Apple analysts scramble to catch up

Funny timing. I've been keeping my own list, and posted my tally to the Google Finance Board on Apple, only last week.

I have some differences. Here's my list, basically by date, with a break between before and after the last earnings conference call:

BMO – $185
Susquehanna – $185
Think – $150 4/23
Cross – $160 4/23
Collins Stewart – $170 6/3
Cannacord – $200 7/22
Deutsche – $225, 7/22
Goldman – $160, $175 7/22
Citi – $196 7/22
Pacific Crest – $190 7/22

RBC – $190, $250 8/18
S&P – $200 8/28
Credit Suisse – $175, $200, 9/1
Societe Generale – $170, $255, 9/4
Caris – $200, $200 9/10
Amtech- $210, $210 9/10
JMP – $200, 9/10
Argus – $195 9/11
Needham – $200, $235 9/14
Cramer – $200, $264 9/15
Macquarie – $175, $220 9/18
JP Morgan – $170, $210 9/21
FTN – $180, $180 9/21
Piper Jaffray – $186, $186 9/14, $235 9/24
Barclays – $188, $208 8/13, $210 9/24
Weisel – $180, 8/21, $210, 9/28
Bernstein – $165, $185 8/4, $195 9/29
Merrill/BofA – $185, $220 10/1
Oppenheimer – $185, $210 10/1
UBS – $160, $170 8/12, $265 10/2
Kaufman – $184, $214 10/2
Morgan Stanley – $195, $200, $210 10/2

ex ped: Thanks, Ken. And thanks for the pointer to the Google Finance board.

Thanks for the great summary! Nice to know we still have a few upgrades to go by name players to come out before earnings.

Of course, with apple firing on all cylinders on all product lines and accountings changes and new products on everyones minds, we will see another series of upgrades by those less optimistic analysts following the upcoming earnings blowout. Can you spell MOMENTUM!!!

Also, it would seem to me that you could detect conflicts of interest by looking at analysts/firms consistently overrating one company when consistently underrating the company's competitors.

That info would be very interesting!

At what point do you note when an analyst has demonstrated such incompetence – being consistently wrong – that you no longer publish their analysis?

Where's each analyst's/firm's scorecard?

Gene Munster is the best of the litter,
In my opinion. I could Mention 3 or 4 that I would not listen to….like Kate, Shaw, Tony, Shelby

My target for Oct 09 is 185. God Im smart. I should be listed as a super analyst in APPL investors. The only purpose of the analyst is to push the stock up or down depending how they have positioned their clients. There is no repercussion if they are wrong so why even give them the spotlight. Smart Apple investor do their own research and visit Apple stores. Another sample would to look around and see all the iphones in use. Its really not that hard…….

Of these analysts, only one, UBS, matches Cramer, though RBC at 250 comes close. If cramer is right about the impact of the accounting change, even those who have "caught up" or are "already there" will be crushed again… Not that I celebrate Cramer, but this time his logic may win out, especially with the force of so many forthcoming company events also in play.

>>the targets of a dozen analysts who were ahead of the game, and five analysts who have some catching up to do. <<

I count 13 and 6, not 12 and 5.

ex ped: Thanks for the catch. I had made some adjustments in the spreadsheets and neglected to carry them through in the text. Fixed now.

Per Yahoo lsting there are 33 Analysts following AAPL. You listed 10+12+6 = 28 analysts (omitted 5)

On yahoo the lowest estimated price is $65 yet the average price came to $202.51.
If you include the other 5 analysts, where do you think your AAPL average price could be, compared to Yahoo listng?
Yahoo listing:
Mean Target: 202.51
Median Target: 200.00
High Target: 265.00
Low Target: 65.00
No. of Brokers: 33

ex ped: I used AAPLinvestors, which lists 46. But they have Scott Craig there twice (for BofA and ML) and nine more firms that haven't issued a target since 2008 and may no longer be following the stock.

apple 200 this week…

Most analysts are idiots who follow the herd and provide excuses for the big players to push stocks up or down.

Wall street is nothing but a con game.

analysts are generally idiots trying to catch up to the markets – up or down

In fact, looking at your earlier article (http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/09/17/rethinking-apples-price-target/), about 1/3 down that table there you can see this entry:

Merril Lynch Scott Craig 22 Jul 2009 Buy $185

and then near the end you see:

Bank of America Scott Craig 8 Oct 2008 Buy $140

This entry is still right there in AAPLinvestor's site, despite the recent update to "BOA/Merril Lynch". So I guess it's a record-keeping at AAPLinvestors that slipped by you.

ex ped: Right you are. My error. I've corrected the piece and sent Craig an apology.

PED, singling out Scott Craig a couple of weeks ago was unfair. He went from $140 to $160 on June 8. Then from $160 to $185 on July 22. I emailed you about it back then, remember?

ex ped: Oops. Thanks for the reminder. Fixed now.

Great info. There is something contemptible about how analysts set these targets. Targets should be based solely on an assessment of how a company is performing and completely independent of current price.

The target should reflect an assessment of intrinsic value, on the assumption that the actual price will eventually catch up with that value.

Instead, as this article suggests, analysts think, gee, price rose, ergo let's raise our target… On the upswing that leads to bubbles. On the downswing ("since the price has fallen let's drop the target…") that leads to crashes. In both cases the practice obscures rather than clarifies intrinsic values.

Once, just once, I'd like an honest evaluation. Here's mine: because of factors we can't fully evaluate such as when Jobs might leave and how big a deal that would be, when the tablet will be released and whether it will sell, how well the iphone will do in China, whether the analysis suggesting multi-carrier distribution of the iphone in the US will in fact boost earnings bigtime (and whether that multi carrier status will even happen) we are clear we can't put an accurate number on the value of the company. We're inclined to say it will go much higher over the next two years but to peg a number is a meaningless exercise. We know we don't know.

I would place a great deal of trust in an analyst who would admit the limits of what they can calculate over ones that trot out numbers year after year, numbers that are generally wrong wrong wrong, be they too high or too low.

Instead, analysts have mistaken admission of limits to predictions for ignorance, when such an admission can be the beginning of wisdom.