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: Andrew Danielson who wrote (18675)	9/29/1998 7:45:00 PM
From: Andrew Danielson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 213182

Another iMac article mercurycenter.com This one brings up some interesting new information. First, it states that analysts believe iMac margin is roughly 20%. It does not state, however, which analysts think that or on what basis they do. Still interesting, though. If it's true, then even my 24.8% estimate sounds high. In fact, a quick rough calculation suggests something like 24.1% net margin if this is true. That would reduce my current estimate to .59-.60. A few more tidbits from the article: They put the advertising number at $150 million. I seem to recall $100 million. What's up there? Repeats the notion that analysts are expecting 400-600,000 iMacs shipping by end of year. But words from Mazzucchelli suggests he may have upgraded his estimates again. First, he estimated $400 million in iMac revenue for Q4 (he also predicted $1500 million total revenue). Then he says Apple might ship 450,000 iMacs in Q1. That adds up to almost 800,000 iMacs by year-end, higher than his most recent revised estimate. Incidentally, I find Lou's numbers rather questionable. By suggesting $400 of the $1500 million revenue as coming from the iMac, he is by extension implicating a huge decrease in sales of other Macs--a supposition that flies in the face of the market data out there suggesting a 20% increase in sales. Overall, one of the most balanced articles I've read in a while. Makes the Washington Post front-page spread look pathetically biased (which it was). Andrew

To: Andrew Danielson who wrote (18675)	9/29/1998 8:20:00 PM
From: Alomex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213182

on what basis do you suggest that analysts receive sales data or market studies faster than the press releases? Why should market research firms care about analysts? On the basis that market studies are done for companies and analysts. Who else did you think pays for them? We get to see them a few days later and in condensed form only. Summaries are released to the press to entice third parties to buy the whole report.