“On Monday, Morgan Stanley analyst Katie Huberty lowered her price target on Apple from $192 to $179 citing general weakness in the ‘global macro-economic environment,'” Andy Zaky writes for Seeking Alpha.
“She also lowered price targets on other computer hardware makers including: Dell (DELL), EMC (EMC), Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), IBM (IBM), Adtran (ADTN), Airvana (AIRV), Alcatel-Lucent (ALU), Cisco Systems (CSCO) and several others,” Zaky writes.
“If this isn’t a case of the pot calling the kettle black, then I don’t know what is. Not because of the recent financial turmoil facing Morgan Stanley per se, but because of the fact that Katie Huberty has been the worst analyst on Wall Street when it comes to forecasting Apple’s financial situation. For example, in calendar Q1 (Apple’s Fiscal Q2), Katie Huberty provided the worst estimates on Wall Street almost across the board citing nothing but general weakness in the economy as she did today. She missed the mark so badly that a fifth grader could have probably done a better job predicting Apple’s fiscal second quarter using nothing more than sheer guessing,” Zaky writes.
“As indicated in the table below, Huberty estimated that Apple would only sell 8.5 million iPods despite the fact that NPD data suggested that Apple would sell closer to 10.5 million units. Why and on what basis she would make such a foolish estimate is anyone’s guess. Almost every analyst on Wall Street was looking for Apple to sell between 10 and 10.5 million iPods using data to support their estimates instead of pure baseless conjecture that Huberty seems to employ. Needless to say, Apple reported 10.644 million iPods in fiscal Q2; a full 2.1 million units or 25.2% ahead of Huberty’s estimates. Better analysts such as Gene Munster or Mike Abramsky hit the mark as they always seem to do,’ Zaky writes.
Zaky writes, “Even worse than her iPod estimates was her forecast for iPhone sales.”
There’s much more in Zaky’s full article — highly recommended — here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “David J” for the heads up.]
MacDailyNews Take: To call Huberty the absolute “worst” on AAPL is debatable with so many other “analysts” vying for the title; but Zaky does present a strong case.
Just another “legal” attempt to manipulate the AAPL price, ladies and gents. Nothing to see here.
What is ironic is that since no correlation seems to exist between Apple’s success and it’s stock price, she may end up being right.
Hey, LET her push it (Apple share price) down to under 120 while we have a so so reason to do so. I need a few more shares at a low price. LOL
I am looking for a good 2009 and the more Apple stocks I can get cheap today, the better “Apple hits 200” will look in 2009.
Just a thought.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
en
Er..Morgan Stanley…didn’t they just lose billions and got bought out by someone?
Not too sure if I want to take their advice.
“Better analysts such as Gene Munster or Mike Abramsky hit the mark as they always seem to do”
I don’t recall Munster having a price target for Apple of $130 a year ago. Always being overly optomistic is as bad as always being overly pessimistic.
@Not Good
Fact is, Munster and Abramsky have been right about Apple’s financials a lot more often than they have been wrong.
The only positive I can think of is that one Morgan Stanley analyst had the specs for the iPhone release a few days before, spot-on. I can’t remember if it was Huberty, but it was a female MS analyst.