Tech Check
MOST SHARED
- Warren Buffett: Stocks Will Outperform Gold and Bonds .. and They're Safer 'By Far'
- Steelers' Antonio Brown Spends Super Bowl Week with Twitter Fan Turned BFF
- Investor Optimism At Highest In One Year: Survey
- Markets Get Greece Deal, So Where's the Big Rally?
- How to Get Your Name on the Bathroom Wall 4-EVER
- Indonesia Unexpectedly Cuts Rate to Seek Growth
- Kodak to Stop Making Cameras to Cut Costs
- Robo-Deal Is All About Lowering Mortgage Principal
- The Euro Still Has Room to Rise: Strategist
- Greeks Burn German Flags: Do They Have a Point?
- Victor Cruz ‘Understands’ Gisele's Super Bowl Frustrations
- Tamminen: The United States of India
- Unusual Volume: Taleo Jumps After Oracle's $1.9 Billion Offer
- Warren Buffett: Stocks Will Outperform Gold and Bonds .. and They're Safer 'By Far'
- So Now You Can’t Give Microsoft Away?
- Robo-Deal Is All About Lowering Mortgage Principal
- Groupon Needs More Disclosure: Analyst
- CEO to CEO: Taking a Job at a Startup vs. a Public Company
- Farr: Money, Jobs and Politics — We're Still in a State of Risk
- Markets Finally Get Greek Deal —So Where's the Rally?
- 'Mortgage Deal from Hell' Hurts Sound Borrowers: Bove
- Fidelity: 401(k) Balances Little Changed Over 2011
- Are Young American Workers a 'Lost Generation'?
- Westminster’s Most Successful Dog Breeds
- Greek Political Leaders Agree On Austerity Reforms
- Robo-Deal Is All About Lowering Mortgage Principal
- Fed Fines Banks $766 Million Over Mortgage Practices
- Spent Keurig K-Cups Filling Up US Landfills

RSS FEED
Apple's Surprising Downgrade Parade
Silicon Valley Bureau Chief
![]() |
But such is the case today for Apple [AAPL
Loading...
()
], from the likes of RBC Capital , Morgan Stanley and Barclays (though Barclays merely reinitiated with a lower price target.) Morgan Stanley took its target from $178 to $115. RBC went from $200 to $140.
So why now, why all of a sudden and why so much pessimism around these shares?
Well, first things first: fundamentals be damned. I don't think this is necessarily about what Apple itself might be doing wrong. It seems to be far more "macro" than "micro." I spoke to one analyst this morning who says the economy is such a mess right now with so much concern about the consumer, that a year from now no one wants to look back and say "how could you have possibly missed that?" Whether Apple products are still selling well or not.
Research in Motion's [RIMM
Loading...
()
] lousy numbers and outlook spooked the Street last week, no question. Even if there were strong suggestions that the company's problems stemmed from competition with Apple and not because of some weakness in the market place. And because of RIM's numbers, there's also concern about margin's coming down, even though Piper Jaffray, a long-time Apple bull, says that Apple's insistence of 30 percent is in place merely to keep Wall Street's expectations in line.
If that's the case, that strategy might be backfiring. Oh, and there's also concern about multiple compression. Well, duh! Remember that RIM's numbers would only be a harbinger (maybe) of Apple's smart phone business. Unlike RIM--and this is so important--Apple's got those other two legs supporting the table in Mac and iPod. In other words, RIM hardly provides a peek at what to expect from the far more diversified Apple.
To that end, NPD, Piper and some other market research are all still projecting 5 percent upside to Street numbers for both Macs and iPods. The company has $21 billion in cash in the bank. The "platform" is being adopted. Again, fundamentals be damned.
I suspect that if Apple misses its numbers in a few weeks, this analysis this morning will look pretty spot on. But if Apple blows through those expectations, and beats, these analysts can seek cover under the guise that these concerns today, mirroring the macro-economic condition, could gain a foothold at any time over the next year or so and they thought that now would be a good time to sound the alarm bell.
Trouble is, this kind of the thing tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy, which means this analysis--any analysis--can't be wrong. Even if it might be. And that's a rough place for investors to be if they're trying to, well, invest.
Sure, you can insist as much as you want that you're not drunk, but if five or six of your friends tell you you're drunk, you're probably drunk. I don't think that's what's happening here. I think instead these reports are suggesting that Apple "might" be drunk, "could become" drunk.
Anything's possible, I suppose. Investors, however, ought to focus instead on what's probable. Analysts might want to try that as well.
Questions? Comments?











