Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Apple. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Apple. Afficher tous les articles

jeudi 29 août 2013

a little fun @ Apple ...


Comment Apple pourrait dépenser son magot de 146 milliards de dollars ?

Le pécule d'Apple ne cesse de croître de façon extraordinaire. Mais que pourrait donc faire le groupe américain de tant d'argent ?
Si l'on se fie aux comptes du groupe au dernier trimestre, Apple possède 146,6 milliards de dollars de cash et de titres à court et long terme. Apple a ainsi généré 7,8 milliards de dollars de cash au cours du seul dernier trimestre, qui est traditionnellement le moins rémunérateur de l'année pour lui. Et la marque à la pomme redistribue une grande partie de son argent sous la forme de dividendes et de rachats d'actions.
Mais comment Apple pourrait faire un usage plus intéressant de ses bénéfices ? Voici quelques-unes de nos idées :
 La force de vente d'Apple comporte environ 41 000 employés à travers le monde. L'entreprise pourrait donc se permettre d'accorder une prime exceptionnelle de 3,5 millions de dollars à chacun de ces employés.
 Apple serait en mesure d'offrir un iPad Mini à chaque citoyen américain.
Apple est en mesure d'offrir un iPad Mini à chaque citoyen américain
 Tout le monde s'accorde à dire qu'Apple devrait s'impliquer davantage dans le social media. Il pourrait le faire aisément en rachetant en un clin d'œil des géants tels que Facebook (98 milliards de dollars), Twitter (20 milliards de dollars ?) ou encore LinkedIn (26 milliards de dollars).
 L'entreprise pourrait également racheter Amazon, qui dispose d'une capitalisation boursière de 128 milliards de dollars. Pourquoi racheter Amazon ? Pour le plaisir et pour s'amuser.
 Elle pourrait également s'offrir HP (43 milliards de dollars) ou Dell (24 milliards de dollars) et leur faire mettre la clef sous la porte pour s'accaparer leurs parts de marché.
 Apple cherche à révolutionner le concept de la TV, n'est-ce-pas ? Dans ce cas, pourquoi ne pas racheter les grands producteurs d'émissions télé : Time Warner (56 milliards de dollars), CBS (29 milliards de dollars), Twenty First Century Fox (30 milliards de dollars).
 Mais en réalité, Apple n'est pas vraiment intéressée par la création de contenu. Le groupe devrait tout simplement racheter Comcast, dont la capitalisation boursière s'élève à 109 milliards de dollars). Elle pourra ensuite améliorer son logiciel et ainsi proposer une offre de télévision câblée sans précédent.
Pourquoi ne pas racheter TSMC pour pouvoir fabriquer ses propres puces et ne plus dépendre de Samsung ?
 A l'échelle mondiale, elle pourrait sans problème acheter 4 Big Macs à chaque habitant de la planète !
 Puisque la marque à la pomme s'intéresse aussi au marché automobile, pourquoi ne pas racheter Tesla, qui vaut 20 milliards de dollars, ou encore Ford (62 milliars de dollars) pour ensuite concevoir une iCar ?
 Apple pourrait s'offrir n'importe quelle équipe de la NFL, de la ligue majeure de baseball ou de la NBA. Cela lui permettrait d'obtenir gratuitement les droits des matchs pour les diffuser sur l'Apple TV.
 Enfin, Apple déteste avoir recours aux produits de Samsung. Alors pourquoi ne pas racheter le premier fabricant mondial de semi-conducteurs, TSMC (capitalisation boursière de 84 milliards de dollars), pour pouvoir fabriquer ses propres puces et ne plus dépendre de Samsung ?

Article de Jay Yarow. Traduction par Joséphine Dennery, JDN.

dimanche 11 août 2013

about dividends ... @ Fool

10 Incredible Dividend Facts You Probably Didn't Know


By August 7, 2013

Dividend-paying stocks are everywhere today, but if we've learned anything as investors, it's that no two dividend stocks are ever alike.
Conjured up by businesses early on in the stock market's existence, dividends were a way to reward shareholders for sticking with a company by sharing profits with them on a quarterly, semiannual, or annual basis. Whether you realize it or not, dividend income has been a steady source of investment growth for generations of investors.
Today, I'd like to share you with you 10 dividend facts that I've come across through my own personal research that demonstrate the power, growth potential, and also dangers associated with investing in dividend-paying stocks.

Source: Andrew Magill, Flickr.
1. Apple  (NASDAQ: AAPL  ) , which holds the record for the highest market valuation in history, only began paying a dividend in August of last year after a 17-year dividend hiatus, but it is expected to pay out $11.08 billion in dividends over the next four quarters -- assuming it keeps its dividend steady. To put that all-time record annual payout into another perspective, Apple's annual payout is higher than the current market cap of 176 of the S&P's 500 components. In one year, Apple will give out more cash to shareholders than Best Buy,Southwest Airlines, or Alcoa is currently worth!
2. There are few things that income-seeking investors like more than buying into companies that have paid a dividend for decades or longer. The reason is that a steady history of payouts often establishes to investors the health of a business model. Only a handful of currently traded companies have paid out dividends for longer than 100 years, and I can find no company that has paid dividends in a concurrent manner for longer than the Bank of Montreal (NYSE: BMO  ) , which has been divvying out dividend payments since 1829! 
3. Sticking with the theme of longevity, dividend investors also love a company that has a history of boosting its dividend. Only a handful of companies are elite enough to join what's referred to as the Dividend Aristocrats club -- those companies that have raised their dividend for 25 or more consecutive years. No company, though, is more elite than ATM and security systems manufacturer Diebold (NYSE: DBD  ) , which earlier this year increased its dividendfor a record 60th consecutive year.
4. With interest rates at arguably the lowest levels on record, the thirst for high-yield investments has boiled over since the recession into the mortgage-REIT sector, which has thrived on low lending rates. Over the past four years, agency-only mREIT American Capital Agency (NASDAQ: AGNC  ) frequently yielded close to 20%. But what I find truly incredible is that if you add up American Capital's dividend distributions over the past 20 quarters (five years), it comes out to $25.85 per share. With the stock valued at only $22.51 per share as of yesterday's close, shareholders have been given a 115% dividend payback just since the summer of 2008.
5. However, smart dividend investors know that it's not always about chasing the highest-yielding stocks. In fact, that strategy can often backfire in a big way because high-yielding stocks can sometimes mask low return on equity or a lack of long-term strategy with those hefty dividends. According to CBS MoneyWatch, over the past 60 years, the worst one-year, two-year, and three-year returns for strategies that involved buying solely high-yield stocks resulted in losses of 36.3%, 39.7%, and 33.6%, respectively. Comparatively, for five-year U.S. Treasuries over the same three time periods during the past 60 years, the worst returns were negative 5.1%, negative 1.7%, and positive 1.6%. If anything, this demonstrates once and for all that yield isn't everything.
6. Dividend payouts today are certainly a lot different than they were at the beginning of last century. As Foolish macroeconomic guru Morgan Housel has noted on multiple occasions, dividend payout ratios today are considerably lower now than they were during the higher-growth periods of the early 1900s. The difference in yield between the two periods within the broad-based S&P 500 as calculated by Robert Shiller is undeniable.

Source: Robert Shiller, Irrational Exuberance. 
In 2000, when the dot-com bubble burst, the S&P 500's yield amounted to just 1.16%. By contrast, in 1932 during the Great Depression, the yield on the S&P 500 jumped to a whopping 9.52%! 
7. Dividends have historically played a gigantic role in creating wealth for investors in the United States. In Susanna Kim's owns words from an ABC News report, "Of the S&P 500′s nominal total return from 1910 to 2010, dividend yield and dividend growth comprised 90 percent [of] returns for stock holders." I've certainly come across differing figures in other reports, but the message is the same: Compounding long-term dividend growth is a key driver of wealth appreciation.
8. Despite what might seem like relatively low yields and a modest payout ratio compared to the early 1900s, a rebounding U.S. economy compounded with the possibility of higher dividend taxes in 2013 created the perfect storm for big corporate dividend payouts in 2012. In fact, not accounting for inflation, last August saw U.S. companies pay out an all-time record $34 billion in cash stipends, according to Barron's. There's likely a higher figure out there if adjusted for inflation, but $34 billion is certainly nothing to sneeze at.
9. Dividend breadth -- the difference between the number of positive dividend actions in a given year as compared to negative dividend actions -- tends to be at its highest immediately following a recession (i.e., the recovery period). According to data from S&P Indices since 1999, dividend breadth hit a low in 2009 of 1.48 when 1,191 companies boosted their dividend and more than 800 reduced their payout. On the other end of the spectrum, 2004 saw dividend breadth hit a high of 37.06. Coming out of the dot-com bubble, 2,298 companies raised their dividend while just 62 saw their payouts fall that year. This may offer even more proof that long-term investing works, because those investors who attempt to try to time the market would likely miss out on the gains associated with these dividend hikes so shortly after the recession.
10. Last, but certainly not least, the effective tax rate on corporate dividends around the globe is about as wide-ranging a figure as you'll find anywhere. Among G-10 countries, Japan offers the lowest dividend tax rate of just 10%, while France taxes payouts the hardest at roughly 40%. If you're looking for a true dividend safe haven, look no further than Iran. No, your eyes aren't deceiving you, I really did say Iran. Iran does not tax dividend income, and only within the past three years began taxing capital gains. 



APPLE (AAPL)

454,45 USD 
-1,42% | -6,56 
 09/08/2013 22:00









BANK OF MONTREAL (BMO)

61,84 USD 
+0,21% | +0,13 
 09/08/2013 22:02








DIEBOLD INC COM USD1.25 (DBD)

30,55 USD 
-0,81% | -0,25 
 09/08/2013 22:01










AMERICAN CAPITAL AGENCY CORP COM STK USD0.01 (AGNC)

23,11 USD 
-0,43% | -0,10 
 09/08/2013 22:00






samedi 26 janvier 2013

Ma Pomme ...


APPLE (AAPL)

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








Behavior Gap

Headlines Making You Feel Anxious?

January 24, 2013

Forest for the Trees
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?

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

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.
“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.

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.
“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.
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.”

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.”

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

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.
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.
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.

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.