Apple shares soared skyward yesterday after JP analyst Kevin Chang reported that Apple was preparing to release a subsequent iteration of the iPhone based on the design of the iPod Nano.
Other analysts have challenged the accuracy of Chang’s report. That, in itself, isn’t surprising. Analysts rarely agree completely, and it is common for them to hold a wide range of differing opinions, predicated on a similarly diverse range of personal and professional sources.
What is surprising, however, is that the analysts taking issue with Chang are his colleagues at JP Morgan. Moreover, the disagreement does not relate to subtle nuances of interpretation. JP Morgan would have us believe otherwise, suggesting that it is "not unusual for analysts to have slightly different views."
Slightly different views?
In fact, there’s a yawning chasm between the views that have been expressed by the dueling analysts at JP Morgan. Whereas Chang asserted that Apple was readying an IPod Nano-ish device as its next iPhone, his colleagues Bill Shope, Elizabeth Borbolla, and Vlad Rom content that Apple is more likely to release a 3G version of the iPhone next. They also challenge Chang’s claim that a patent filing by Apple relates to a Nano-type iPhone.
In other words, Chang’s colleagues are saying that he got it absolutely and utterly wrong.
JP Morgan’s protestations to the contrary, this is not a case of slightly different views espoused by its analysts. One group of JP Morgan analysts has chosen to directly and publicly rebut another analyst at the company, presumably because they don’t want to be seen as sharing a market-moving opinion on Apple’s product roadmap that they deem wholly inaccurate.