When it comes to Apple, what’s a bargain? Its stock, maybe
The audience at Apple’s Worldwide Developers’ conference seemed pumped about the new high speed iPhone — and the price cuts. So, too, do everyday consumers, at least the ones I’ve spoken to. Bloggers? They also seemed pleased, for the most part. Silicon Alley Insider said that compared with the new iPhone, “the competition is nowhere in sight.”
But what about analysts and investors? After all, Apple is running a business here and whether the price cuts (and perhaps lower margins) and new iPhone features will make a difference in the bottom line is not to be overlooked.
Well, rest easy. Wall Street numbers crunchers had the same reaction as just about everyone else. J.P. Morgan in a note to clients raised its price target on Apple shares to $155 from $135; Barclays upped its target to $173; Caris raised its target to $170; Credit Suisse raised its taget to $165; and Susquehanna increased its target to $170.
See a pattern developing here? Apple, currently trading at $143, seems like a good deal to most of the financial community, despite that fact that shares are already up about 70 percent this year and Palm’s Pre looks as though it could present some stiff competition for the iPhone.
Here’s why, at least according to JP Morgan:
“In our view, Apple stands to be the lone early-cycle recovery stock in our coverage list. Factors include its market share gain potential in Mac and iPhone, as well as potential entry in new markets such as netbooks. Apple’s consumer exposure also could help, as we think enterprises will be more hesitant in increasing spending whenever the global downturn moderates.”
In other words, if you have faith in the analyst community, maybe you take some of the money you save with Apple’s price cuts and put it toward buying a little stock in the company.
Keep an eye on:
- The Boston Globes largest union rejected management proposals — is the paper doomed? (Reuters)
- Guess what? Ad spending is down. Way down (NY Post)
- Times suddenly aren’t so good in Bollywood (WSJ.com)