Declining iPhone sales make dent in Apple profits
Marking the third straight quarter of declining iPhone sales, Apple has posted quarterly revenues of $46.9 billion and quarterly net income of $9 billion -- down nearly 9% from revenue of $51.5 billion and net income of $11.1 billion in the year-ago quarter.
Announcing the results for the fourth quarter of 2016 on Tuesday night, Apple said it sold 45.5 million iPhones, 9.3 million iPads and 4.9 million Macs in the fourth quarter - a year-over-year decline of 5.2% for iPhones, 6% for iPads and a massive 14% for the Mac, Engadget reported.
International sales accounted for 62% of the quarter's revenue.
"Our strong September quarter results cap a very successful fiscal 2016 for Apple," said Apple's CEO Tim Cook.
In after-hour trading, Apple shares were down 2.8% to $114.99.
"We're thrilled with the customer response to iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus and Apple Watch Series 2, as well as the incredible momentum of our Services business, where revenue grew 24% to set another all-time record," Cook added in a statement.
For its fiscal 2017 first quarter, Apple forecast revenue between $76 billion and $78 billion and operating expenses between $6.9 billion and $7 billion.
"We are pleased to have generated $16.1 billion in operating cash flow, a new record for the September quarter," said Luca Maestri, Apple's CFO.
"We also returned $9.3 billion to investors through dividends and share repurchases during the quarter and have now completed over $186 billion of our capital return programme," Maestri added.
The fall in sales was mostly down to declining sales of the iPhone but the newly launched iPhone 7 and 7 Plus may tilt the figures in favour of Apple in the near future.
The iPhone 7 went on sale from September 16. The current quarter's sales are likely to benefit from Samsung's Galaxy Note 7 fiasco.
Apple is set to unveil new Mac computers on October 27.
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.



That Time I Was Investigated for Voter Fraud

Here's how I learned that someone voted as me in the 2012 general election.


On March 26, 2014, three investigators from Maryland's Office of the State Prosecutor sat at my dining room table and showed me a signature on a photocopy taken from a D.C. poll book. The scrawl looked more like a seismograph reading and was so unrecognizable that it took me a minute to realize that I was looking at it upside down. Turning the picture over didn't make it much better.


"No, that's not my handwriting," I told them.


Somebody had clearly voted using my name. But why? And how did state officials figure it out?


In-person voter impersonation is vanishingly rare, as many studies have shown. The claims put forth by Donald Trump that voter fraud in places like Philadelphia could rig the election against him have very little evidence behind them, according to election experts.


Absentee ballot fraud – people violating state laws on the distribution, collection and submission of mail ballots – is the more likely and more commonly prosecuted crime. Even for these kinds of scams, a definitive total of cases is hard to come by since voting records are maintained by several thousand different local governments.


In Montgomery County, Maryland, where I live, a woman named Linda Earlette Wells cast a provisional ballot in the name of her dead mother in the 2012 election (Wells was a registered Florida voter at the time). After doing so, she called the county's board of elections and told an employee that she had used her mother's name and ID to vote and wanted to cancel the ballot. By pleading guilty, Wells was sentenced to probation without a conviction appearing on her record. Hers was one of two cases of voter fraud brought by Maryland authorities since 2012.


I voted early in 2012, because at the time I worked at The New York Times and was expected to be in the newsroom in Manhattan on Election Day. When the investigators came to visit me in 2014, the picture of the poll book they showed me was from a polling place I hadn't voted in for eight years, having long since moved out of the city and into the nearby Maryland suburbs. Somehow, my name had remained on the D.C. voter rolls, and someone had apparently taken advantage of it.


Voting in someone else's name is difficult to arrange. You'd need to know that the person you were attempting to vote as was not going to show up themselves, and you'd need that person to live in a jurisdiction where the vote would help elect or defeat someone. D.C. isn't known for having competitive races, and in 2012 there was one citywide contest – an at-large city council seat – that was less than a blowout. I struggled to think why voting as me would be worth doing, and also how it was possible to do it.


When you move from one state to another (or, in my case, from the District to Maryland), registering to vote in your new jurisdiction creates a new record there, but doesn't always cancel the old one.


The District does have a process for removing voters who do not vote once every four years from the rolls, but that clearly didn't happen in my case. Without a national election authority, it's up to states to find and investigate issues of voter fraud. One way to make that job easier is to keep accurate voter lists, and tools such as online voter registration systems can help. An accurate voter list makes it less likely than mistakes will occur at the polls.


In my case, I registered in Maryland when I got my driver's license, an option encouraged by the Motor Voter Act, but since Maryland and the District separately maintain voter lists, there was no immediate trigger that caused my D.C. voter registration to be cancelled. I didn't check, either.


So how did the Maryland investigators know that someone claiming to be Derek Willis appeared to vote in both Maryland and D.C. in 2012? And why did it take them so long to show up at my door?


After each election, local election authorities produce what are known as "voter history" files that show, for a given election, which registered voters actually voted (but not how they voted, of course). These files are public records in most states. Political parties and campaigns often pay vendors to maintain voter files to help them identify and target voters, but members of the public and government officials can also access voter history in most places. In my case, it's likely that Maryland officials compared their own voter history files to D.C.'s, looking for people with the same name and date of birth or age who appeared on both.


That process doesn't guarantee that people identified as voting in both jurisdictions are, in fact, the same person. Journalists are familiar with the pitfalls of this kind of "fuzzy matching" based on names and ages. And though we don't share a birthday or a jump shot, I get mistaken for University of Kentucky basketball forward Derek Willis often enough on social media that I was once invited on a Kentucky radio show to talk about it.


There is no federal government agency that maintains a comprehensive set of voter registration and history records. It's unlikely that the federal government could even compel states to participate in one; the constitution hands the power to run elections squarely to the states. However, some 20 states and the District of Columbia participate in a data-sharing project called the Electronic Registration Information Center.


The ability to match voter information across state lines is one reason the Maryland investigators showed up at my doorstep. They asked me where I was on Nov. 6, 2012, and whether I had voted in D.C. that day. Once I explained where I had been on Election Day (and was able to provide some evidence of it), the investigators' interest diminished. When I called the office this fall to find out what, if anything, happened, I was told the case was dropped, and since there was no way to tell who had voted in my name in D.C. that day, there were no other leads to follow.


To be sure, I don't know if whoever signed my name did so with fraud in mind. He or she could have simply signed in the wrong place in the poll book. It would have been a particularly frustrating crime. Even that "close" at-large city council race was won by nearly 70,000 votes.


This election year, some people claim voter fraud goes under-reported and unprosecuted. The three investigators from the Maryland Office of the State Prosecutor who sat at my dining room table would surely disagree, and a listing of voter fraud cases compiled by the Heritage Foundation from public reports includes instances from dozens of states that involve prison sentences for the perpetrators, albeit involving different kinds of crimes.


After the investigators left my house that day, the first thing I did was call up the D.C. Board of Elections web site to check my voter registration record. By that time, they had finally gotten me off their rolls.


ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for their newsletter.


Like this story? Get our top stories by email.


USD206-mn settlement for Embraer, company admits faulty transactions
Brazilian aerospace conglomerate Embraer on Monday announced reaching a settlement with the US and Brazilian authorities in the ongoing corruption investigation against it.
The terms of settlement include payment of $206 million to the authorities, and an external and independent monitorship for up to three years, to ensure full compliance with the settlement terms, according to a statement from Embraer.
An internal inquiry done by Embraer determined that the company is "responsible for misdeeds in four transactions between 2007 and 2011 in Saudi Arabia, India, Mozambique and the Dominican Republic", it said.
The transactions involved the sale of 16 aircraft, it added.
"The company has also agreed to payments in an aggregate amount of close to $206 million to the U.S. and Brazilian authorities. The settlement further provides that as long as the terms of the agreements are fully honoured, no charges will be brought against the company," the statement said.
It added that the inquiry began in 2010 when Embraer was questioned by American authorities regarding potential non-conformities related to certain commercial transactions abroad.
"The company then undertook a wide internal investigation, led independently by external law firms.
"From the beginning, Embraer took the matter seriously and fully cooperated with the investigation. As events unfolded, the company voluntarily expanded its scope and shared the results with the appropriate authorities," the company said.
It added that as part of its commitment to disclose material information to investors, the company has reported the progress of the investigations to the financial markets and to the regulatory agencies in Brazil and the United States.
"The company recently concluded its internal investigation after six years of intensive effort. Hundreds of thousands of documents were analysed and more than 100 interviews with employees and third parties were conducted," it said.
The statement added that the company "acknowledges responsibility for the conduct of its employees and agents according to the facts ascertained in the investigation. Embraer deeply regrets this conduct.
"The company has learned from this experience and will be stronger as it moves forward and continues its nearly 50 years of successful existence in which it has delivered more than 8,000 aircraft in over 90 countries."
The Brazilian Federal Prosecution Service has been conducting its own investigations in parallel and is filing lawsuits against certain individuals. Embraer said it is not party to these lawsuits.
In India, CBI is probing the deal for Embraer aircarft.
In 2008, Embraer sold three EMB 145 AEW&C (Airborne Early Warning & Control) aircraft to the government of India. The deal was worth $208 million.
The Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) had also sought explanation from Embraer over alleged kickback payment in a deal for aircraft, injured during the UPA regime.
The issue was brought to the fore after a report in a Brazilian newspaper that said investigations have been opened by the government of the United States to establish whether Embraer paid bribes in order to obtain contracts abroad.
According to the report, the company has been under investigation by the United States Justice Department since 2010 when a contract with the Dominican Republic raised the Americans' suspicions. Since then, the investigation has widened to examine business dealings with eight more countries, including India and Saudi Arabia.
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.


We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.

To continue

Sign Up or Sign In


To continue

Sign Up or Sign In



online financial advisory
Pathbreakers 1 & Pathbreakers 2 contain deep insights, unknown facts and captivating events in the life of 51 top achievers, in their own words.
online financia advisory
The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Online Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
financial magazines online
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
financial magazines in india
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Online Magazine)