|From: Bill Wolf||6/14/2019 3:57:56 PM|
|This Is a ‘Critical’ Time for Apple in China, Analyst Says|
By David Marino-Nachison
June 14, 2019 3:15 p.m. ET
A timely resolution to U.S.-China trade tensions could add $25 to the price of Apple stock within months, according to new research.
Apple stock (AAPL) was recently down less than 1% to $192.74 as the S&P 500 was about flat. Wedbush analyst Daniel Ives late Thursday reiterated an Outperform rating on the shares, calling China “the major swing factor” for the company’s shares.
That’s partly because of trade—but also because investors are watching for signs that Chinese demand is improving, Ives wrote.
The back story. Apple stock is up about 20% in 2019. They’ve risen in June after ending a monthlong run-up in April, with China being one of the most important ongoing themes.
On one hand, there’s demand. The year began with warnings of disappointing iPhone sales in China, and while a focus on services subsequently revitalized the shares, investors decided to sell in May following its latest release of quarterly results.
Then there’s trade. Apple relies on China for much of its manufacturing, so as the U.S. and China continue to talk of widening tariffs and measures it’s made the company a kind of poster child for the economic effects of the countries’ strained relations.
The G-20 summit, scheduled for later this month in Japan, could see a cooling-off—or more or the same.
What’s new. June marks the winding down of Apple’s fiscal third quarter.
“We believe the June quarter has been tracking ‘in line with expectations’ around China iPhone demand, which has seen a modest rebound from softness seen in the December/March quarters,” Ives wrote. “That said, it’s a ‘nervous environment’ across the supply chain, with the semi space seeing clear uncertainty.”
That’s a reference to the latest news out of chip maker Broadcom (AVGO), shares of which were recently down 6.4% to $263.63 as it lowered its full-year sales guidance, surprising Wall Street.
“With China representing roughly 20% of all iPhone upgrades over the next 12 to 18 months, with our estimation that 60 million to 70 million iPhones in China are currently in the window of opportunity, this is a critical time for Apple to solidify its key installed base in the region.”
What’s next. Ives has a $235 price target, above FactSet’s $211 average, on Apple’s stock.
“We believe if a resolution to the China tariff situation comes to a head starting with G-20 talks in a few weeks this would add between $20-$25 per share to Apple’s stock over the coming months,” Ives wrote. “This would take away the primary China risk, which is a dark cloud over the stock now.”
It isn’t clear that Chinese President Xi Jinping and President Trump will meet in Japan, which could prolong uncertainty—at the least. If negotiations go south, leading to tariffs that lead Apple to move manufacturing elsewhere, the company could take a 10%-15% hit to earnings over “the next few years,” according to Ives.
Email David Marino-Nachison at email@example.com. Follow him at @marinonachison and follow Barron’s Next at @barronsnext.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)|
|To: Bill Wolf who wrote (158557)||6/14/2019 3:59:45 PM|
|From: Bill Wolf|
|Broadcom’s Woes Could Point to Trouble for Apple|
By Tae Kim
June 14, 2019 2:25 p.m. ET
Chip maker Broadcom ’s full-year sales guidance reduction may point to poor iPhone sales, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch.
Apple (AAPL) is Broadcom’s (AVGO) biggest customer, accounting for about a quarter of Broadcom’s revenue in fiscal 2018, according to the last annual securities filing. Cowen also estimated the iPhone generated more than 50% of Broadcom’s Wireless segment sales.
On Thursday, Broadcom reduced its 2019 revenue guidance to $22.5 billion, from $24.5 billion, and lowered its outlook for capital spending to $500 million, from $550 million. The reduction sent Broadcom stock tumbling on Friday.
Broadcom’s “guide down could indicated continued weak iPhone units,” Bank of America Merrill Lynch analyst Wamsi Mohan said Friday in a note to clients.
Apple stock was down 0.8% in Friday afternoon trading, to $192.52 per share, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average was down just slightly.
Mohan estimated that Broadcom’s poor guidance implies 5 million to 10 million fewer iPhone units for the year. He kept his Buy rating and $230 price target for Apple stock, due to its “strong capital return” program and services growth opportunities.
Broadcom’s report also affected the general chip sector. The iShares PHLX Semiconductor ETF (SOXX), which tracks the performance of a widely followed semiconductor sector index, fell 2.8% on Friday.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|From: Bill Wolf||6/14/2019 4:11:55 PM|
|Huawei exec: Don't mix trade war and security|
Huawei's U.S. security chief Andy Purdy says the U.S. is right to want to make sure its networks are secure. But he maintains that, in the quarrel the Trump administration has picked with his company, it has focused on the wrong things and mixed up trade issues with security concerns.
What they're saying: "I don’t trust anybody. We cannot and should not trust anybody," said Purdy, who was an assistant U.S. attorney and acting director of the U.S. national cybersecurity division before joining Huawei in 2012. "That’s the way we make America safer."
Details: Rather than simply exclude Huawei from U.S. networks, Purdy encouraged the government to sit down with the Chinese network vendor and create a system to ensure its products are safe.
"There are ways to test products for back doors," he said, adding that wireless carriers, not network equipment vendors, are in charge of the data and are vigorously ensuring it isn't leaving their hands. Context: The U.S. has been increasingly cracking down on Huawei, which it characterizes as both a security risk and an intellectual property thief.
The largest American phone carriers have long been been effectively prohibited from using Huawei gear.But in recent weeks the Trump administration has ratcheted up the pressure, excluding U.S. companies from most business with Huawei. That has hurt the company's business prospects globally, and could stop its fast-growing device business in its tracks.Purdy also lamented the fact that concerns over Huawei are being mixed in with the broader U.S.-China trade dispute.
"We don’t want to be part of trade talks," Purdy said. "We don’t like [the] fact that we are kind of in the middle."The other side: Sens. Mark Warner and Marco Rubio sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, urging that the Huawei issue be kept separate from trade discussions.
"In no way should Huawei be used as a bargaining chip in trade negotiations," they wrote. "Instead, the U.S. should redouble our efforts to present our allies with compelling data on why the long-term network security and maintenance costs on Chinese telecommunications equipment offset any short-term cost savings."Our thought bubble: Huawei may decry the mixing of trade and security concerns — and that indeed seems like bad national security policy. But being a pawn in trade talks might not be so bad for the company: Huawei could benefit if China makes looser restrictions on Huawei a part of a demand in future bargaining.
Meanwhile, market research firm IHS says the U.S. ban is already having a significant revenue impact on some U.S. component suppliers, including memory maker Micron and hard drive maker Western Digital.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)|
|From: Maurice Winn||6/14/2019 4:27:56 PM|
|Lucy is wrong. There is no Monopoly. A couple of days ago I bought a Cyberphone at the 2degrees shop in Newmarket, Auckland. There were mostly Huawei, Samsung and Apple phones. I wanted Snapdragon by Qualcomm. The sales lady told me they mostly use their own chips because they want their own specifications.|
She pointed me towards some Oppo phones that use Qualcomm.
There was no Xiaomi which I wanted. Nor HTC etc.
Qualcomm is barely surviving.
So why the FTC court case?
Lucy has defined the so called monopoly stupidly narrowly. As I have explained for decades, first they identify the target victim and big pile of money to attack. Then they set about defining a so called market so that it catches just the target victim. Because it's hard to get just the target victim they define a monopoly to be about 70 percent of that narrowly defined market.
Then they exclude evidence that contradicts that narrowly defined market of a particular kind of premium phone in a particular part of the spectrum, in a particular part of a country at a particular time, or some stupid thing.
Hey presto a monopoly that's abusive and bundling and extorquerationste and must be looted to save consumers.
Of course consumers get no benefit from the attack and in fact are harmed. The loot goes to the judge, the lawyers, the favoured friends like Tim Apple, Samsung, Huawei.
Why does Lucy twist herself up into a pretzel to achieve that aim. What's in it for her.
She voted against Big D and for Hillary
She's Korean as identity rulz
She uses iPhone
She's anti-male Geeks and giving them the lash
She wants Liberal promotion
She's a lawyer thinking she's better than Geeks
She's envious of Geek Silicon Valley money
Her judgment was full of rubbish demonstrating her intentions from the beginning. The process rules she chose and evidence eliminated showed her bias.
She could not be a scientist because she doesn't understand that all evidence has to be considered. But she can be a judge as law is about who gets the loot produced by scientists, engineers and Geeks. Law has nothing to do with reason though they dress it up with a little legalistic fig leaf to cover their lust for loot.
I'd like to see Lucy go shopping for a Cyberphone and try to demonstrate the Qualcomm monopoly.
It's insane that Broadcom was banned by Trump as Qualcomm was a mission critical company for national security but Lucy is aiming to destroy it.
PS ... Check Lucy's bank accounts too as bribery is always tempting. Cayman Islands etc. The USA has the best politicians money can buy.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|From: VinnieBagOfDonuts||6/14/2019 4:46:22 PM|
|5G Device Ecosystem Prepared by GSA based on data from the GSA Analyser for Mobile Broadband Devices (GAMBoD)|
GSA Report |May 2019 | 5G Device Ecosystem
© Copyright 2019 Global mobile Suppliers Association
- The report ( drive.google.com ; otherwise accessible via free registration) adds the actual table of devices naming chipset providers Qualcomm, Huawei, Samsung and Mediatek.
- Seems to me reports like this show how Q is helping drive 5G adoption in a competitive market rather than stifling competition through unfair business practices that require draconian remedies which hopelessly conflicted parties (LG & ACT) support via amicus briefs opposing a "stay pending appeal".
- 5G competitor Samsung settled with Q, competitor Mediatek has agreements in place with Q (kudos to WWW comments 6/1 & 6/2) and Huawei hasn't skipped a beat in its 5G aspirations while "negotiating" over the past 1.5 years or so.
- So, where's the competitive harm that was erroneously found to have happened in 4G/LTE and that is expected to continue or magically appear in 5G?
- Finally, if smaller modem chipset customer firms like LG lose the ability to offer flagship phones with the fastest data rates/volumes and shortest latency because they either
- lack the scale/money/expertise to vertically integrate a high-end modem (like Samsung and Huawei do and Apple endeavors) or
- lack a source for leading (bleeding) edge modems if Q were to decide to exit (spin off?) or otherwise had a legal basis to stop sales and competitors like Mediatek couldn't meet the specs,
- ... then the fault will lie largely with Judge Koh's ruling/remedies and short-sighted customers like LG who cry foul when their enablers seek fair compensation for both their patented technology and their modem and ASIC end products .
Since the start of 2019 the number of 5G devices has grown rapidly; starting
with a few announcements, and then gathering pace as operators in various
parts of the world brought their first commercial 5G services to market. As
more services go live during 2019, we can expect the device ecosystem to
continue to grow quickly. GSA will be tracking and reporting regularly on 5G
device launch announcements. Its GAMBoD database will contain key details
about device form factors, features, and support for spectrum bands. Summary
statistics are released in this regular monthly publication.
By the end of May, GSA had identified:
- nine announced form factors (phones, hotspots, indoor CPE, outdoor CPE, laptops, modules, snap-on dongles/adapters, IoT routers, and USB terminals).
- thirty-three vendors that have announced available or forthcoming 5G devices.
- sixty-four announced devices, up from 50 in May and 33 in March (excluding regional variants, re-badged devices, phones that can be upgraded using a separate adapter, and prototypes not expected to be commercialised)
- seventeen phones (plus regional variants)
- six hotspots (plus regional variants)
- nineteen CPE devices (indoor and outdoor, including two Verizon-spec compliant devices)
- sixteen modules
- two snap-on dongles/adapters
- two IoT routers
- one laptop
- one USB terminal.
- 5G chipsets from five vendors – Huawei, Intel, Mediatek, Qualcomm and Samsung – although Intel has announced its withdrawal from the 5G modem market.
Not all devices are available immediately and specification details remain
limited for some devices.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|To: benhorseman who wrote (158142)||6/14/2019 5:06:24 PM|
|From: Maurice Winn|
|Qualcomm's lawyers make the mistake of saying 5G is a market. Defined stupidly tightly yes,. but for regular humans who wouldn't know a Snapdragon if it bit them, the market is all those cellphone things you can buy to make phone calls and get the Net. That includes WiFi devices as they can do that too as WhatsApp does the phone calling.|
The FTC has never defined a 5G chip market, and for good reason — such a market did not exist at the time of trial, and the uptake of 5G-enabled devices is a small fraction of the overall handset market,” Qualcomm argued in its stay request.
Note that phone calls don't have to be old school, last century phone calls. The "market" has widened to include voice over IP. So "the market" should be more like "an internet connection is available somewhere or other".
On reflection, maybe Qualcomm lawyers were not agreeing that 5g or 4g or 3g or subsets are markets. Maybe they were just pointing out the silly FTC defining absurd markets.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|From: waitwatchwander||6/14/2019 9:52:13 PM|
|App Association informs Koh it does not support the staying her ruling|
I don't get this App Association. They support Apple taking 30% as well as other matters Apple supports which barely have relevance to the software their members sell. It's almost as if it's a proxy for something other than their industry.
Been Here Before
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|