“Case in point: Apple (AAPL), and the quarterly report it issued Monday afternoon. Apple management gave ample warning that it wanted to change its accounting procedures under the rules revised last fall — recognizing iPhone revenue when it comes in, rather than spreading it out over 24 months (see The day Apple released its revenue bomb),” Elmer-DeWitt reports.
“Yet nearly half the professional analysts we polled missed the boat entirely — never bothering to publish estimates for the so-called non-GAAP (generally accepted accounding procedures) numbers that pushed Apple’s revenue to a record $15.68 billion in its first fiscal quarter of 2010,” Elmer-DeWitt reports.
“And those who did were all over the lot, getting as many calls wrong as they got right,” Elmer-DeWitt reports. “None of the professionals hit as close to the mark as our three favorite independent analysts: Turley Muller, Andy Zaky and the blogger who calls himself deagol.”
Check out the numbers in the full article here.
Analysts….
Bunch of bozos.
They should all get to work for Microsoft.
Oh, they do?
and from Turley, Andy and deagol you get their amazingly accurate aapl analysis for free vs. thousands of dollares for ignorant, uninformed reports from the analyst’s companies. i don’t get it. why is still anyone listening to them let alone paying for that crap?
“…and the blogger who calls himself deagol…” For some reason, that’s just funny. All those blowhards out there, plus assbags like Enderle, and some guy with a blog out-does all of them. Ha.
Analysts are wrong?? No freakin way
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
What about Goldstein?
Tell me: if you or I were so off the mark with our assessments in our jobs, how long would we stay employed? And how much do they pay these frigtards? From what I hear, some make more in a year than many of us will our entire careers. Yet, what they write can move markets, and make or break publicly traded companies. Add to this the fact that all analysts are of course above suspicion, and never have conflicts of interest. And of course, they always have your best interests at heart. Right.
What is wrong with this picture? Does it even dawn on the analysts how much a disconnect there is between Wall $treet and Main Street?
as I said in another thread—
I would not weep if the analysts were to be smothered with the rags of the homeless. 🙁
“The worst [estimate] came from … Morgan Stanley’s Katy Huberty (10.1%).” Hmmmmm. Image that!
If the independents are really that good, they should have done as well for other companies as well. Did the independents make predictions for other companies (oh, say, MSFT, Google, Intel, maybe even non-tech)? If so, how well did they do against the other analysts for those companies? If they didn’t do as well, maybe the independents “get” AAPL in a way the others don’t, and that’s all there is to it.
Hard facts, please; not more of the same old vitriolic speculation.
Woo! Blog power! Power to the ppl!
“If the independents are really that good, they should have done as well for other companies as well. Did the independents make predictions for other companies (oh, say, MSFT, Google, Intel, maybe even non-tech)? If so, how well did they do against the other analysts for those companies? If they didn’t do as well, maybe the independents “get” AAPL in a way the others don’t, and that’s all there is to it.”
As a member of TMO’s AFB, where Deagol’s predictions are freely available, I don’t give a rat’s behind how they did on other stocks. I invest in Apple because there is no better place to put any of my money. Our collaborative effort on AFB has made a few of us into millionaires. Those with less “cajones” have merely gotten very well off. If you took the bullish advice at AFB in 2003 and simply bought and held you have seen a 3600% profit. If you’ve jumped in and out of options as several of us have done you’ve gotten a few 5 baggers. Yes, some of us have guessed wrong from time to time, but the overall analysis there has been light years ahead of the likes of Huberty, Kass, and Sacconaghi.
I this case, the fact that most of these so-called “analysts” and tech journalists are clueless, when it comes to Apple, was a good thing. Their estimates were mostly lower because they did not account for the GAAP changes, and (again) not accounting for the GAAP changes, announced how Apple’s Q1 results had smashed their estimates and how Apple was guiding higher than their projections for Q2. And that’s what most of the general investing public heard.
The other great thing for Apple is that they are still benefiting from the 2-year subscription-based revenue of iPhones (and Apple TVs) sold before last quarter. For the next 21 or so months, there will be significant monthly revenue recognized from iPhones that were sold long ago, even as Apple fully recognizes the revenue from new iPhone sales. I’m sure the same analysts will fail to take that into consideration.
And the market still doesn’t get it. Conservative revenue predictions for Apple in 2010 are $11.50 per share. At a share price of $207 that’s a P/E ratio of 18. What is Google’s P/E? What is Rimm’s P/E? When Apple gets back to a *CONSERVATIVE* P/E of 25 the stock price will be $287.50. That will happen this year barring any stupid moves by the banks or the fed.
@Ken1W:
The YoY and M2M comparisons are “Apples to Apples”, if you’ll excuse the pun. Apple restated the last 7 quarters of revenue before making any comparisons. So all comparisons were made with numbers generated by using the same accounting rules. People are already purposely confusing the issue by suggesting that the numbers would be much lower except for the accounting change. That’s BS.