline in Apple’s share price, but adding that he believes “there is quite a bit of bad news priced into the stock at current levels, while estimate resets lower the bar for the future.”

For the December quarter, Apple reported flat earnings growth on an 18% gain in revenue. IPhone shipments of 47.8 million units came in at the low end of analysts’ forecasts — though still a quarterly record for the company following the launch of the iPhone 5 in late September.

The company’s forecast was also a concern, as Apple projected a revenue range of $41 billion to $43. Analysts had been looking for revenue of $45.6 billion. The company predicted a gross margin range of 37.5%-38.5% for the March quarter.

Bill Choi of Janney Capital noted that “results and conservative guidance will fuel additional competitive concerns around iPhone,” leading him to trim his estimates and cut his price target to $610 from $745.

“While Apple shares may be under pressure over the intermediate term, we believe long-term fundamentals remain intact, and we continue to believe Apple will leverage its ecosystem and innovate on new products,” he said.

Steve Milunovich of UBS cut his price target to $600 a share from a previous $650, while maintaining his buy rating. He called the stock “oversold,” and added that the stock “needs a catalyst, which may come with new products in the June quarter.”

Click to Play

Learning from Apple and Netflix

Investor reaction following Apple and Netflix's earnings reports say more about Wall Street than it does about either company.

Citigroup, which downgraded Apple to a neutral rating earlier this month, cut its price target to $500 from $575.

“We suspect Apple’s results will do little to assuage investors’ concerns about share and profitability,” wrote Glen Yeung of Citi in a note to clients. While he predicted that Apple would likely launch new products this year, including a lower-end iPhone, he said risks would likely remain in focus.

“With so many uncertainties, now supported by falling consensus estimates, we believe investors will continue to focus on risks in the Apple story, limiting share appreciation,” he wrote.

Sacconaghi of Bernstein kept his outperform rating on the shares, noting that “sentiment is low, valuation is compelling, and several potential catalysts exist,” adding that “at some point, the cash has to matter,” adding that Apple has about $145 per share in cash on its balance sheet. 

Dan Gallagher is MarketWatch's technology editor, based in San Francisco. Follow him on Twitter @MWDanGallagher.William L. Watts is MarketWatch's European bureau chief, based in Frankfurt. Follow him on Twitter @wlwatts.

CHUCK JAFFE Archives | Email alerts

Jan. 25, 2013, 3:09 p.m. EST

Apple investors should stop whining

Commentary: Long-term investors should expect ups and downs

By Chuck Jaffe, MarketWatch

No one complains about volatility when it works in their favor.

A 1,000-point loss on the Dow Jones Industrial Average might panic investors, but a 1,000-point gain — the same percentage move, just in a different direction — would not ring their alarm bells.

BEST OF MARKETWATCH

Here's the one other story that  you can't afford to miss today 

Likewise, few people blinked when AppleAAPL -2.36%    was reaching a 52-week high above $700 per share last year.

Now that the stock has dropped below $450—with some analysts saying it could be headed well below $400—people are complaining, wondering how their mutual-fund managers left them so exposed to a stock this volatile.

The answer is hardly surprising. The question investors face, however, is, “What do you want to do about it?”

The buildup was virtually inevitable as Apple climbed the ranks of the world’s largest companies. At its peak, the company by itself represented about 4% of the Standard & Poor’s 500. Apple accounted for more than 20% of the NASDAQ-100 before a rebalancing last spring brought the level down temporarily.

No one complained, because not only were they benefiting from the stock’s run, but return numbers for the S&P 500 and other indexes paled when presented with Apple’s benefits removed. Quarter after quarter, you could find graphs of the S&P’s earnings versus the previous year, and more than half of the growth for the 500 stocks was created just by the biggest one.

Now, however, the worm has turned. Apple is down roughly 40% since it peaked last fall, and it dropped more than 12% just on Thursday alone.

APPLE: FULL COVERAGE
• Apple's fall triggers circuit breakers
• How Apple ate Wall Street
• Are older iPhones a gateway drug?
• Apple shares held in 5,000 funds worldwide
• Why Apple is worth less than Netflix
• Will Apple lose Wall Street's support?

Suddenly, if your funds hold “too much” Apple, you have concerns that didn’t exist during the stock’s run-up.

And chances are that your funds do own Apple. According to researcher Lipper Inc., 22.5% of all equity funds regardless of type—domestic, international, sector—hold Apple shares. Of the 1,119 Apple holders as of their most recent portfolio reporting, Lipper says that 117—slightly more than one-in-10—have at least 10% of their total assets in Apple stock. Ouch.

Proof of the reversed fortunes: The S&P 500 is up about 5% year-to-date, but its results would be much better without Apple.

Fund investors looking to lay blame are pointing squarely at managers who let positions build up, even if they didn’t complain when too much Apple worked in their favor. While they have some alternatives to consider, the truth is that they might not like the choices all that much.

“You’d hope that someone managing a fund would address these issues of volatility — versus buying a passive issue where it is determined by the index—where they have the choice of letting a stock run or backing away from it,” said Geoff Bobroff, an industry consultant in East Greenwich, R.I. “But when investors themselves can make a choice to do something that reduces the impact of any one stock by going with an equal-weighted or volatility-weighted index, they don’t like those results either all the time.”

Indeed, with Apple struggling, expect to hear a lot about equal-weighted indexes—where each stock is held in equal measure and the portfolio is regularly rebalanced to guard against the run-ups or drop-offs — or benchmarks that are volatility-weighted, where each holding is held in an amount that based on risk rather than market capitalization.

To see how that stacks up, consider that the two biggest S&P 500 stocks — Apple and Exxon Mobil XOM +0.42%   — make up close to 8% of the portfolio. whereas the top two holdings for the new Compass EMP U.S. 500 Enhanced Volatility Weighted fundCUHAX +0.64%   are Johnson & Johnson and Southern Co. SO +0.54%  , which make up less than 1% of the portfolio combined.

Click to Play

How does Apple re-energize its stock?

George Stahl takes a look at current iPhone popularity and offers some tips on how Apple can re-energize its stock.

The issue is that index constructions aren’t really about making calls on the market — they’re entire investment strategies. A low-volatility fund, for example, is based on the idea that low-volatility issues can deliver superior results over time. It’s about capitalizing on an anomaly created when all of the action is going into highfliers like Apple.

But a low-volatility fund investor or an equal-weight indexer would have found their returns lagging last year, while Apple was still going gangbusters. Today, they’d be feeling vindicated.

“Switching between low- and high-volatility strategies is just a grotesquely inefficient form of market-timing,” said Morningstar analyst Samuel Lee, who follows low-volatility strategies. “The only persuasive reason to own low-volatility strategies is because you believe the ‘low-volatility anomaly’ will persist.”

Added Bobroff: “Ultimately, this is one of those cases where if you didn’t complain when your funds were rising because of Apple, you have no one to blame but yourself, because you could have seen this coming.”

“If this recent drop-off has some investors worried, then maybe they should look at overlap and portfolio concentration,” Bobroff added, “but long-term they still have big gains to show, and they would not have wanted to miss out on Apple’s run-up, so maybe it shows them that sometimes you have to take the bad with the good to get the best long-term results.” 

Chuck Jaffe is a senior MarketWatch columnist. His work appears in many U.S. newspapers. Follow him on Twitter @MKTWJaffe.