Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mohan Marette who wrote (137014)	7/19/1999 10:52:00 AM
From: D.J.Smyth	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 176387

An interesting post on Oppenheimer/Apple analysis from another person: (it makes one wonder about the Dell/Oppenheimer analysis.) macweek.zdnet.com Friday, July 16, 1999 RFI Report: Mickey Mac vs. bears By Robert Morgan I don't want to start an analyst death match (even though I know who would win), but the Apple perma-bear analyst at CIBC Oppenheimer has maintained an "underperform" (read "sell") recommendation and rating on Apple since it was trading under 19. If the clients of CIBC Oppenheimer had religiously followed the analyst's advice, they would have missed out on 300 percent to 400 percent gains on Apple while suffering continuous and repeated losses by selling Apple short and/or writing/buying put options on Apple since at least July 1997. That's the historical record, one that the financial and general media don't bother to check when they give any attention whatsoever to his man-bites-dog commentaries and downgrades on Apple. For what it's worth, the CIBC Oppenheimer analyst -- and the firm that supports his ratings -- have been 100 percent wrong on Apple for two years. Several months back, Recon For Investors (RFI) commented on the mysterious disappearance of CIBC Oppenheimer's bearish "underperform" rating on Apple only to see it raise its head again after Apple posted its 3Q earnings. The firm's justification: purported concerns over slowing sales. If I wanted to blow away any concerns about Apple's prospects for its 4Q and 1Q, I would make public the lengthy analysis RFI did on Apple's 3Q earnings. Suffice it to say that "concerns over slowing sales" are sheer twaddle. (It's like when I took on Mr. Alsop over the fact that there would be no "consumer version" of Mac OS X, nee Rhapsody, about two years ago. Last I checked, OS X Server is shipping and Mac OS X Consumer is on its way.) As far as the real accuracy of CIBC Oppenheimer's stance vis-a-vis Apple: I won't ask you to take it on faith. Pick and choose whichever market source you want. Personally, RFI prefers Apple Recon's public readership to use Big Charts.com, but you can select your own source. Do me a personal favor and select a chart that reflects Apple's performance from July '97 to date. That's about the time RFI reversed its "trading sell" to a "trading buy" and CIBC Oppenheimer's analyst offered his first iteration of what is known in brokerese as "sell" recommendations. See what Apple has done since then and then compare it to that analyst's continued bearish recommendations. Can't windshield-wipe a chart, can you? I wish the financial and general media would take a look at this kind of history before giving credence to an analyst's man-bites-dog-type comments and recommendations. Without the benefit of the history-obviating Windshield-Wiper Effect, the media and The Street would have given that report as much attention as they would to someone who stated that Disney was going to buy Apple and Pixar and have Steve Jobs replace Michael Eisner as chairman. Yet, Apple's share price was affected the day before expiry because of bearish comments by an analyst who has been 100 percent wrong on Apple for the past two years. Go figure. ...(more posted after this but I was only interested in the Oppenheimer portion)