“We’re not sellers, and we have been sellers in the past. We legitimately have a Neutral rating on it.”
From CNBC’s “Apple’s iPhone supply meeting demand so far, says Goldman Sachs’ Hall” which aired Thursday:
Goldman Sachs’ Rod Hall joins ‘Squawk on the Street’ to discuss Apple’s increasing ability to meet customer iPhone demand. Hall also discusses why Goldman maintains a neutral stock rating on the company.
My take: The clip stops just before Hall delivered what I thought was his best sound bite: “AR is vaporware.” Can’t disagree with that.
He acts as my “tell”- every he states, I believe the opposite!!
http://sites.nd.edu/communism-spring-2015/files/2015/01/khrushchev-and-shoe.jpg
Why? His contribution is sub-zero.
And he can’t read US iPhone demand because he has no way of assessing wireless carrier sales?
I’m not sure his analysis has any actual data or depth to it.
“Weak”.
https://fortune.com/2015/06/05/apple-goldman-sachs/
The fact he’s still employed by GS raises SERIOUS ethical concerns about GS as a company. I think Tim Cook should refuse to deal with GS. Let’s consider the possibilities:
(1) he’s grossly incompetent and GS doesn’t care enough to monitor and then fire him.
(2) he’s part of a plot within some part of GS to manipulate either stock price or stock purchases by outside investors.
Others?
This business is all about being right and getting (alpha) returns. Their track record on the essential objective of their craft provides the most graphic and compelling explanation of the magnitude of their failure.
iPad / iPhone / Android eliminated 75% of the PC market (WAG – correct me if that’s BS). And who replaces TV’s every 1-5 months years?
Just assinine comments from Hall here.
Like a standup comic with perfect timing, he supplies a punchline for a media circus desperately in need of one.
AKA: Send in the clown.
Either old man Sachs knows something we don’t, or doesn’t know something that we do. Based on Rod Hall’s famously inaccurate AAPL analysis, what’s the difference?