Categories

ReCapEx: The curious case of Apple's 2012 and 2013 Capital Expenditures

The latest yearly report from Apple includes, as it has in the past, the forecast of Capital Expenditures. I’ve been tracking this data as an indicator of both strategic intent and potential forecasting tool for iOS device production.

Before exploring Apple’s own forecast, we should look at how they met expectations for fiscal 2012.

In October 2011 the company forecast was as follows:

The Company anticipates utilizing approximately $8.0 billion for capital expenditures during 2012, including approximately $900 million for retail store facilities and approximately $7.1 billion for product tooling and manufacturing process equipment

In October 2012 it reported:

The Company’s capital expenditures were $10.3 billion during 2012, consisting of $865 million for retail store facilities and $9.5 billion for other capital expenditures, including product tooling and manufacturing process equipment, and other corporate facilities and infrastructure. The Company’s actual cash payments for capital expenditures during 2012 were $8.3 billion.

There are two points that need to be highlighted:

  1. Expenditures overall were $2.3 billion higher than forecast. Nearly all of the over-spending was for “product tooling, manufacturing process equipment and infrastructure”. Retail was planned at $900 million and actual was $865 (an under-spend of $35 million). As no major real estate assets were acquired (change in those assets was $380 million, less than 2011 or 2010) the “deficit” in budgeted expenditures can be attributed entirely to product tooling and manufacturing process equipment.[1] The $2.3 billion spending over expectations amounts to 34% of forecast.
  2. The cash payments for capex were $2 billion lower than expenditures. This is a curious situation which was not highlighted in previous 10 K reports. What this implies is that much of the “over-spend” was not paid for though cash and since no new debt was booked it’s likely to have been paid for through some form of vendor financing. I’ll explore some explanations below.

So it’s important to note that the company spent a great deal more (one third more) than expected and paid for some of the acquisitions through uncharacteristic or unorthodox means.

The historic budgeting for Machinery & Equipment (+Land & Buildings) is shown in the following graph:

 

I included the forecast for 2013 ($9.15 billion) and added 18% to estimate 2013 actual spend.

The percent over/under budget (percent difference between green and blue bars above) is shown below:

[Again, note that I took the liberty of forecasting 2013 over-spending at 18% or $10.8 billion.]

Note that 2008 and 2009 were either on target or below target. The recession of 2008/2009 might have had something to do with that. The under-spending situation of 2009 was made up for during 2010 with over 45% extra spending. 2011 came in at 18% over and 2012, as already noted, was 34% over budget. I then suggest that 2013 will be at 18%, same as in 2011.

When seen in this historic context, the increase of 2012 is even more dramatic. Apple overspent in 2012 more than it spent overall two years earlier. 2012 spending on M&E (and Land) was up 138% sequentially and nearly seven times the level of three years ago.

With this splurge in mind it’s necessary to think about that second noteworthy point above. There is evidence that at least some of the $2.3 billion over-budget was unanticipated and came late in the year. We saw the surge in spending in FQ4 from the gross asset value change data. The question is what was it spent on and why did it not go through the cash flow statement?

Circumstantial[2] evidence points to the asset being production equipment (or even a whole plant) previously owned by Sharp. Sharp is a key supplier of screens to Apple but is also in financial distress. Sharp has also been the object of an intended investment by Foxconn [Hon Hai]. That deal fell through as Sharp’s finances deteriorated. My guess is that these attempts to shore up Sharp are directed by Apple to ensure both continuity of supply and a balanced supplier base (offsetting Samsung, another supplier.) If Sharp were to enter into some form of bankruptcy, the key plant(s) used in producing screens for Apple might be “up for grabs” by creditors and they might be taken off-line, jeopardizing Apple’s production capacity, irrespective of contractual obligations. I believe that Apple’s late and unprecedented expenditure was to secure this asset. I further believe that the financing for this deal was done through a swap of “pre-orders”. Stepping even further into the hypothesis, I believe Apple arranged to move a Sharp screen production line onto its books and “paid” for it through a pre-payment of components. This being a pre-payment it would be in the form of an “off balance sheet” commitment. Apple reported that “As of September 29, 2012, the Company had outstanding off-balance sheet third-party manufacturing commitments and component purchase commitments of $21.1 billion” [my emphasis]. This is a significant increase from earlier years and allows for a huge “slush fund” to cover asset swaps.

If we take the timing of this expenditure into consideration, I consider it reasonable to assume that 2013 spending is lower by this amount. In other words, I think that about $2 billion, including the Sharp plant, may have been “brought forward” by a few months from 2013. If the company had spent more on schedule and on budget (i.e. with an over-spend of 15% rather than 34%) it would have spent about $8.2 billion. Therefore, as next year’s forecast is for $9.15 billion and as I would also expect an over-spend of 18% or $10.8 billion total, adding the brought-forward $2 billion would imply sequential growth from $8.2 to $12.8 or 56%.

This is in contrast to the indicated change of $9.5 billion (actual) to $9.15 billion (forecast), or decrease of 4%.

So, recapping the CapEx story, the company over-spent far more in 2012 than anticipated. It did so late in the year. It did it while a supplier was in distress and another’s supplier’s efforts in rescue failed. Furthermore, it indicated a modest and thus uncharacteristic increase in the next year’s CapEx budget. My take is that the trajectory of investment is not being altered dramatically but it’s had an adjustment in timing, a kink in the line. The overall story remains that Apple is still injecting vast and growing amounts of capital into production and placing those assets on its own balance sheet.

Notes:

  1. I track this spending through asset value changes in the balance sheet. That change in value excludes depreciation which turned to to be substantial in 2012: $2.44 billion.
  2. What follows is strictly hypothetical and based only on pieces of evidence that have become public hinting at an explanation but there is no proof.
  • Beautiful Freak

    I’ve wondered if Apple could acquire a silicon foundry and still keep it quiet. You are saying that Apple might have done something similar with Sharp. What are the requirements for disclosure? Apple always moves stealthily, to keep ahead of competition. With CapEx rising so much every year, it won’t be long before a $5 or $10 billion correction between forecasts could seem just a minor blip, as this $2.3 billion correction has gone unmentioned except by you. With CapEx so high, is it easy to hide big deals, those that don’t require SEC disclosure?

    • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

      $7 billion buys a lot. $9 billion buys even more. Fabs are expensive but fully within this budget. In a previous post I pointed out that Apple’s capEx cash flow for the third quarter was significantly higher than Intel’s.

      • Beautiful Freak

        I think you’re saying that there are no requirements for disclosure. I’m no MBA, so please enlighten me about how disclosure works, especially as concerns buying capacity in a public company without actually buying stock in that company. How stealthy can Apple be?

      • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

        I’m not an expert on compliance with SEC regulations, but I don’t think Apple needs to disclose everything it buys and what it pays, even when what is being purchased is another company.

      • cellojoe

        A completely low-brow question given the themes and tone of this site, but as an investor, the recent sell off has been steep and frightening. What would everyone suggest? Do these numbers suggest any kind of fundamentally bearish trend?

      • http://twitter.com/fivetonsflax fivetonsflax

        As a small-time investor myself, my experience has been that the market has been wrong about Apple more often than it’s been right. Therefore, I see this as a buying opportunity. I hope I’m right.

      • http://twitter.com/fivetonsflax fivetonsflax

        As a small-time investor myself, my experience has been that the market has been wrong about Apple more often than it’s been right. Therefore, I see this as a buying opportunity. I hope I’m right.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Shameer-Mulji/1685212657 Shameer Mulji

        What do you anticipate Apple is buying? Sharp? or something else?

      • http://twitter.com/fivetonsflax fivetonsflax

        Hmm? All I meant is that the decline in the price of AAPL stock makes this a good time to buy it.

      • fivetonsflax

        That’s not what I meant — I was just saying that the stock price dip creates an opportunity for me to buy it cheaply.

      • fivetonsflax

        I just replied to a seven-month-old post! I wonder why I was only now notified of Shameer’s reply to me.

    • http://twitter.com/handleym99 Maynard Handley

      I think the key thing to realize here is that, in a certain sense, regulations track accounting matters (money flows today, and to a lesser extent promise of money flows tomorrow). But Apple is playing a different game here — their interest in Sharp is an interest in CONTROL, not an interest in the financials of Sharp.

      So we have a few different balls in the air.
      First there is bankruptcy in Japan. None of us knows how that plays out, and what Japan feels about foreigners buying their “crown jewel” companies. (Compare with the US which freaks out when China tries this.)

      Second there is the question of why exactly Sharp is doing so badly. OK, so it’s Korean competition. But what specifically? “Unfair” support from the Korean government (lower taxes, cheap financing, whatever)? Cheaper labor? Production of components that better match what the market wants? Lack of investment in future research/manufacturing? Really bad management?
      All this matters because it determines whether an Apple involved with Sharp can do better than Sharp has done so far.

      Thirdly there is the question of the behavior of Sharp management. Are they willing to (one way or another) do what Apple wants, even if it means major changes? Or are they, in the grand tradition of incompetent managers everywhere, convinced that doing more of what they’ve done for the past five years is the path to success, and any deviation is unacceptable?

      The point is — what Apple wants is, at the very least a reliable second source, and even better a company that (essentially) can and will act as Apple’s dedicated display manufacturing arm. What Apple doesn’t want is taking control of a Japanese icon and personnel in a very public way that rubs it in that we, the falang are now in charge and you, the Japanese, better get used to it.
      So can they structure a deal that gives Apple the sort of control it wants (with provisions for recourse if Sharp doesn’t do its part)? That’s the REAL issue here — once that is done, the financing in a minor matter, a technical problem to be structured so as best to meet Sharp’s cash-flow needs while minimizing taxes and other such overhead.

  • christophe driver
  • ftaok

    I wonder how late in the year did apple go over the capex budget. If you look at the two years that went over by the highest percentages, it was 2007 and 2010. Coincidentally those are the years that iPhone and iPad were intro’d. I wonder if late 2012 saw cap spending for a new device that will be coming out in 2013 …

    • http://www.isophist.com/ Emilio Orione

      There is a new device at the end of 2012, ipad mini, and a refresh of almost all other lines of products, iphone 5, ipad 4, iPods, iMacs, mac mini, mac books, all in the same time frame, last month.
      True that ipads could be refreshed again in april but capex for that should go in next year budget.

      • ftaok

        True, apple did release a boatload of new devices late in the year. However, I’m looking at the huge increase in dollars and I’m having difficulty reconciling it. I’m thinking maybe apple are planning something big that just isn’t ready to release … iTV or maybe the next big thing.

      • oases

        I don’t have trouble reconciling it…with the factors mentioned above and the fact that the iPad mini is representative of huge scale. I’d like to be wrong though.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ADRoach Andrew Ranch

    perhaps the cash outlay lags the expenditure due to year end accruals reflecting the ramp up in production of new products. do you think that sufficiently explain the discrepancy?

    • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

      Perhaps, but I doubt that an asset purchase is made “on credit”. In either case, this imbalance in payments and asset growth or expenditures was not present in previous years.

  • Dirk

    I am curious, if and if so, how litigation reserves might play into this? Are they a separate line item? Especially after Apple v. Samsung, or even yesterdays cool 370m VirnetX penalty, these patent lawsuits have to be account for in the financial statement, no?

    • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

      Litigation costs are tiny and a part of operating expenses (Income Statement). Payments from or for settlements to lawsuits are accounted as one time payments, also on the income statements. As far as I know there is no impact on the balance sheet from litigation (or, perhaps there wold be if writing off some patent that is judged no longer valid.)

  • christophe driver

    Find the topic fascinating, but I’m a noob in accounting… Aren’t “off balance commitments ” and capex mutually exclusive? What about IP? If Apple wanted IP from Sharp, where could it be found in terms of accounting? I doubt a plant would be that useful if IP would go to a competitor.

    • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

      IP is accounted for differently. There is a line item for that in the balance sheet separate from PP&E.

  • Pingback: Apple may have invested $2 billion to aid struggling display maker Sharp

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeff-Silverman/1634666325 Jeff Silverman

    Horace:
    Your theory is interesting; and sounds very plausible re Sharp; questions:

    1) Shocked that SEC would not require the specifics on something that could have a longer term financial drag/issue; ultimately is Sharp is not financially viable – this is a problem
    2) What is your opinion on Apple doing this?
    thanks
    Jeff

    • Joe_Winfield_IL

      Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s entirely possible to secure specific assets as collateral against this type of investment. In other words, Apple could essentially own the particular plant, property and equipment at Sharp if the company does go out of business. I can’t imagine any bondholder objecting to giving Apple a primary lien on this asset if Apple’s investment has any chance of keeping their own investments viable.

      • Tatil_S

        I would object. If I were the bondholder, I’d rather liquidate Sharp, take over the same plant and sell it to Apple for $2 billion. Instead, Sharp is handing it over. A year from now Sharp may still go out of business and I would be left with no such asset. How is that in my interest?

      • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

        I would not expect they’re handing it over. Why would they?

      • Tatil_S

        What is the value of signing over a $2 billion plant in return for the payment that Sharp was already going to receive in the next 12 months? Sharp would be saving the interest on a loan it might need in the absence of the prepayment, so it is not really handing it over, but for a bondholder who is already taking on the risk of bankruptcy, that does not offer much value.

      • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

        Because within the payment there is a bonus.

      • Tatil_S

        Then the bonus should have been a cash payment and the financial statement is fraudulent. (We are not paying cash for the fab, but there is a little bonus here for you, wink wink…)

      • http://twitter.com/handleym99 Maynard Handley

        Oh don’t be melodramatic. No-one wants to see Sharp go into bankruptcy — not Apple, not Sharp, not Sharp’s creditors. And no-one is greasing palms to transfer bearer bonds in the night.

        The issue is, as I have already stated it:
        Apple wants covenants that Sharp will jump when it says so, without going through all the hassle (political, PR, xenophobia, etc) of owning Sharp. They will do their damndest to sew up such a deal, and then will support Sharps’ cash flow problems for he near future, until Sharp becomes essentially a captive supplier of Apple and the point is moot.

      • Tatil_S

        It is not melodrama. I am not accusing anybody of accounting fraud, I am just saying the theory of “bonus within prepayment” implies one, so I don’t find that hidden bonus explanation plausible. There is gotta be another explanation for how Apple gets a $2 billion asset without paying cash for it. Fabs are pretty much the only tangible asset for the creditors to extract value in bankruptcy. Apple may say, “I will not buy any parts from you unless you sign over the fab, but if you do, I will prepay for 12 months worth of purchases in advance”, but it is not in the bondholder’s interest to do so unless Apple is prepaying a lot more for those parts than it would in the open market, but that cannot be classified as a non-cash payment.

      • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

        Why cash? The bonus can be in the form of higher pricing written into a contract.

      • Tatil_S

        I don’t have an alternate theory, but “prepayment of part purchases at higher pricing” is mathematically the same as “prepayment for purchases at the correct price and paying for the plant”. Why would Apple take such a circuitous route? I suspect the payment method is hidden somewhere else in the quarterly statement, but the best I can think of is trading some kind of long term, non-cash equivalent, non-operations related asset for the plant. Deferred tax assets would fit the bill, but unprofitable companies usually don’t need that. :)

      • Mark T

        Didn’t Apple forecast a drop in gross margin from 40.0% in Sep ’12 to 36.0% in Dec ’12.

        Perhaps this drop could be partially explained by such a “bonus”.

      • Joe_Winfield_IL

        A couple thoughts:

        -It isn’t about what you or I would do. The bonds have clearly laid out rules. I have no idea how much of Sharp’s debt is secured vs. unsecured. Sharp only has to follow the covenants of its existing debt; they may not be required to ask permission of anyone to do this kind of deal. You’d be shocked at how much corporate debt is unsecured.

        -If an Apple investment creates a chance at staving off liquidation, everybody wins. Why would a bondholder play chicken with its own money? The value of assets tends to drop pretty dramatically in liquidation, and there is no guarantee Apple would step up and pay the $2B after the fact.

        -The investment could very well be in new equipment at Sharp, no different than buying new equipment at Foxconn.

      • Tatil_S

        - You were the one who said you could not imagine a bondholder objecting. Whether that objection would have legal weight is a separate discussion and ultimately pointless as I doubt either of us have access to the details of the covenants. Even unsecured bonds have clauses that prevent the borrower from reducing its asset-liability ratio too much. I would imagine selling off a plant without getting paid would either subtract from the asset side or add to the liability side.

        – I used the term liquidation lightly. Force Sharp into bankruptcy, provide day to day financing to keep the company as an ongoing concern until you can sell off the plant to the same buyer in return for real cash.

        – New equipment would require cash payment or vendor financing by the people who make the equipment.

  • Pingback: Foxconn chairman Terry Gou says company is “falling short” of iPhone demand | MobileAdmin

  • Defendor

    I am extremely skeptical of this supposed investment in Sharp.

    I have never seen a Sharp LCD show up in a Apple product teardown. Ever.

    Sharp doesn’t produce IPS displays. They have their own ASV technology which is more like competing VA technologies which suffer more off angle color/contrast loss.

    Samsung didn’t even start showing up in Apple products until they created their own IPS technology offshoot (PLS). I have seen no signs that Sharp has created an IPS offshoot of their own.

    At best Sharp might be a 3rd source (if that), does it make sense to risk 2Billion on a shaky 3rd source supplier?

    While I think you are usually bang on in your analysis, I am very skeptical of this bit of speculation.

    • jawbroken

      Their IGZO displays are supposed to greatly reduce power consumption by increasing light transmission. This or similar technology seems key to further product development; the fat & heavy iPad needs to be trimmed.

      • Joe_Winfield_IL

        Exactly. We don’t know what we don’t know about Apple’s future product roadmap.

    • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

      http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/31/sharp_hits_delays_producing_screens_for_apples_next_iphone___wsj
      Sharp’s president announced earlier this month that his company planned to begin shipping screens for Apple’s next iPhone in August. The new handset is expected to feature in-cell touch panel technology that will allow the touchscreen to become even thinner, allowing for a thinner overall design or more space for components like the battery.

      • Defendor

        At best that story places them as a third source, and the one having production problems.

      • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

        The whole point is to have an alternative to the first source. You do that by help out those in difficulty.

      • http://twitter.com/radioactiveukr RadioactiveUkrainian

        You’re looking at now. Apple looks at 2-3 years from now, at least. Wait and see.

      • Defendor

        I have no problem with the idea of Apple helping, but I don’t see them helping with huge amounts of cash to financially shaky company that can’t actually execute on delivery.

        Sharp warned days ago they are still on the verge of collapse. In that light it looks like tossing bundles of money down a sewer.

        http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/440849/sharp_warning_it_may_collapse_surprises_few/

        I think Tim Cook is too savy to throw hundreds of millions (or more) at something that unstable.

        If he did, it sounds like it didn’t help.

      • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

        We’re talking about having title to plant and equipment not shares in a company that’s failing. The data (and I) say nothing about Apple owning any of Sharp.

    • mieswall

      and what if all this is not related to the iphone, but instead preparing the iTV?

  • http://www.isophist.com/ Emilio Orione

    Fascinating at least.
    “Apple is still injecting vast and growing amounts of capital into production and placing those assets on its own balance sheet”

    I wonder if this is part of the strategy of getting rid of samsung as a supplier. The volume capacity and price of samsung is not easily replaceable, apple’s main products are already supply constrained with samsung, there is no alternative production capacity available, al least if you don’t create it.
    Wasn’t you Horace that last year suggested that apple should invest in their own production facilities?

    • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

      Regarding Samsung, I’m pretty sure that the strategy is to reduce dependency on Samsung.
      I did mention the need to integrate into manufacturing before. It was in late 2010: http://www.asymco.com/2010/12/15/apple-factories/

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Shameer-Mulji/1685212657 Shameer Mulji

        Samsung is still tops when it comes to production capacity and quality. How wise might that move be?

      • Tatil_S

        Very… I doubt any phone maker wants a repeat of Intel dominance in core components of PCs, with Samsung playing the same role. :)

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Shameer-Mulji/1685212657 Shameer Mulji

        @Horace @Tatil_S:disqus All good points. What are your thoughts on this article;

        http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/11/hon-hais-iphone-5-problems-could-be-larger-than-we-think.html

        The gist of the article is that Apple’s declining reliance on Samsung will hurt Apple, not Samsung. It’s an interesting read.

      • Tatil_S

        … says unnamed Korean research firm, which provides no supporting evidence for its conclusions. Losing your biggest customer is never easy. If you see a customer throwing $28 billion around on semiconductor components, you’d want some of that.

      • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

        There are many reports, there is no evidence. My analysis depends on public statements from companies involved. I would not recommend relying on any non-public information. See the following: http://www.asymco.com/2010/11/24/ill-let-you-in-on-a-secret-insider-info-is-bogus/

      • Simon

        That report is BS. Samsung was never part of iPhone display supplying channel and they have been moving out of the small mobile LCD business for years now. A report that tries to tell you iPhone 5 shortage is because Apple does not buy iPad mini displays from Samsung sounds flat out wrong.

      • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

        It may be wise to work with the best but it’s wiser to strive to become the best.

  • Pingback: Foxconn chairman Terry Gou says company is ‘falling short’ of iPhone 5 demand, Malta ? | Apple Mac Support Malta

  • gbonzo

    Man, you are twisting the data more than ever. I laughed out loud when I saw how you came to that 56% figure. What you should do is to first look at the data and then come to conclusions. Now you are doing things the other way round.

    Well, let’s see what happens with your 110 million iOS devices estimate for Q4. All indicators (capex, google insights, launch corrected iPhone sales figures) now point at radically slowing growth, but our Horace is not willing to accept that just yet.

    Yes, I know I am getting a lot of thumbs down for this message, as all the other messages when I have questioned Horace’s “observations about future” and been right.

    • Joe_Winfield_IL

      Can you cite the other cases when you’ve been right?

      I’m all in favor of debate, but I just don’t see it here. His hypothesis is that Apple moved a couple billion forward from 2013 into 2012. Not a huge reach really. And that hypothetical move is literally the only thing required to get to the hilarious 56% figure.

      • gbonzo

        Horace’s mistake here is that he makes a correction to given figures without considering all the implications. But, in a way Horace’s methods are improving a little bit. Let me explain.

        Here, he moved capex dollars from one year to another. If we believe that it is correct to do so, we should consider this lower 2012 figure to be more correct than than the higher one, and use it accordingly in all of our calculations, now and future. Here, both graphs use the higher figure, which Horace discredits at the end. If you take two billions from 2012 to 2013 suddenly the 2012 overspending is not 34%, far from it. Is the 2013 18% overspending “observation about future” now plausible? Seems like a stretch. And when next year comes, we should try to remember what figure to use when calculating growth then.

        Horace should do this thing he tries to do here also with iPhone sales figures. Move actual units from one period to another to model new version transitions. Instead what he does with iPhone is to label some quarters as “transitional” and then forget about it. He has labeled CQ3 2012 as transitional without remembering that he labeled CQ3 2011 also transitional. Then he makes an “observation about future” that iPhone sales growth will “accelerate further” in Q4 from the 56% of Q3. That won’t happen.

        So, I consider it an improvement that Horace makes this kind of corrections to capex figures. But he does it half-heartedly, as if he is forced to do it to protect one of his facourite rulers to shatter to pieces in face of reality.

      • steven75

        Still waiting for the citation of other cases where you were right and Horace wasn’t.

      • gbonzo

        Well, I was right about iPhone 5 screen size discussion on this site a year ago. Actually, I don’t want to say that I am always right, don’t read it that way. Just an observation that regardless of who at the end was right about something, the thumbs-ups in this site always went 10-1 in favor of the one who was more enthusiastic about Apple.

      • Joe_Winfield_IL

        Your point is probably valid about comment ratings, but if you need the approval of anonymous internet blog communities, you are probably neglecting something more important in your real life.

        I go to Asymco because Horace provides bespoke analysis, for free, on a subject that is important to me (investing in AAPL). Further, the website attracts a wide array of intelligent readers with sometimes divergent opinions. With few exceptions, the comments are civil; more important than the civility though is the fact that many comments ask probing questions which lead to deeper discussion than I can find elsewhere on the web.

      • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

        Not at all. I chose 18% indexed off 2011 not 2012’s 34% (which would not be 34%). In fact, the average for all years 2007 to 2011 was 21% over-spend (i.e. excluding 2012). Furthermore, prior to this analysis I did a separate analysis of the pattern of over/under spend for leasehold improvements (the only other data set we have). There the spend and forecast on leaseholdings are very, very close with almost no discernible pattern. This convinced me that the pattern for over-spending on capEx is a pattern.

      • gbonzo

        From 2007 to 2011? Come on :) Twist twist twist.

        I believe the average from 2008 to 2012 is far more appropriate to current situation than 2007 to 2011. And 2012 should be calculated without that 2 billion. Based on the graph, this overspending average from 2008 to 2012 seems to be about 8%.

        If we assume that that $2 billion should be moved forward, then I would say that Apple is getting better at estimating now that the numbers are larger. If I would want to arrive at something like 18% figure, I would have to select the years to be 2010-2012 and the method to be averaging. Does not seem honest to do so based on the data.

      • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

        I’ll admit to errors. Dishonesty, never.

      • gbonzo

        Speaking of errors, is there an error in the 56% figure? The $12.8 billion is based on $9.15 billion, which is without retail. What is the $8.2 billion based on, with or without retail?

      • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

        This is my data.

      • gbonzo

        So, should it be 9500 – 2000 = 7500 instead of 8200 ?

      • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

        You can run scenarios to your heart’s content. Here are several varying the carry-forward and the over-spend ratio. The change in capex can vary from 45% to 57%. The point of the post was that capex is not in a declining trajectory and “Apple is still injecting vast and growing amounts of capital into production”.

      • gbonzo

        Yes. And if you put Carry-forward to be 2000 and over-spend to be 18% as they are in the text, then it shows 7500 -> 12800, not 8200 -> 12800 as in the text. Right? Just asking so that we have a similar understanding of the numbers.

      • Tatil_S

        I am confused. If $2 billion is moved to 2013, CapEx spending in 2012 becomes $7.4 billion excluding retail, against $7.1 billion forecast. That is only 4% overspending, isn’t it?

      • gbonzo

        Exactly. To my eyes there is a pattern of increasing accuracy.

      • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

        That’s right. I indexed the 18% on years 2006 to 2011, not 2012. I can’t reference a year where I fabricate a growth rate. I have to reference patterns which exclude made-up data. Put another way, I can make 2012 whatever I want it to be based on how much I choose to move from 2012, so why should I guess what 2013 should be based on what I made up 2012 to be?

      • Tatil_S

        Oh, I see your point now, thanks.

        However, if you are right and this $2 billion was brought forward by a few months due to the unique circumstances of Sharp, we would have had +67, 0, -29, 45, 18 and 4% over/under spending. There is no pattern here, just an average across noisy data at best, a pattern of progressively more accurate forecasting at worst. I am not sure expecting a “usual” 18% overspending in 2013 CapEx is all that rational.

      • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

        The movement of $2 billion forward is consistent with (a) there being 2 billion more in 2012 than expected and (b) there being $2 billion less in 2013 than expected. If (b) is considered ludicrous then you still have to give a reason for (a).

      • gbonzo

        Justify the 18% to me once the 2 billion is moved forward.

      • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

        As mentioned in a previous comment, the 18% is consistent with the pattern of years prior to 2012. I’m not alone in this assessment. See last sentence in following paragraph. http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/11/apple-inc-aapl-is-preparing-for-growth-reveals-10-k-filing/ As per the report, Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) expects CapEx (ex-retail) of $9.15bn in FY13, down 3% vs. reported CapEx in FY12. While this looks disappointing vs. reported growth of 137% in FY12, Credit Suisse analysts believe even this guidance could imply an upside to iOS volumes. The firm notes that last year’s CapEx may have been inflated by a one-time uptick in purchasing equipment and securing capacity at suppliers. Adjusting for this, and using a CapEx per iOS unit of $32 (in line with the FY10-11 average), suggests iOS units of 288mn (1% higher than firm’s estimate of 285mn). Furthermore, Apple has traditionally overspent guidance by an average of 32%, ex-retail, over the last 3 years, lending further conservatism to estimates.

      • gbonzo

        What is the reason for Apple to deliberately give low guidance for capex? If you believe that the reason for low guidance on EPS is to protect management from lawsuits, then should Apple guide high for capex?

      • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

        I treat CapEx forecasts as a budget. Their forecast for retail capex is almost always spot-on and I take that to mean that they are finding it easier to predict. Some items are easier to budget than others. CapEx budgeting errors are not likely to be the subject of shareholder lawsuits. It’s a very indirect connection between capex and share value, at least for Apple.

    • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

      There’s a much easier way to explain the CapEx growth (forecast for 2013 + 18% vs. actuals): 57% CAGR since 2006, 65% since 2007, 73% since 2008, 93% since 2009, 70% since 2010 and 65% since 2011 and 14% since 2012.

      • oases

        There you go again, twist, twist, twist…

      • http://twitter.com/jonmilani Jon Milani

        Be more respectful. You’re not adding to the discussion.

      • oases

        You need to turn on your sarcasm radar.

    • FalKirk

      gbonzo, I’ve now read this entire thread. Let me make three points about your posts.

      First, you’re unnecessarily rude and arrogant. There’s lots and lots of dissent on this forum and it’s done in a courteous manner without suggesting that people are “twisting” the data. Some of the people who contribute to this forum are simply brilliant and they see no need to brag about it. You should follow their example.

      Second, I’ve gotten a lot of very great information and insight from this cite. I’m sure that Horace has and will make mistakes. But I’d put his insights and helpfulness up against your contributions any day of the week.

      Be more humble, more courteous and more helpful and less arrogant, less rude and less of a show off and your comments will be much better received and respected and you’ll receive, in kind, much better responses and replies.

      • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

        From my experience reading 36,671 comments on this site, comments are down-rated because of the way things are said not what is being said. Manners are extremely important in civilized society. As much care should be placed on how one speaks as on what is spoken. This is normal in face-to-face encounters but rare in online interactions due to anonymity. The way society deals with bad behavior is ostracism.

      • Padova

        Thanks. gbonzo was clearly an early drop-out in the School for Manners.

  • http://twitter.com/ChristianPeel Christian Peel

    Apple seems to be fairly aware of creative destruction; wouldn’t the financial problems of Sharp be a hint that something is wrong with them and that Apple might just be throwing money away by investing in them. Do you have any specific external source to support the idea of Apple investing in Sharp?

    • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

      Apple is not investing in Sharp. Where did that idea come from? Apple has zero equity in the company.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Shameer-Mulji/1685212657 Shameer Mulji

        Maybe now’s a good time to do so. Sharp does have good talent & IP.

      • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

        And debt in excess of any of that.

    • http://twitter.com/WalterMilliken Walter Milliken

      I think the notion here is that Apple is buying an asset (LCD plant) from Sharp, not investing in the company itself. Presumably if Sharp went under, Apple could hire the line workers directly and operate the plant, or hire Hon Hai to do that. It would thus be annoying if Sharp went under, but Apple could secure the production they need with a little scrambling.

      • http://twitter.com/ChristianPeel Christian Peel

        Thanks!

  • Tatil_S

    Sharp needs to pay off its debts that it presumably used to build its screen fabs. It is in no position to sell one its plants while providing financing for the purchase. Its biggest loans are not due until next year. Prepayments that it would have received by then does not really help at all. I am not sure how non-cash purchase of a Sharp plant helps Sharp.

    • Joe_Winfield_IL

      Sharp may need to sell more bonds. Since the company’s debt is already considered junk, it may have needed the cash from Apple to demonstrate to banks its ability to raise capital.

      Or maybe Sharp felt like this was an opportunity to get closer to Apple. There is now a symbiotic relationship between the borrower and the lender, as Apple has a clear incentive to favor Sharp in future display contract.

      • Tatil_S

        In terms of corporate governance goes, that symbiotic relationship is not desirable. As you’ve said, Apple favoring Sharp until it gets its investment back can cause it overlook quality or price advantages from other suppliers.

        In any case, I am just questioning the plausibility of Sharp being the seller of M&E in return for non-cash payment. How is Sharp demonstrating to banks its ability to raise capital by selling (giving away?) a plant in return for a pre-payment? It is more like demonstrating its ability to sell products (positive, I suppose) and definitive proof of its inability to raise capital (quite negative, but not surprising).

      • Joe_Winfield_IL

        Let me first say that this whole topic fits under the heading of speculation, but it does make sense (at least to me).

        I propose that Sharp is not selling the plant to Apple, but rather giving Apple a lien on the M&E for “free” in exchange for a massive prepayment. I assume Apple would demand relevant collateral on an investment of this size into a company with such a bleak financial outlook.

        And I agree that Apple does not look for this type of symbiosis. Of course they would prefer to have many suppliers clamoring for their orders. But as the volume grows each year, there are fewer candidates who can meet Apple’s scale and quality needs. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that companies like Sharp, Toshiba, Sony, Panasonic, etc. are all simultaneously hurt by the explosion of popularity for iOS and Android at the expense of older single-purpose and closed system electronics.

      • Tatil_S

        That sounds plausible, but it depends on what kind of bond and loan covenants Sharp has signed when it borrowed money in the past. Normally the lenders don’t let borrowers offer assets that existed when they first loaned the money as collateral to others. Otherwise you could easily screw the initial lenders by not leaving them any lien-free assets in the event of a bankruptcy. (Borrow money from a bank, buy assets, borrow money from “friends” with the newly purchased asset as collateral, declare bankruptcy and your friends end up owning the assets while the bank is left with nothing.)

  • Pingback: Apples’s Foxconn/Sharp iPhone supply problem hints industry challenge » |

  • Pingback: Analista acha que Apple investiu US$ 2 bilhões na Sharp - macmais - http://macmais.com.br/

  • MOD

    Off- balance sheet items (commitments ) cannot offset existing (on-balance) sheet items. An existing asset like PP&E must be offset by another existing (on-balance)
    sheet item, whether a decrease in another asset, like cash, an increase in liabilities like Accounts Payable (a promise to pay), or an increase in equity (investment by owners in exchange for stock). This is needed to keep the balance sheet balanced. Assets = Liabilities + Equity.

    Off-balance sheet items in the 2012 Apple 10-K (page 70) are:
    “third-party manufacturing commitments and component purchase commitments of $21.1 billion, $988 million … of commitments to acquire capital assets.”

    These are future liabilities, that are not recorded on the 2012 balance sheet. This is why they are called off-balance sheet . But if these commitments (liabilites) would be recorded, they would have to be offset by future assets (“Asset Receivable”) . These assets would be “Inventory Receivable “of $21.1 bil and “PP&E Receivable” of $988 mil.

    If Apple did purchase a fabrication plant and placed it on its balance sheet, but did not (yet) pay cash for it, this is likely balanced by an increase in Accounts Payable, or by “Other non-current liabilities” .

    Sharp would show this transaction on its books as an increase in Accounts Receivable. Since Apple’s credit is very good, I doubt Sharp’s creditors would question the account’s valuation. A promise to pay cash by Apple, would likely be more secure, for Sharp’s creditors, than a promise to buy components, since that is contingent on the ability to manufacture the components, whereas the promise to pay cash is clear-cut.

    • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

      Thanks for the clarification. I concede that we need to look elsewhere for how the plant was paid for. Non-current liabilities did increase quite a bit as well though I’ve heard that those are a form of tax liability (for re-patriation of cash). Though again that would be a hypothesis.

    • http://fundless-sponsor.blogspot.com/ Capitalistic

      It’s possible that Apple was able to get a pretty sweet deal from Sharp. “We’ll keep purchasing parts from you and also pay for the facility fixed costs associated with our business for 20 years, with an option to terminate in 5 years.”
      That’s another off-balance sheet expenditure (think PIK).

      • MOD

        The $2 bil plant(s) in question already exists and is on the balance sheet. Promises to pay for it have to then be on the same balance sheet as well, so that debits equal credits.

  • Pingback: Apple May Have Given Sharp $2 Billion ‘Bailout’ To Keep Screen Supplies Flowing |Trax Asia™

  • Pingback: Apples’s Foxconn/Sharp iPhone supply problem hints industry challenge

  • Tatil_S

    The value of prepayment is in the interest the company would have paid if it were to borrow that much money from a bank. Based on CDS rates, Sharp would probably need to spend 30% to 50% interest. If $2 billion (the plant’s worth according to Apple) is the equivalent to six month’s interest payments (I am assuming Apple is prepaying one year worth of screens, delivered at a steady rate across the year), that suggest the prepayment would have to be for $4 to $6.5 billion worth of supplies. Apple is rumored to spend $28 billion on semiconductor supplies last year, so this sounds a bit too high just for LCD screens. If the prepayment is done to secure a longer term purchase, let’s say three years, the numbers would look quite different, but I am pretty sure Sharp would not survive three years if its borrowing costs stay around 30% for three years, so I am not sure if such an agreement would make sense to either party.

  • Pingback: Apple May Have Given Sharp $2 Billion ‘Bailout’ To Keep Screen Supplies Flowing | MAC Admin

  • Pingback: Did Apple Spend $2 Billion to Bail Out Sharp? « Unlock iPhone 4s / 4 / 3Gs / 3G / 2G. Up to Firmware 5.0 Guaranteed

  • Pingback: Did Apple Spend $2 Billion to Bail Out Sharp? | Compare Prices and Best Deals Online

  • Pingback: Did Apple Spend $2 Billion to Bail Out Sharp? | CodeBlue Technology

  • Pingback: Techno Vision – Apple May Have Given Sharp $2 Billion ‘Bailout’ To Keep Screen Supplies Flowing

  • Pingback: Da SkeeT Blog – Apples’s Foxconn/Sharp iPhone supply problem hints industry challenge

  • Walt French

    Lots of interesting ideas here, but I’m not sure I saw anybody claim to be expert about Japanese bankruptcy practices or investor disclosure requirements. For a *conjecture* (“reasonable to assume” and “guess” jump out), the idea seems perfectly good enough without more doc. Stronger assertions (e.g., contradictions) would seem to require better evidence.

    In any case, there may be more than one fire underneath this smoke. Korean display manufacturers seem to have disrupted the Japanese—with high quality, Japanese-made small screens as collateral damage.

    IIRC, Horace recently expressed concern about the Korean government’s Industrial Policy, which might be taking over the world TV business just as it’s reaching a slower-growth phase; such pyrrhic victories wouldn’t seem unlikely in industry targeting. Still, with (Samsung’s) buying out Sony from its SLCD partnership, and Sharp in trouble, LG and Samsung could potentially dominate.

    The recent rumor that Samsung will cancel its planned US fab also suggests Samsung’s resolve to compete aggressively with Apple in end-user devices, even if it limits their market for components e.g. CPUs in the short term.

    Furthering the *speculative* link, this raises the chance we’ll see Apple make much bigger upstream commitments in silicon fabs & displays, two key components significantly controlled by oligopolistic competitors. And watch out for batteries.

    • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

      I take it you are referring to the following:
      “Samsung Electronics is likely to put off the construction of a new logic fabrication facility dubbed Line-17, due to the possibility of losing a portion of orders for Apple’s next-generation application chips, according to industry sources,” Josephine Lien and Jessie Shen report for DigiTimes.

      “Samsung will no longer be the sole supplier of Apple-designed chips that power the iPhone and iPad devices, the sources indicate,” Lien and Shen report. “The anticipated drop in orders from Apple has prompted Samsung to consider slowing the pace of its logic-IC capacity expansion.”

      Lien and Shen report, “TSMC with its 20nm process technology will likely secure its first chip orders from Apple, the sources believe. TSMC is scheduled to enter trial production on its 20nm process node in early 2013, the sources said.”

      Read more at http://macdailynews.com/2012/11/07/samsung-reportedly-delays-new-semiconductor-plant-after-losing-apple-orders-sources-say/#8Xqks4TVtAa0YlKc.99

  • Pingback: Did Apple Spend $2 Billion to Bail Out Sharp?

  • Pingback: Did Apple Spend $2 Billion to Bail Out Sharp? | Apple Related

  • Pingback: » How Much is Apple Spending to Ditch Samsung as a Supplier? - Dynam Host ICT Solution

  • Pingback: Apple Inc (AAPL): Did It Post a $2B Bailout of Sharp?

  • Dan Marshall

    Hi Admin,

    I am Dan, a financial writer. Today I came across your site asymco.com and enjoyed reading some of your articles.

    I just want to know do you allow guest posts? I would like to write for your blog on some relevant topics that is still to cover on your blog.

    I will make sure that my articles will be completely unique and free to serve the purpose of your website. I do believe your readers will enjoy reading it.

    It will be a thrilling experience for me if my article finds a place in your blog.

    Please let me know about your decision.

    Regards,
    Dan Marshall

  • Pingback: iPhone 5:n tuotanto ei vieläkään pysy kysynnän tahdissa : Mobiili.fi

  • Pingback: Apple might have propped Sharp with a cool 2 billion to ensure future screen tech supply : Gadzets.Net | Know Your Gadget

  • Pingback: Apple may have invested $2 billion to aid struggling display maker Sharp | Every Single HOUR!

  • Pingback: Apple bailed out Sharp to the tune of $2bn last quarter: analyst | forthenews.com

  • Pingback: Apple bailed out Sharp to the tune of $2bn last quarter: analyst » |

  • Pingback: Did Apple Spend $2 Billion to Bail Out Sharp? | Apple Mac Support Malta

  • Pingback: Apple: 2,3 miliardi di investimenti per Sharp contro Samsung? | Ipad 3, Ipad, Informazioni ipad, uscita ipad 3 - iPadTouch.it

  • Pingback: Did Apple Spend $2 Billion to Bail Out Sharp? | SP1RACY - All things tech & more

  • Pingback: Apple bailed out Sharp to the tune of $2bn last quarter: analyst

  • http://twitter.com/SoLoMo_ social_local_mobile

    There’s also rumours about maps and experts by TomTom being for sale for a similar amount. By a former bank of America / Merril Lynch analist:

    http://uneasyempires.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/how-much-will-apple-pay-for-tomtom.html
    http://uneasyempires.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/why-apple-should-buy-tomtom.html
    Mapping is a true weakspot of Apple. They’re being laughed at by Google.

    • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

      A similar amount? TomTom is a public company with a generous market cap of €827 million.

  • Pingback: Apple Bailed out Sharp with $2 Billion Investment

  • Pingback: Apple ha investito su Sharp per abbandonare Samsung

  • Pingback: Did Apple spend US$2.5b bailing out iPhone screen supplier Sharp? - Macworld Australia

  • Pingback: Did Apple Spend $2 Billion to Bail Out Sharp? | AIVAnet

  • S435

    This analysis regarding what may have Apple spent on buying machinery
    for its supplier (e.g. Sharp) by analyzing Apple’s capex spend is flawed and incorrect. If Apple incurred capex on behalf of its supplier then it would not record it as
    PP&E (i.e. capex) on its books. Apple’s own actual capex may have been
    higher than forecast but that is not related to buying machinery for its
    supplier(s) — these are separate issues.

    First, Apple’s total capex spend of $10 billion in FY 2012 is difference in gross PP&E on its books (MD&A) and $8.3 billion is simply the cash payment (CF Stmt). This implies the rest is owed and would be recorded as liability (which category is not clear).

    Second, Apple records non-trade receivables when it buys machinery/components and has not been paid back yet from its suppliers. For FY 2012, this amount increased by $1.4 billion and this would be the corresponding incurred and outstanding amount in vendor financing.

    Interestingly, this $1.4 billion figure is not too far off from the $2 billion difference between forecast and actual capex spend but that is only circumstantial.

    • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

      I did not say or mean to suggest that the purchase was “on behalf of its suppliers”. I believe the purchase was from suppliers.

  • Pingback: $2bn Apple life raft for Sharp rumored | AIVAnet

  • Pingback: Apple Help Writer : Did Apple Spend $2 Billion to Bail Out Sharp?

  • Pingback: Onshored, Outsourced, Overhyped | Discrete Cosine

  • Pingback: 5个iPhone 5s将于明年夏天问世的理由

  • Pingback: Apple iPad Mini 2 Features Rumors: Retina Display On The Menu As Development Continues In Asia Toward 2013 Release Date

  • Pingback: 3 Things That Can Boost Apple Inc. (AAPL) in 2013

  • Pingback: » iPhone 6, iPad 5 Rumors: Apple May Feature IGZO Display Technology From Sharp In 2013 iOS Devices - Penteliko News

  • Pingback: 6 Tech Predictions for 2013: Apple Will Embrace NFC | The Gadget Masters

  • Pingback: iPhone 6 Rumors: Apple To Release iPhone In More Colors, More Sizes This Summer [REPORT] | iPhone 5 Case Reviews

  • Pingback: » iPhone 6 Rumors: Apple To Release iPhone In More Colors, More Sizes This Summer [REPORT] - Penteliko News

  • Jahova

    UU fallen angels woeod you!!!
    Says the lord!!!

  • Pingback: iPhone 6 Rumors: Apple May Release Cheaper, Bigger-Screen Smartphone In Second Half Of 2013 | iPhone 5

  • Pingback: DailyTechTrend iPad 5, iPad Mini 2 Could Be Two Months Away – the Diplomat | DailyTechTrend

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 5 Demand Weakens: Could Price Cuts Bolster Sales Until The Release Of iPhone 6? | iPhone 5

  • Pingback: » Apple iPhone 5 Demand Weakens: Could Price Cuts Bolster Sales Until The Release Of iPhone 6? - Penteliko News

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 6 Rumors: Larger ‘iPhone Math’ May Not Release Until 2014, As Cheaper ‘Low-Cost’ iPhone Gets Priority In 2013

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 6 Rumors: Larger ‘iPhone Math’ May Not Release Until 2014, As Cheaper ‘Low-Cost’ iPhone Gets Priority In … | iPhone 5

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 6 Rumors: Larger ‘iPhone Math’ May Not Release Until 2014, As Cheaper ‘Low-Cost’ iPhone Gets Priority In … | iPhone 5 Case Reviews

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 6 Rumors: Features And Specs Of Cheap Model Said To … | NanoSim

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 6 Rumors: Features And Specs Of Cheap Model Said To Resemble iPhone 5 And iPod Touch | iPhone 5 Case Reviews

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone '5S' or '6' Rumors: 5 New Features You're Likely To See On Its Release Date In 2013 | iPhone 5 Case Reviews

  • Pingback: iPhone 6 Release Date Rumors: Why Apple Should Wait Until December 2013 To Launch Its iPhone 5 Successor

  • Pingback: » iPhone 6 Release Date Rumors: Why Apple Should Wait Until December 2013 To Launch Its iPhone 5 Successor - Penteliko News

  • Pingback: » Apple iPhone 5 Successors iPhone '5S' And '6' May Both Release In 2013; New Models Allegedly Spotted In The Wild … - Penteliko News

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 5 Successors iPhone ’5S’ And ’6′ May Both Release In 2013; New … - Your #1 Site for Iphone 5 reviews and News. - Iphone 5 Reviews

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 5 Successors, iPhone '5S' And '6,' May Both Release In 2013; New Models Allegedly Spotted In The Wild … | iPhone 5

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 6 Rumors: Release Date In 2013 ‘Makes Sense’ For Cheaper iPhone 5, Analyst Says

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 6 Rumors: Release Date In 2013 Make Sense For Cheaper iPhone 5, Analyst Says | iPhone 5

  • Pingback: » Apple iPhone 6 Rumors: Release Date In 2013 Make Sense For Cheaper iPhone 5, Analyst Says - Penteliko News

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 6 Rumors: Release Date In 2013 Make Sense For Cheaper iPhone 5, Analyst Says | iPhone 5 Case Reviews

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 6 Rumors: Release Date In 2013 'Makes Sense' For Cheaper iPhone 5, Analyst Says | iPhone 5 Case Reviews

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 6 Rumors: Release Date In 2013 'Makes Sense' For Cheaper iPhone 5 | Know how they do

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 5 Successors iPhone 5S And iPhone 6 Will Both Release In September 2013, Says Barclays Analyst | iPhone 5

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 5 Successors iPhone 5S And iPhone 6 Will Both Release In September 2013, Says Barclays Analyst

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 5 Successors iPhone 5S And iPhone 6 Will Both Release In … | NanoSim

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 6 Rumors: Cheap iPhone 5 May Release With Snapdragon Chips, Wireless Charging Features | iPhone 5

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 6 Rumors: Cheap iPhone 5 May Release With Snapdragon Chips … | NanoSim

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 6 Rumors: Cheap iPhone 5 May Release With Snapdragon Chips, Wireless Charging Features | iPhone 5 Case Reviews

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 6 Rumors: Release Date In 2013, But Cheaper iPhone 5 Won’t Feature A Retina Display, Analyst Says | iPhone 5

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 6 Rumors: Release Date In 2013, But Cheaper iPhone 5 Won’t … - Your #1 Site for Iphone 5 reviews and News. - Iphone 5 Reviews

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 6 Rumors: Release Date In 2013, But Cheaper iPhone 5 Won’t Feature A Retina Display, Analyst Says | iPhone 5 Case Reviews

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 5 Sequels iPhone 5S And iPhone 6 Will Release In June And September 2013, Says Analyst | iPhone 5

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 5 Sequels iPhone 5S And iPhone 6 Will Release In June And … - Your #1 Site for Iphone 5 reviews and News. - Iphone 5 Reviews

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 5 Sequels iPhone 5S And iPhone 6 Will Release In June And September 2013, Says Analyst | iPhone 5 Case Reviews

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 5S Rumors: NFC Features Likely As More iWallet Patents Release To The Public | iPhone 5

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 6 Rumors: iPhone 5, 5S Sequel To Release With Flexible Display, More ‘Intimate’ Features In 2013? | Technology

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 6 Rumors: iPhone 5, 5S Sequel To Release With More ‘Intimate … | INTEGRATED CIRCUIT ELECTRONICS

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 6 Rumors: iPhone 5, 5S Sequel To Release With Flexible Display … | INTEGRATED CIRCUIT ELECTRONICS

  • Pingback: Apple iPhone 6 Rumors: iPhone 5, 5S Sequel To Release With More ‘Intimate … - Your #1 Site for Iphone 5 reviews and News. - Iphone 5 Reviews

  • Pingback: GunturSulistyoRaharjo |

  • Pingback: iPhone 6 rumor rollup for the week ending May 10 | iPhone 5 Case Reviews

  • Pingback: iPhone 6 rumour rollup for the week ending May 10 | iPhone 5

  • Pingback: iPhone 6 rumour rollup for the week ending May 10 | iPhone 5 Case Reviews

  • Pingback: iPhone 6 rumour rollup: Being built in Apple factories, release date this summer | iPhone 5

  • Pingback: iPhone 6 rumour rollup: Being built in Apple factories, release date this summer | iPhone 5 Case Reviews

  • pendolino

    Have there been any updates to this view/piece on Apple Capex?