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 : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric Yang who wrote (18651)	9/29/1998 12:23:00 PM
From: Phillip C. Lee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213182

<<There are a hand full of insightful analysts that monitor AAPL closely such as Lou Mazzuchelli from GKM, Andrew Neff from Bear Stearns, Jimmy Johnson from AG Edwards...etc. Unfortunately too many analysts have been clueless about AAPL and behave like a bunch of sheep. At least the herd is finally turning.>> The question is if their announced estimates are too far from the reality (obviously AAPL is a good example), are they going to get fired? Unfortunately, the answer is no. At most, they said to themselves "Oops, I miss the target", which they could repeat the same mistake again and again. If they were Rocket or Missile scientists, they were fired long time ago. I just wonder maybe I should switch from my science/engineering position to Wall Streets job since they don't require that much accuracy. Phil

To: Eric Yang who wrote (18651)	9/29/1998 12:34:00 PM
From: Richard Habib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213182

First, the fact that the major brokers have managed to screw up 3 qtrs should give you pause that they will manage to screw up another qtr. When a pattern this simple develops - when making money in a stock becomes this routine it's wise to become quite paranoid. Simple patterns don't normally exist for any length of time. Second, I doubt that the .49 estimate is that important. While not that many analysts follow the stock, a much larger body of institutional investors are following the stock and it's likely that the whisper number will be quite a bit higher. If Apple fails to make that number or fails revenue or other benchmarks that the street's collective opinion is looking for, the stock will be punished. Third, Apple will probably not get a flock of upgrades anytime soon. It's already priced with other computer manufacturers, after this qtr it will only have a short track record of 4 profitable qtrs behind it and for the foreseeable future it's long term outlook will always be problematic since it's arrayed in the streets mind against the Wintel industry - arguably the most successful industry in history. Apple did get a bit of institutional buying this morning. Saw a 50,000 and a 36,000 share block that looked to be on the buy side. Rich

To: Eric Yang who wrote (18651)	9/29/1998 2:05:00 PM
From: Alomex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213182

I believe the reason why analysts were so far off with their estimates in Q1-Q3 98 was primarily due to their inability to forecast margin accurately. In Q1 98 margin jumped by 2.6% to 22.4% due to the intro of G3. That was what made the difference. In fact we agree. It is just that you consider cost only as "adm. cost" whereas to me cost cutting means chopping everything from R&D to the specific cost of manufacturing a system as compared to the price (aka. margin). I'm not an accountant, so I might well be using "cost" in a nonstandard way, but that is what I meant: sales & G/A, R&D, manufacturing, inventories, personnel.