Skip to main content

What if AAPL and RIM use the same accounting rule?

BlackBerry device maker, RIM, report its the 3rd quarter results after the bell, as expected, the company's earnings were significantly impeded by the global economy slow down, GAAP net income increased about 7.0% from $370mm to $396mm ($0.70 vs $0.66 per share) with revenue coming in at $2.8 billions.

Most interesting to me in the earning release, though, was that RIMM sold 6.7 million BlackBerry devices and booked $2.3 billion revenue. For comparison, in AAPL last quarter (ended 9/27/08), AAPL sold 6.9 million iPhone, but only $806 millions revenue was recognized. So even about 200,000 more iPhone were sold with assumed higher ASP than Blackberries in three month period, AAPL booked 2/3 less revenue than RIMM. The culprit is that AAPL book its iPhone sales using so-called "subscription accounting", namely recognized revenue over 24 month period, but not as sales occur. When AAPL only sold average about 1 mm iPhone in each previous few quarters, iPhone sales have limited impacts on its bottom lines and valuation measures. The exploding growth of 3G iPhone and increasing importance in AAPL's product/revenue mix present difficulties to make a fair relative market valuation comparing to RIMM because the iPhone deferred revenues were entered as liabilities, which offset by cash in its balance sheet. In the latest AAPL quarterly financials, the total liabilities on B/S was $18 billions, but almost a half of this ($8.5 billions) belongs to deferred revenues mostly attributed to iPhone!

What if AAPL booked iPhone revenue the same way as RIMM did with Blackberries? It is almost impossible to re-structure AAPL's financial statements without detail breakdown iPhone sales data. But based on AAPL published financials, we can make some basic estimated adjustments on AAPL's market measurements assuming current margin remains constant. The table below lists fiscal 2008 iPhone units (company's earning release) sold and GAAP revenues booked by AAPL and pro forma revenue if AAPL book iPhone sales as RIMM would.So AAPL would recognize $4.5 billion sales from iPhone, instead of only $1.8 billions as reported for the fiscal year 08. Also worth to note though, $4.5 billions is just about 1/2 of the deferred revenue. AAPL actual earnings for fiscal 08 should have been about $6.13 per share, a 15% higher than reported of $5.36.

Comparing to the new tech companies, namely RIMM and GOOG, as well as some "old" large tech names, like MSFT and CSCO, AAPL has been traded at significant discount to these companies using current reported financials. If AAPL uses the same accounting rule to recognize iPhone sales as Blackberry, AAPL would be valued even much deep discount by most valuation measures such as Price/Sale, Price/Book and EV/Sale and cash flow (see table below). Market values AAPL at discount to its peers may be partly due to analyst's underestimates of iPhone earning powers. Another factor is that AAPL has always try to tamper and manage sometimes over-optimistic/unrealistic market expectations over new products or earning growth. On the contrary, if you read RIMM's latest earning reports, you can sense/see that the management have tried very hard (excluding "unfavorable" currency movement) to meet market expectations and try to paint much rosy picture. There is no question that Steve Job's health and succession plan may be a much bigger drag for the valuation, but it seems that current AAPL market valuation may have priced this adversary information already. Be prepared for the positive surprise in the coming earning report on 1/20.


Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

What history tell us about “Sell in May and Go Away”?

US stock market has experienced one of the best first four-month performance over the last four decades, produced 17.5% price return comparing to 19.1% in 1987. It is the third best price return for S&P 500 index since 1950; the top four-month performance belongs to 27.3% in 1975 as the stock market recovered from a severe bear market in 1973-1974 when the index nosedived more than 42% in two years. With calendar flipped into May and onto summer season of sun, beaches, most likely we would hear a lot of about old Wall Street saying “Say in May and go away” in the media. Moreover, primarily because of the unprecedented nature of speed and magnitude of the current market rally against the backdrop of weakening macroeconomic and corporate earnings backdrops during the period.  Sell in May and Go Way has delivered 6 times more return Historically, the six months between Nov-April frequently experienced extraordinary stock market performance than the six months between May to Oct...
Read more

MBS spread widen at historical levels

The turmoils at FNM and FRE created great anxieties and opportunities for both equities and debt TRADERS. The newly passed housing rescued packages by the Congress and signed the President essentially changed the "implied" to "explicit" US government backings on both quasi agency's outstanding debts. Their spreads to US treasuries have tightened in last few weeks. However, the most liquid 15 yr and 30 yr fixed MBS from Freddie and Fannie were under great pressures in last few days. Using 10 yr swap rate as benchmark, FNCI (15 yr Fannie MBS TBA) was priced to 5.50% with spread of 78 bps, that was 4 times of historical 10 year average (see the first chart). FNCI was traded at the cheapest level since 1998. The 78 bp spread to the swap was about four sigmas of the mean. FNCL (30 yr Fannie MBS TBA) was also trade at the lowest level that we have not seen in the last decade (second chart). Comparing to other investment alternatives, current fixed MBS prov...
Read more

VXN converging to VIX

Nasdaq markets have been dominated by some of well know large cap tech companies and many smaller less know names too. Not surprisingly, Nasdaq markets measured by NASAQ-100 have been much volatile than SP500. However, since tech bubble busted in 2000, the Nasdaq volatiles measured by VXN declined dramatically and has gradually converged to broad market volatility represented by SP500, VIX (see Bloomberg chart below). Actually, as credit and mortgage market began to melt 18+ months ago, VIX and VXN have been almost in parities. SP500 was much volatile than NASDAQ100 in two of these period, first when Bear Sterns hedge funds fiasco and second time happened in last Nov when financial system was in the breaking point. Financial sector was the one of largest sectors until last year because of market value evaporation from some celebrated financial names, like Bear Sterns, FNMA and Freddie, Lehman and Citi. Almost all these financial firms were traded at the big board and are members of SP5...
Read more