Recent Comments

  • David Thall on USBC upgrades Apple to Buy from Hold and raises target $106 to $366 - '“Raises target from $106-$366“ … in one shot? Excuse me if I’m being a little snarky, but this begs for it. Despite all the rationale that he may be giving, analyst Nicolas Cote-Colisson is raising his target for one reason and one reason only. If he doesn’t raise it, he looks like an idiot. And by raising his target by such a whopping number all at once, indicates what a truly magnificent idiot he is. I mean, this is an analyst whose judgment has been so lousy for so long, the only reason anyone’s paying attention to him is because he suddenly found Jesus? Seriously, an analyst like this one – to be generous – should seriously consider finding another line of work. Because for useful investing advice, at least regarding Apple, he is totally irrelevant to the conversation. Except maybe as an object lesson to other analysts… about what not to do. Or… let me put it this way: as one of the world’s most insightful observers of human behavior once said: “He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot, but don’t let that fool you. He really is an idiot.” -GROUCHO MARX'
  • Ben Gepp on USBC upgrades Apple to Buy from Hold and raises target $106 to $366 - 'And to that end Gregg, when the analyst all of a sudden wakes up and has a brain fart that perhaps Apple might be worth more than $260, rather then saying, “well if the stars align you could add on another, say, 30 bucks an be in the vicinity of $400”. They prognosticated a precise $31 to make their wild arse guess look a little more serious… Well if it spruiks the market… I’m all good, but at the same time I’m not fooled by the smoke and mirrors of their WAGs.'
  • Joseph Bland on USBC upgrades Apple to Buy from Hold and raises target $106 to $366 - 'Thanks, Michael? (he said, hesitantly…)'
  • Michael Goldfeder on USBC upgrades Apple to Buy from Hold and raises target $106 to $366 - 'The most plausible reason for this substantial upgrade can be put into very simplistic terms. I believe that HSBC analyst Nicolas Cote-Colisson was seated at the bar last Saturday at the Pro Bono Cafe in Palo Alto. While everyone else screaming and shouting at the World Cup Match that was on the multiple television screens, there was a lone gentleman that move toward the end of the bar to be closer to where the Apple 3.0 dinner was being held in the special events room. I noticed he kept opening the door wider to hear what was being said, especially while “Jerry” was recording the informative words being spoken by “Sacto Joe” regarding the future of Apple from his perspective. Jerry wanted to play that video for his group of Apple investors when he returned home from Palo Alto. What other reasonable explanation could there be to have a sudden $106 bump up in the stock price? No doubt HSBC analyst Nicolas Cote-Colisson has been a long time lurker on PED’s Apple 3.0 platform and was a ware of this upcoming dinner.'
  • Miguel Ancira on USBC upgrades Apple to Buy from Hold and raises target $106 to $366 - 'So, my broker asked me if I wanted to sell some covered calls. Just for S&G, I asked him what the prices were. He said $10 per share with a strike price of $350 on Jan ‘27. I said I was not interested, and also, he just told me what I knew, that the market thinks the shares are going over $360 by January. Mind you, this was BEFORE the shares climbed from $314 to $333.'
  • Joseph Bland on USBC upgrades Apple to Buy from Hold and raises target $106 to $366 - 'BTW, did Kit Norton somehow get a copy of Horace’s story “Why all-in and why all are in”? It would explain why the change from Hold to Buy. THAT was a serious and shocking enlightenment even for me! If there was a Pulitzer for Apple analyst, Horace would win it, hands down. Folks need to start reading him….'
  • Joseph Bland on USBC upgrades Apple to Buy from Hold and raises target $106 to $366 - 'Well, I’ve been saying $350 for years now… #;^) Seriously, though; if AAPP holds its present valuation and EPS goes up 20% a year from now, then (40X$8.24X1.2=) $395.52/share….'
  • Joseph Bland on Saturday Apple video: Lemmings (1985) - 'Pages, Numbers, and Keynotes. Macintosh Office Lives on! Yes, there is life after Microsoft.'
  • Rodney Avilla on USBC upgrades Apple to Buy from Hold and raises target $106 to $366 - 'And who has the highest price target here on Ped 3.0? 😉'
  • Gregg Thurman on USBC upgrades Apple to Buy from Hold and raises target $106 to $366 - '” What is the “blue sky scenario” that raises the target to $397?” The “blue sky scenario” is the financial industry recognizing Apple’s long history of exceeding estimates. $397 looks awfully similar to Ives’ long held estimate of $400.'
  • Charles A. on USBC upgrades Apple to Buy from Hold and raises target $106 to $366 - 'From the thestreet.com article: The bank also outlined what it calls a blue-sky scenario, which adds another $31 per share beyond the base target if both the product cycle and AI execution land better than expected.'
  • Fred Stein on USBC upgrades Apple to Buy from Hold and raises target $106 to $366 - 'We’ve seen this before, analysts following the market up, w.r.t. AAPL PTs. And the market follows the thought leaders here at Apple3.0.'
  • Ben Gepp on USBC upgrades Apple to Buy from Hold and raises target $106 to $366 - 'What is the “blue sky scenario” that raises the target to $397? $31 add on is a very specific amount. “Blu sky” is very ambiguous. Am I missing something?'
  • David Emery on USBC upgrades Apple to Buy from Hold and raises target $106 to $366 - 'Anyone sitting at $260 has NOT BEEN PAYING ATTENTION. So that makes their latest number highly suspect. What’s their track record?'
  • Steven Philips on USBC upgrades Apple to Buy from Hold and raises target $106 to $366 - 'He may be slow, but “By Jove I think he’s got it!” “Blue skies! Nothing but blue skies…”. 🙂'
  • Steven Philips on Apple at $333.74: Third all-time high in as many days - 'Somehow, reading Joe’s last two paragraphs brought to mind one of my favorite Dylan songs. It ends: “ The moral of this story, the moral of this song Is simply that one should never be Where one does not belong. And if you see your neighbor carrying something Help him with his load. And don’t go expecting paradise From that home across the road.”'
  • Steven Philips on Saturday Apple video: Lemmings (1985) - 'It applies to sooo many things. The ad is a variation of “Think Different”.'
  • Joseph Bland on Apple at $333.74: Third all-time high in as many days - 'Hi Bill. Yep. My favorite: “Apple preserved its shareholders’ wealth because they focused on their customers.” What Horace pointed out elsewhere in his stellar analysis is that “Free cash flow is wealth and it belongs to shareholders.” This is why I’m happy I signed up for Asymco One. What a pleasure reading Horace! And that “Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft and Oracle decided to transfer their shareholders’ wealth to the shareholders of Nvidia, Micron, Broadcom and Applied Materials”. Pretty darned simple, really. And pretty darned damning.'
  • Bill Donahue on Apple at $333.74: Third all-time high in as many days - 'The last two paragraphs perfectly summarizes the story of what’s been going on with and in AI for the last two years!'
  • Bart Yee on Apple at $333.74: Third all-time high in as many days - 'Now HSBC analyst upgrades AAPL to new $366 price target: https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/hsbc-upgrades-apple-stock-price-target-ahead-of-earnings'
  • Joseph Bland on Premarket: Apple was red, turned green - 'Why did AAPL go green and the options houses have to pony up? 63.33. That’s the number of trades today, a little under 9 M shares traded over the average.'
  • David Emery on Apple analysts argue the stock round and flat (video) - 'I agree (and have been saying here for several years) that the primary risk to Apple the company is regulatory attacks. And the more Apple is successful, the bigger the target it gets for regulators (particularly those who start with the proposition that “big is inherently evil,” including but not limited to EU.) Apple is one of those stocks that rises before earnings, and drops like a rock afterwards, in the best tradition of ‘buy rumors, sell news.’ But that’s OK. People who like options can ‘play the pattern.” The rest of us can just ignore it and watch the general trend for compares (particularly comparisons to the same quarter previous years, because a lot of Apple’s business is cyclical.) In the meantime, ignore the ANALysts and talking heads.'
  • Joseph Bland on Apple at $333.74: Third all-time high in as many days - 'From Horace today: “Why all-in and why all are in” “Take all my money, please.” “…In other words, why all-in and why all are in. Of course, there is one anomaly: Not “all” are in. Apple is not all-in and it’s the only one of the Magnificent 7 that is conspicuously hedging on this wealth transfer. Apple may be the anomaly that answers the paradox. The reason Apple stayed out will not be found in the “wise manager theory” of avoiding failure. Apple preserved its shareholders’ wealth because they focused on their customers. (Yes, quite an anticlimax.) They did not have data centers to serve ads and sell capacity to businesses. They did not assume that customers’ data is a commodity to be traded. They worried about privacy and quality of experience. They had to convince each buyer to decide to buy individually. In other words, they had a very simple business model: sell things to people who decide to buy because it works for them. But it required a complex execution. They had an integrated business: from retail to distribution to manufacturing and all the way to silicon. They did not sit only at the top of the stack. They sat at the bottom of the stack too. And in the middle. They were aware of the power of silicon and of hardware and of operating systems, APIs, design and everything in between. Having this perspective on their own business and customers, making all-in bets on a single technology that may be vulnerable to rapid commoditization3 seemed unwise. When everyone was throwing everything at “infrastructure” they looked at their own infrastructure and asked what the big deal was. When all the “compute” spending went to Nvidia, Apple asked why can’t we just build our own, 1000x more processors? When projections of infinite revenues were made Apple asked where it would come from and how will it be segmented and justified and how exactly will consumers benefit and pay for it. The head scratching was seen as foolishness or foot dragging or fatal delays but it was genuine prudence. The more alone Apple was the more it was accused of stupidity. Au contraire! The suspicion should have been on the “group” making wild bets not on the skeptic sitting on his hands. Always be suspicious of beliefs in miracles and especially of any consensus in them. But that is how markets work. Overreaction is axiomatic; disillusionment guaranteed.”'
  • John Konopka on Apple analysts argue the stock round and flat (video) - '@Richard A few years ago an opinion piece in The Economist compared Apple to IBM saying both had staying power because of their mission statements. Neither is wedded to a particular product or technology. IBM’s mission is to bring technology to business so they could transition from typewriters to computers to quantum computing and other things. Apple’s mission is to bring technology to consumers so they could transition from Macs to iPods to iPhones to whatever comes next. They have said that there is no fear about cannibilizing any product. Better they do it than a competitor.'
  • Michael Goldfeder on Apple at $333.74: Third all-time high in as many days - 'Look at all that green right after the Apple 3.0 dinner.'
  • David Drinkwater on Apple at $333.74: Third all-time high in as many days - 'I’m both surprised and super excited that AAPL held its ground on a Friday after such significant gains. Go Apple, go AAPL!'
  • Steven Philips on Apple analysts argue the stock round and flat (video) - 'But maybe, as Shel (Uncle Shelby) Silverstein once sang, “It does not pay to be too hip.” 🙂'
  • Neal Guttenberg on Apple analysts argue the stock round and flat (video) - 'Hey John, I agree. It is always about the guidance. Less so about results these days. But as Apple is very pricey these days, results may matter more than before. I would add a couple of things that could go wrong. First, as Apple continues to succeed, it will invite more regulatory scrutiny. I think this is probably the biggest thing for Apple to continue to navigate. Still a possibility is that Apple could lose its way with the hardware and or software. Like the gnashing of teeth that they had with the Siri problem a couple of years ago. Maybe they don’t do a good job with the foldable or with future iterations of the Apple Vision Pro. I am not saying these things will happen. But they are all potential landmines that a company like Apple will have to try and avoid.'