Tag Archives: NFLX

Peak iPhone

This will be a very interesting week on the stock market, not least the US mid-terms and the ongoing US/China trade saga, which will likely determine the short-term direction of the market. Apple (AAPL) reported last week and another stellar report was hoped for to calm technology weakness. Instead of a stellar report the market got weak Q1 guidance and the news that AAPL would drop detailed product reporting for their FY2019. Given that there is a massive industry dedicated to examining iPhone trends, the lack of specific numbers being disclosed has caused consternation amongst commentators.

It has been about a year since I last posted on AAPL (here) when it traded around $170. Of course, it has since traded up to a high of $230 before falling back to just above $200 currently. There is no doubt that the smartphone market is saturated with IDC estimating global smartphone shipments falling in Q3 by 6% to 355 million unit. In this environment, it makes sense to me for AAPL to focus on higher value smartphones and to extracting increased fees from services on their installed base. Extrapolating on the iPhone installed base analysis from my last post, I estimate that the iPhone installed base will peak around 650 units based upon iPhone unit sales fall to 200 million and 190 million in FY2019 and FY2020 respectively from 218/217 million in FY2018/2017. The active installed base, excluding non-core users, peaks around 570 million. My projections are shown below.

click to enlarge

I have also assumed that the ASP for FY2019 and FY2020 increases to $819 and $847 respectively from $759 in FY2018. I further assumed that service revenue increases as a percentage of total revenue to 18% for FY2020 from 14% in FY2018. I suspect this may be too light given AAPL’s decision to move its reporting focus away from products to services. Although AAPL’s net cash pile is slowly dwindling (approx. $120 billion at end September from $170 billion at the end of December 2017), I think a more focused move by AAPL into the home and content to take on Netflix and Amazon will be a feature of the next few years (bring on the NFLX rumours, again!). My resulting quarterly revenue estimates into FY2020 are shown below.

click to enlarge

As you can see, these estimates do show overall revenue moderating with revenue for FY2019 and FY2020 at $270 billion and $273 billion respectively from $266 billion in FY2018. My diluted EPS estimates, assuming the same trend of share buy-backs, for FY2019 and FY2020 are $13.30 and $14.80, representing EPS growth of 12% and 11% respectively. These EPS estimates are consistent with current consensus. At a share price of $200, the forward PE would be 15 and 13.5 for FY2019 and FY2020 respectively.

My usual forward PE excluding cash graph, at an AAPL stock price of $200, is below. If AAPL were to return to its historical average multiple since 2009 of 9, then AAPL’s stock could fall back to $160 or below if the market gets really spooked about peak iPhone.

click to enlarge

The question therefore is how the market is going to react to AAPL’s attempt to move the focus from its hardware results and more towards its service business from its massive and loyal installed base. Changing the market’s obsession from iPhone sales will be no easy task. AAPL is an emotive stock, not only because of its products but for its incredible historical value creation. It is the one stock that I have always regretted selling any of. I do not think now is the time to sell AAPL but I will wait for the stock price to settle, particularly in the current volatility, to consider buying more. A fall towards $170 would be too tempting to ignore for this wonderful firm. Mr Buffet and the firm’s own buy-back programme make such a fall unlikely in my view but one can only hope!

Value Matters

I recently saw an interview with Damian Lewis, the actor who plays hedge fund billionaire Bobby “Axe” Axelrod in the TV show Billions, where he commented on the differences in reaction to the character in the US and the UK. Lewis said that in the US, the character is treated like an inspirational hero, whereas in the UK he’s seen as a villain. We all like to see a big shot hedgie fall flat on their face so us mere mortals can feel less stupid.

The case of David Einhorn is not so clear cut. A somewhat geekie character, the recent run of bad results of his hedge fund, Greenlight Capital, is raising some interesting questions amongst the talking heads of the merits of value stocks over the run away success of growth stocks in recent years. Einhorn’s recent results can be seen in a historical context, based upon published figures, in the graph below.

click to enlarge

Einhorn recently commented that “the reality is that the market is cyclical and given the extreme anomaly, reversion to the mean should happen sooner rather than later” whilst adding that “we just can’t say when“. The under-performance of value stocks is also highlighted by Alliance Bernstein in this article, as per the graph below.

click to enlarge

As an aside, Alliance Bernstein also have another interesting article which shows the percentage of debt to capital of S&P500 firms, as below.

click to enlarge

Einhorn not only invests in value stocks, like BrightHouse Financial (BHF) and General Motors (GM), but he also shorts highly valued so-called growth stocks like Tesla (TSLA), Amazon (AMZN) and Netflix (NFLX), his bubble basket. In fact, Einhorn’s bubble basket has been one of the reasons behind his recent poor performance. He queries AMZN on the basis that just because they “can disrupt somebody else’s profit stream, it doesn’t mean that AMZN earns that profit stream“. He trashes TSLA and its ability to deliver safe mass produced electric cars and points to the growing competition from “old media” firms for NFLX.

A quick look at the 2019 projected forward PE ratios, based off today’s valuations against average analysts estimates for 2018 and 2019 EPS numbers from Yahoo Finance of some of today’s most hyped growth stocks plus their Chinese counterparts plus some more “normal” firms like T and VZ as a counter weight, provides considerable justification to Einhorn’s arguments.

click to enlarge

[As an another aside, I am keeping an eye on Chinese valuations, hit by trade war concerns, for opportunities in case Trump’s trade war turns out to be another “huge” deal where he folds like the penny hustler he is.]

And the graph above shows only the firms with positive earnings to have a PE ratio in 2019 (eh, hello TSLA)!! In fact, the graph makes Einhorn’s rationale seem downright sensible to me.

Now, that’s not something you could say about Axe!