Apple Q1 earnings: Analyzing the analysts

  • Posted: 22 January 2009 11:46 AM

    The results of Andy Zaky’s Q1 earnings smackdown are in.

    http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/01/22/apple-q1-earnings-analyzing-the-analysts/

    Bottom line: the bloggers hit EPS within a few pennies; the Street was off by 40 cents. On the other hand, the best individual performances were turned in by two pros, RBC Capital?s Mike Abramsky and Merrill’s Scott Craig.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 22 January 2009 05:19 PM #1

    Thanks Phillip.

    We need to call the analysts to task for their numbers. When they are off as much as they have been, they need to be identified. These are the same ones that will lower guidence based on the way the wind blows. Each time an analyst provides guidence, their track record should be shown to support or discount that information.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 22 January 2009 05:53 PM #2

    After the earnings report, the analysts adjusted their targets, thought most of them didn’t change their ‘stories’.  Eric has a useful summary on his Barron’s blog.

    The best part, frankly, is the comments.  They are laugh-out-loud hilarious (and not just the pro-Apple comments).  I especially liked:

    No one can take away our victory, it may be only one day, BUT IT IS OURS APPLE FAN BOYS! WOO HOO!! LOL!

    I can’t tell if that’s a pro or anti-Apple (ie sarcastic) comment, but I loved it nevertheless.

    What I find puzzling is that Abramsky (RBC Capital) was one of the most accurate analysts but has a price target for AAPL of $70!  That didn’t stop him from increasing his estimate for EPS 2009.

    Huberty et al may be ridiculously inaccurate when it comes to Apple results, but their price targets are painfully more plausible in the near future for the actual equity.  Which makes me wonder, if Morgan Stanley et al got rid of Huberty and her ilk—and replaced them with, say, Andy Zaky, would we see a substantial, sustained rise in the share price?

    Signature

    Ah, love, let us be true to one another! for the world… hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light, nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain

         
  • Posted: 22 January 2009 06:52 PM #3

    Winterpool - 22 January 2009 09:53 PM

    After the earnings report, the analysts adjusted their targets, thought most of them didn’t change their ‘stories’.  Eric has a useful summary on his Barron’s blog.

    The best part, frankly, is the comments.  They are laugh-out-loud hilarious (and not just the pro-Apple comments).  I especially liked:

    No one can take away our victory, it may be only one day, BUT IT IS OURS APPLE FAN BOYS! WOO HOO!! LOL!

    I can’t tell if that’s a pro or anti-Apple (ie sarcastic) comment, but I loved it nevertheless.

    What I find puzzling is that Abramsky (RBC Capital) was one of the most accurate analysts but has a price target for AAPL of $70!  That didn’t stop him from increasing his estimate for EPS 2009.

    Huberty et al may be ridiculously inaccurate when it comes to Apple results, but their price targets are painfully more plausible in the near future for the actual equity.  Which makes me wonder, if Morgan Stanley et al got rid of Huberty and her ilk—and replaced them with, say, Andy Zaky, would we see a substantial, sustained rise in the share price?

    I doubt it.  There is no compelling evidence that anyone listens to the analyst’s.  Come to think of it, there is no compelling evidence that anyone pays attention to the non-gaap earnings either. (or the cash, or the ....)

    Signature

    I don’t mind being wrong…,I just hate being wrong so FAST!