“He’s probably the most notorious Apple bull on the Street, but Gene Munster’s upside expectations for Apple stock (AAPL) are eye-popping, even for him,” CNBC reports. “His price target is $607.”
“$607? Considering the stock was slightly below $400 at the time of writing that’s a big move,” CNBC reports. “But Munster is resolute.”
CNBC reports, “‘I’m expecting shares to be driven by new product roll outs,’ he says. ‘In 2012 there will be new hardware on iPads and iPhones and we believe a new Apple TV is coming late in the year.’ …And equally important, Munster is expecting Apple to do something with all that cash they have on the balance sheet. ‘By next year, Apple will have $120 in cash and they’ll have to do something,’ he says. ‘I don’t think they’ll buy back but I do think they’ll issue a one time dividend.'”
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Arline M.” for the heads up.]
Munster has had that price target on AAPL since August 4 of this year
Yes, but Munster readjusted his TOST analysis for current PBAJ. His BACN chart shows the kind of the FENL vectors more characteristic of AAPL in 2005 than in 2011.
Good news for investors!
But his eieio graph is incorrect. Analyst Sr. MacDonald had that nailed…
squiggles, you often post verbose acronym laden financial commentary. I generally just skim past them, but this one was short and the PBAJ and BACN acronyms appeared suspiciously humorous. So, I attempted to look up your four acronyms on the internet, both individually and in combination with Gene Munster. I found nothing for TOST, PBAJ, BACN, or FENL.
It sounds more like a fancy recipe for a sandwich: peanut butter and jelly with bacon on toast with shaved fennel. What’s up with the extraordinarily obscure attempt at humor?
kingmel, I’m sure that’s just one of those internet hiccups. Munster is a widely covered analyst and usually googles quite high. Are you sure you spelled “Gene” with a “G”?
I always thought it was very amusing because most of these analysts spout nothing but garbage and meaningless words. I think squiggles commentary is very appropriate. Most of these analysts talk all fancy like there’s some logic behind their words. Quite far from the truth. Gene Munster has been spouting Apple garbage for years. Some he gets right, many he gets wrong.
Surely even you must realize that giving Apple a price target of $607 is absolutely ridiculous. Apple stock is going practically nowhere (mostly due to factors out of Appl’s control). If it were, it certainly would have moved by now. Instead it’s not even back to the $420 range where it was months ago. If there were ever a decently performing company stuck in the quicksand of Wall Street, that would have to be Apple. $607? Gimme a break. How about holding $425 for more than just a few days before plummeting back to below $400?
Hmm, sad that a company so large has only $120 in cash.
That’s for NEXT year. Which implies that Apple must hurry, and launch a spending spree of biblical proportions! : )
D’Oh! What happened!? And we all thought Apple was doing so well… Oh well easy come easy go. 🙂
Don’t turn up your nose at $120!
$120 would buy a pretty nice dinner for two (with wine).
Just think of the morale booster that would be for two lucky employees!
I just thought this was great news for the value of the dollar.
@Mark….WOW that made me laugh! I’m hoping for that 50 Cent dividend I’ve been dreaming about…
Your dividend is on the way. You will be shot nine times, but live to tell about it.
@ Janeshepard- Isn’t that the Fitty Cent dividend??
Apple could spend half its cash and buy T-Mobile.
Aack! Why on earth do that? Let Sprint be saddled with the infrastructure update costs…
Apple is a boon to consumers but an enigma to investors because they are motivated to make the best products they know how to make, not just to make money. Strangely enough, this philosophy makes them the most profitable consumer electronics company on the planet. Investors just don’t seem to get it!
It’s positively a sad low for industry when a company tries to build the best products possible for consumers and Wall Street slams the idea as a waste of money, time and effort. Instead, WS pushes companies like Amazon for trying to push cheap devices on consumers. I’ve never aspired to junk. Maybe I couldn’t always afford the best, but that was due to my lack of earning power and I certainly never patted myself on the back for getting second- or third-best.
I just made due with what I could afford. Telling companies to lower their prices for in-demand high-quality products makes no sense at all to me. They set a standard and that’s what it is. That’s it. If I want it, it’s up to me to go find a way to earn it.
As a shareholder, I’m glad that Apple is building the best products it can for consumers even if it hurts the share price. I also buy Apple products and I don’t want them to spare any expense on quality or customer support. So what if they don’t reach every consumer. There’s nothing wrong with that. Everyone can’t afford everything.
I live in NYC and although I see a lot of Android devices, you wouldn’t believe how many teenagers I see with iPhone 4s (I can’t tell the difference between the 4 and 4S). Maybe they didn’t buy it themselves but to say that iPhones are unaffordable is just plain crap.
For Laughing Boy. Some people drive a Yugo. Some people drive a Lexus. Apple stock is up from $6 to $400 in a decade. It appears to me that growth is accelerating. The outlook for this quarter is astonishing.
$600 a share target price is great. When will the market actually move there is the real question. Apple is so under valued. If Apple was a different company the stock would have been over this target 3 years ago. Why is Google priced so high? Apple’s stock price should be where Google is today and Google’s stock price should be where Apple is today. The stock values don’t make any sense at all.
The actual share price is meaningless when you make a comparison like that (to Google, or another company) because the number of shares each company has outstanding is arbitrary.
To make a direct comparison like that you should be looking at Market Cap, and that’s:
AAPL $370.52 billion
GOOG $204.37 billion
So Apple is way out in front.
(But yes, still way under-valued.)
I would love my shares in increase 50% in value. Will it happen? Who knows given the economic turmoil and stock market manipulation.
Please no dividend. Rather a buyback. It’s better taxwise.
Just the mention of a buyback would drive up AAPL. Apple would only have to authorize a certain amount for a buyback – it wouldn’t actually have to spend it all. Just authorize it and keep it on hand to buy below a specified level. That would kill the short speculators for sure.
I don’t require a dividend, but I can see why investors might want a dividend to bring in value investors that only invest in companies that give out dividends. I’ve heard that would bring some new blood in to boost Apple shares. It would work even if it were just a small dividend.
More than a dividend I just want to see a 30% or so increase in Apple’s value over the next year. 50% is just asking for too much and I don’t think it’s possible. Sorry.