“While there were a couple of negative reports today on Apple (AAPL), most of the flow of coverage continues to be largely positive,” Tiernan Ray reports for Barron’s.
“Brian Blair with Rosenblatt Securities reiterates a Buy rating on Apple, and a $130 price target, writing that ‘we believe there is continued upside driven by significant iPhone unit upside for both the December and March quarter,'” Ray reports. “Blair, who’s modeling 72 million iPhones to be sold in the December quarter, thinks that after reviewing the likely production rate of the phone, ‘Apple continued to experience a ‘supply/demand’ imbalance for iPhone in nearly all of the 110+ markets it launched the iPhone 6 in, as we exited the year.'”
Ray reports, “Timothy Arcuri with Cowen & Co. reiterates an Outperform rating, and a $113 price target, modeling a similar 68 million units and 52 million for the March quarter, which are ‘great numbers’ but ‘expectations are now also a lot higher. Net, we see no reason to increase our $113 target.'”
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “David E.” for the heads up.]
don’t really want to comment directly on this analyst as analysts pro or con for apple are often off base (if not downright trying to manipulate the stock for their own gain).
what I’ll like to say is that watching Apple I think that Tim Cook had ridden successfully past the ‘hand over phase’ after the passing of Steve Jobs. The first few years was consolidation and change (management changes like promoting Ive, hiring Ahrendts, consolidating iOS and OSX teams etc). We are just seeing the new fruits of what this morphed organization can do , and if iP6 is any indication Apple moving forward is going to be very strong, stronger than these analysts estimate.
Even good analysts have to base their projections on ‘models’ based on how companies are ‘supposed to perform’. We’ve heard of how analysts have said ‘companies seldom have more than one revolutionary hit product like iPod’ or ‘companies have to adhere to law of large numbers’ or ‘one company can’t defeat many competitors selling the same type of product’. Apple keeps turning accepted business theories like that on their head. Apple is forging new ground on how business is done and analysts using theories promulgated for other companies can’t get a grip on it.
Sure there are hiccups like Yosemite issues but the general trend is positive and Apple rivals like Samsung, Goog Glasses, WinPhone are collapsing. I see bright lights ahead for Apple.
Predict the future. Predict the future. Predict the future. When will these people get a real job? You can take a room full of analysts, 10 are -1, 10 are +1. Add them all up? ZERO! Enough. Let the data speak for itself.
Here’s The Daily Chortle from CNBC. Henry Blockhead was prattling on about how the Xaiomi (or however it’s spelled) “iPhone Killer” will do just that because – get ready – it’s cheap. Yup Apple needs to be shaking it its boots because this Chinese company has made a nice-looking, cheap knockoff of the iPhone. That’s all. It will kill the iPhone because it’s cheap and looks good.
John Forte was incredulous at Blockhead’s assertion and even Carl Quintanilla note that the anti-Henry Tweets were cascading in as they spoke.
I think CNBC has Blockhead on simply as a hit-whore or comedic foil.
Anybody with a brain would know that it’s a Samsung killer, not an iPhone killer. Apple will not be affected by this, it’s just going to create a redistribution of the market share amongst iPhone copiers.
People buy iPhones because they really are iPhones. If somebody is thinking of buying a Samsung copy of an iPhone, they would be seriously tempted by a cheaper copy of an iPhone.
There have been copies of iPhones available since soon after the iPhone was released, but iPhones are selling in rapidly increasing numbers. Dividing the iPhone clone market between multiple vendors means that none of them can benefit from the economies of scale that Apple enjoys, therefore their products are less profitable.