Goldman Sachs: Stay the course on Apple despite negative chatter

Shares of Apple rose “after Goldman Sachs’s Simona Jankowski reiterated a Buy rating on the stock, and a $170 price target, noffing that Apple’s earnings report on August 2nd contains the prospect for ‘volatility,’ but that investors should ‘stay long’ the stock given the next iPhone can ultimately pay off next year in higher profit,” Tiernan Ray reports for Barron’s.

“The issue with the August report is not the results of the June quarter but rather what Apple may offer for its outlook for the September quarter’s revenue, writes Jankowski,” Ray reports. “She sees three possible ranges for forecast revenue, indicating three possible scenarios.”

“One possible range for the September quarter, writes Jankowski, is for $51 billion to $53 billion, above the $50.5 billion consensus, which Jankowski believes would imply the iPhone is ‘launched’ on September 22nd,” Ray reports. “Another possible scenario is that it doesn’t launch until September 29th, which would lead to a revenue outlook of $48 billion to $50 billion. That’s the most likely scenario, she thinks. But if revenue is forecast below $48 billion, it could imply the iPhone comes out in October instead.”

“But reasons to stay the course include the larger installed base of iPhone users versus prior ‘super cycles’ for the device, writes Jankowski,” Ray reports. “She estimates the installed base of iPhone users is now at 700 million, more than twice the 300 million total in 2014 when Apple put the iPhone 6 on sale.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: The Mother of all Supercycles looms:

Supercycle

SEE ALSO:
Apple to release Q317 earnings, webcast live conference call on August 1st – July 6, 2017

Foxconn report shows why the rampant negativity in Apple should be ignored – July 12, 2017
Apple hits iPhone 8 ‘panic mode’? Get real – July 12, 2017
Apple in a ‘panic’ as next-gen flagship iPhone’s software problems persist – July 12, 2017
John Gruber: Apple’s wireless charging accessory won’t be ready at iPhone launch this year – July 8, 2017
Apple supplier confirms new iPhone models will be ‘waterproof’ with wireless charging – June 14, 2017
Jim Cramer on Apple: Wait out the sellers – June 16, 2017
iPhone 8 renders from highly detailed CAD file point to glass back, embedded Home button, wireless charging – May 16, 2017
Apple’s next-gen iPhone to pack revolutionary wireless over-the-air charging at a distance? – May 11, 2017
Apple patent application focuses on truly wireless charging via Wi-Fi – April 27, 2017
Apple has at least five different groups working on wireless charging technology – February 23, 2017
Apple joins Wireless Power Consortium – February 13, 2017
Apple’s ‘iPhone X’ to feature wireless charging and iris scanning technology, sources say – February 10, 2017
KGI’s Ming Chi Kuo predicts wireless charging for all three new iPhones – February 9, 2017

17 Comments

  1. Of course Goldman was the one selling Custom CDO and betting against their own customers back before the market imploded. A huge chunk of the TARP money used to bail out AIG was used to cover Goldman’s ass. Then they got direct TARP money and years at the Fed’s Money For Nothing Discount Window.

    Pardon me if I was skeptical of anything these used car salesmen were peddling.

      1. You mean the Bush bailout or Obama one? Both were bipartisan congressional bills, yet you as usual put all blame or praise (with typical partisan illogic) onto the executive. It was amusing to watch corporate welfare be championed by both parties, and almost a decade later the partisan spin continues as if one side was in any way better than the other in fiscal matters.

        People like botty just prove every day that you Yanks really are ripping yourselves apart. No need to reply with an attack, botty. You have never won a debate here and haven’t convinced anyone new to join your faction. Just sad that you can’t even bring yourself to see the inconsistency of the party for whom you have elected yourself chief blogger.

            1. Even old, dried cat turds are enough to distract you bottwipe. Just pondering the meaning of life, the universe and everything. You know how it goes. Quite a few revelations about you though but all that’s for another time.

              I should tell you a story. Maybe about how I got into computer sales. Sitting there with my infant daughter on my lap. Taking the classifieds and opening them to the help wanted section.. and looking at the c’s…. for computer and there it was….

              But you don’t want to hear it being anti reality with your liar in chief. How’s things going for your boy? Is this what winning smells like.. like a cesspool.. or maybe an outhouse in the summer?

            2. But you don’t want to hear stories that feature successful Black Men. Like Obama. Like me.

              We know how Obama saved your underwater house, got you health insurance, kept your pathetic red state backwards town from going under when GM or whatever company you work for went under.

              Enjoy that coal dust bottwipe. Keep your eye on the prize and maybe some day you will have a good life.

  2. I’m not expecting much out of Apple stock except to possibly get back to the $155 level it had in May of this year. The dividends are doing me quite well so as long as Apple can keep boosting them, I’m quite satisfied. I do wish Apple would get out of this iPhone rut they’ve put themselves into. Isn’t Apple able to find any other areas of revenue expansion? Not being able to touch that overseas cash is really handicapping Apple in terms of growth. How is it Amazon is able to spend all that money on revenue-growing acquisitions and Apple can’t?

    The majority of tech stocks have recovered after the minor tech crash a few weeks back but not Apple. I’m not sure exactly why but it’s quite obvious there’s nothing to pull Apple’s share price back up. I don’t know if that’s a failing of Apple’s management or something else. I find it odd how Apple can open more retail stores and it doesn’t do anything positive for the stock. I would think more stores would be a positive sign for Apple and boost the stock somewhat. I guess it just doesn’t work that way.

    There are still too many differences in opinion about Apple stock for me to fully comprehend. How multiple analysts can look at the same company and come up with such wildly different conclusions makes little sense to me. I had always thought the valuation of companies was an exact science but it doesn’t seem that way to me anymore.

  3. From the people that caused AAPL’s latest dip from $155 to $142: Looks like Goldman Sachs clients have bought as much AAPL as they can afford (below $144).

  4. “There are still too many differences in opinion about Apple stock for me to fully comprehend. How multiple analysts can look at the same company and come up with such wildly different conclusions makes little sense to me. I had always thought the valuation of companies was an exact science but it doesn’t seem that way to me anymore.”

    Valuation can be calculated in several different ways, the easiest is to multiply Earnings by a Sentiment factor (commonly called PE).

    I hate the term PE as the calculation actually describes investor sentiment in numerical terms. I prefer, and use, the term ISM (Investor Sentiment Multiplier) as it makes me think in terms of investor sentiment, as opposed to the dry, meaningless Price to Earnings Ratio (PE).

    In a rising sentiment environment, such as we are today, I increase ISM accordingly on future earnings.

    The differences in Analysts valuations of AAPL is threefold: their earnings estimate, their sentiment multiplier (ISM/PE), and their time frame.

    Analysts claim their price targets are one year, but my experience (tracking analysts’ targets since 2005) is that most are in the 3 to 6 month range. Very few give true one year targets.

    Then you have the variable of targets being sell side (sell when the price equals their target) and buy side (buy when the price equals their target).

    I do not rely on the media’s published consensus, because that number includes all the variables, making it a totally unreliable number.

Reader Feedback

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