Rodney Avilla on Mark Gurman: What no more net-cash-zero means for John Ternus - 'My concern is that China may change that scenario.'
on Mark Gurman: What no more net-cash-zero means for John Ternus - 'I find this exciting. The only reason not to do buybacks is because you have something better to do with the money. That’s the implicit promise Ternus is making: I can deploy the cash to make Apple bigger, better, stronger, to do more for its customers and to earn more for its shareholders. Or to put it another way, let’s make a bigger dent in the universe. Given all that Apple has already accomplished, that stance is bold (or, if it turns out to be wrong, dangerous). Given the track record, I have a lot of faith that this alternative deployment, to grow the business before growing investors’ wallets, will turn out well for everyone. Well, for their competitors maybe not so much.'
on This week's Apple trading strategies (5/4-5/8/26) - 'The worst performing equity among the Terrific 10 names measured by share price performance year-to-date is Microsoft. The shares are down over the period by 14.36%. This includes Friday’s $6.17 gain to $414.20. CFRA just reiterated a strong buy rating on the stock and raised its price target to $480. Morningstar has a 5-star rating on MSFT with a Fair Value Estimate of $600.'
on Mark Gurman: What no more net-cash-zero means for John Ternus - '” move away from using TSMC.” I think that would be a mistake. TSMC is indisputably best in class. It would take a long time to replace a vendor that doesn’t need replacing.'
on Mark Gurman: What no more net-cash-zero means for John Ternus - 'My suspicion is that Apple plans to build its own semiconductor fabrication plants in the US, and move away from using TSMC.'
on This week's Apple trading strategies (5/4-5/8/26) - 'If and when those AI servers need to be retired in 3-4 years, wonder who might reharvest all of the memory chips for reuse or resale?'
on This week's Apple trading strategies (5/4-5/8/26) - 'So Apple’s capex is a fraction of hyperscaler spend cause they aren’t going gangbusters for memory chips that are now more expensive due to hyperscaler demand. And what happens when that hardware depreciates during the next upgrade cycle? Will the hyperscalers have to float more debt? Or will AI run so efficiently that they will soon be regurgitat in profit? We know, however, that Apple’s profit potential will increase over the coming years, in spite of all this. Just thinking out loud.'
on Asymco's Horace Dediu: Services is the foundation - 'I’d love to see a forecast of these sales as Apple customers start utilizing applications that include features provided by the Foundation Models Framework for on-device services that don’t require cloud-based access.'
on $185 billion later, Warren Buffett asks Tim Cook to take a bow (video) - 'Good answer Greg. It seems that Laura latched on to the story that Apple lost AI to the CAPEX intensive hyperscalars. We may find that foundation models, like the fiber build-out which was also CAPEX intensive, commoditize. We learned from that boom/bubble/bust/recovery cycle that the winners were those who built on top of the infra, not the suppliers of infra.'
on This week's Apple trading strategies (5/4-5/8/26) - 'After Thursday’s report, I am more bulllish today than I was on Wednesday. Fundamentally reasons: 1) supply constrained Mac Mini and MacBook Neo (and it seems like Mac Studio as well, but I haven’t gotten to that article yet)imply good continuing sales into the June Quarter. 2) a “smarter” (but how smart?) Siri will be good for overall sales, iPhone in particular, but also potentially this rumored “home” device. 3) only 30% of iPhones being upgraded (I take this to mean that ther are still 70% of them out there waiting for an upgrade (I know mine is ready). 4) With WWDC yet to come in June, I think the September quarter could get a bump (extending beyond June quarter). 5) December quarter yet to be reckoned, but I think it will be really good. I think Martin is coming to very incorrect conclusions.'
on $185 billion later, Warren Buffett asks Tim Cook to take a bow (video) - 'Laura is just one of the Lamealysts who don’t get the Apple story.'
on $185 billion later, Warren Buffett asks Tim Cook to take a bow (video) - 'Does anyone else find it odd that Laura Martin from Needham with her profound bear outlook on Apple wasn’t able to deter Berkshire from their heavy investment in Apple? Or is it just me? Or possibly, Berkshire listened to Laura and sold out of half of their Apple position at prices in the $160 to $185 range. At any rate, a toast to the “Farmers” on Apple 3.0 who truly understand Apple better than anyone else outside of the “C” Suite and ignore the noise from the uninformed talking heads and other assorted Wall Street Analysts who proffer continuous doom and gloom for Apple quarter by quarter..'
on Mark Gurman: What no more net-cash-zero means for John Ternus - 'Each of (Alphabet, Apple) have been the target of regulators. Closer integration or joint ventures by these two would ring really loud alarm bells in antitrust departments everywhere. Lobbyists from the other Big Tech companies would be parked in regulator/legislature offices. Apple is absolutely the victim of its success. We can decry both the motivations (“all big tech is evil”) and the actions (“Other companies should have access to Apple’s customers”), but ignoring the risk puts our heads in the sand (which leaves our asses hanging in the air…) I’m particularly disgusted that “Big Regulation” (my neologism for the set of bureaucrats and politicians who have targeted Apple….) sees NO Value for consumers/the general public from Apple’s unique emphasis on privacy.'
on Mark Gurman: What no more net-cash-zero means for John Ternus - 'Also, Fred, since buybacks, something like $800-900 B in free cash flow has been generated by Apple. For comparison, less than $150 B has been generated by Nvidia over the same time period, although lately they’ve finally matched Apple’s quarterly free cash flow. And as a result, every AAPL share that was bought and held from pre-buybacks 12 years ago now owns approaching twice as much of a much bigger and still growing Apple Inc. I agree that Apple buybacks won’t be going away anytime soon. But I do think the handwriting’s on the wall for that cash going elsewhere as the years roll by.'
