Apple under promises, over delivers, under promises, over delivers, under promises, over delivers…

“Apple (AAPL) and CFO Peter Oppenheimer have a history of being conservative with their guidance. Listen to a conference call, or read a transcript and you’ll hear repeated remarks about forecasts the company can ‘confidently meet.’ It’s like a lawyer that won’t ask a question in court without first knowing the answer; similarly Apple seems incapable of making a projection without being sure it will come true,” Seth Gilbert writes for Seeking Alpha.

“The history tracks back quarter after quarter… By now one would think the markets would be used to it. It’s an obvious enough pattern: first Apple gives conservative guidance about future earnings. The economy, a product shift, a parts shortage…something, warrants more caution. Next, the numbers come: conservative projections are blown away by stellar earnings that probably shouldn’t have been a surprise. Then, lest expectations get too lofty, the upside of the stellar earnings is tempered with another round of conservative guidance. It’s the Apple M.O., the ‘Oppenheimer effect’: Apple’s way of under promising, over delivering then under promising again,” Gilbert writes.

“Last quarter in the earnings call Peter Oppenheimer was crystal clear. He told analysts, ‘[Apple is] giving very strong guidance. We are very confident we will achieve it.’ And guess what, that’s exactly what they did. This second quarter, the wording isn’t much different. In forward guidance for Q3, Apple is projecting revenue of $7.2b and earnings of about $1.00. Those numbers seem a little low, and it’s likely they will be,” Gilbert writes.

Much more in the full article – recommended – here.

Please note that Oppenheimer said in the conference call, “Looking ahead to the June quarter… we are targeting revenue of about $7.2 billion, or approximately 33% growth over the prior June quarter… We expect to generate EPS of about $1.00.”

“About $7.2 billion. About $1.00 EPS.” Reports that exclude the “about” are incorrect. Apple is not guiding “$1.00 EPS,” they are guiding “about $1.00 EPS.”


  1. As an investor, You’re a sucker if you rely on any companies Forward looking statements. AAPL under Peter Oppenheimer makes sure that all forward looking statements are conservative. As Oppenheimer sees it conservative is what accounts are and should be.

  2. Mr. Jobs, would you pass this along to Mr. Gore? Thanks.

    Ethanol was initially promoted as a vehicle for America to cut back on foreign oil. In recent years, biofuels have also been touted as a way to fight climate change, but the food crisis does not augur well for ethanol’s prospects.

    “It takes around 400 pounds of corn to make 25 gallons of ethanol,” Mr. Senauer, also an applied economics professor at Minnesota, said. “It’s not going to be a very good diet but that’s roughly enough to keep an adult person alive for a year.”

  3. Ethanol is not the answer but extracting the alcohol does not ruin the part of the kernel that is useful for food stuffs and animal. This issue is economic. Ethanol drives the price up. Cheap food has bee the cornerstone of American economic success

  4. @ ron

    This from wikipededia:
    Current, first generation processes for the production of ethanol from corn use only a small part of the corn plant: the corn kernels are taken from the corn plant and only the starch, which represents about 50% of the dry kernel mass, is transformed into ethanol. Two types of second generation processes are under development. The first type uses enzymes and yeast to convert the plant cellulose into ethanol while the second type uses pyrolysis to convert the whole plant to either a liquid bio-oil or a syngas. Second generation processes can also be used with plants such as grasses, wood or agricultural waste material such as straw.

    Like all good technology, early attempts are typically inefficient but are improved upon. A bit like the iPod one could say.

    We need to look into all alternatives for energy. Just because it isn’t perfect it doesn’t mean we should not use it and learn how to improve the process. We’re killing the planet and we will need many different approaches to solving the issues.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.