December Quarter Guidance since Fiscal 2005

  • Posted: 24 October 2011 08:35 PM

    Guidance
    F2005 21?
    F2006 46?
    F2007 73?
    F2008 $1.16
    F2009 $1.21
    F2010 $2.35
    F2011 $4.80
    F2012 $9.30

    Results
    F2005 35?
    F2006 65?
    F2007 $1.14
    F2008 $1.82 adjusted for change in accounting rules
    F2009 $2.50 adjusted for change in accounting rules
    F2010 $3.67 adjusted for change in accounting rules
    F2011 $6.53
    F2012 Pending

    Average beat of the non-adjusted quarters: 55%.  Range of beat 41% F2006 to 67% F2005.  F2007 and F2011 were nearly identical at 56% and 55% respectively.  F2011 results came in at exactly the average (to 2 decimal points).

    Should 55% beat be used as a historical reference when calculating FQ1/2012 estimates?  If so, $9.30 Guidance becomes $14.40 estimate.

    Signature

    You can’t do more, make more, be more, than the next guy, if you think like the next guy. Think different.

         
  • Posted: 24 October 2011 09:09 PM #1

    With the 4S intro, the line up of phone options, the iPad ramp up and Mac growth continuing I’d say we should break the average with $16.20.

         
  • Posted: 25 October 2011 12:42 PM #2

    Your numbers and calculations are off. First of all, in the December quarter of 2011, Apple reported $6.43, not $6.53. Second of all, $6.43 is only a 34% beat over their guidance of $4.80. I didn’t check all your other numbers.

    Also, what do you mean by “adjusted for accounting” and why would you not take those into account when averaging their beat? Presumably, they took their methods of accounting into account (pun intended) when they guided.

         
  • Posted: 25 October 2011 03:40 PM #3

    myymymyy - 25 October 2011 03:42 PM

    Your numbers and calculations are off. First of all, in the December quarter of 2011, Apple reported $6.43, not $6.53. Second of all, $6.43 is only a 34% beat over their guidance of $4.80. I didn’t check all your other numbers.

    Also, what do you mean by “adjusted for accounting” and why would you not take those into account when averaging their beat? Presumably, they took their methods of accounting into account (pun intended) when they guided.

    Thank you for finding that error. The “5” key is to close to the “4” key. That does change the results.

    The “adjusted for accounting” was a period during which Apple restated earnings due to a favorable change in FASB accounting rules. The guidance I have for that are pre-change and not an accurate statement of Appl’s expectations.

    The error you found reduces average ‘beat’ to some degree (I’m responding on my iPad and don’t have data handy to recalculate), but my guess is that the reduction isn’t significant, and the overall thesis remains intact.

    Thanks again.

    Signature

    You can’t do more, make more, be more, than the next guy, if you think like the next guy. Think different.

         
  • Posted: 25 October 2011 09:57 PM #4

    I still don’t understand. Shouldn’t you be able to find Apple’s earnings for those quarters before they restated them? If you want to track Apple’s habits of sandbagging their December quarter guidance, you can’t just throw out three years worth of information (the most recent years, by the way), especially considering that the most recent year (last year) had a much lower beat than usual.

         
  • Posted: 26 October 2011 12:02 AM #5

    Thanks, Greg.

    Well handled.

    Signature

    You will find hard currency at Midas Mulligan’s.