Apple fell victim to headline negativity in the month of November, but the shares will likely recover.After assessing the risks of a selective iPhone 6S recall and onshore production, I maintain my positive stance.Commentary from UBS Tech Conference panelists helped to characterize future investment themes.Apple experienced several headwinds over the course of November. Headline risk continues to be a factor in fourth quarter. Apple announced an iPhone 6S recall for certain models that have dysfunctional batteries, but the impact is limited to the initial batch of iPhone’s that were produced. Furthermore, there were news reports that Apple is exploring the possibility of on-shoring production to the United States. While talks commenced, and Foxconn is exploring the possibility of moving production to the United States, it’s not clear whether any of this will occur. Also, UBS conducted a conference regarding Apple’s on-going product initiatives, future risks, and potential upside scenarios with reputable experts. Removing the seeds of doubtThe financial impact from swapping iPhone 6S batteries seems limited to the phone’s that were shipped in the months of September and October in 2015. Since, it took an entire year for Apple to acknowledge these issues, I’m guessing the impact was limited to a very limited batch of iPhone’s. Here’s what USA Today reported:Apple says it will replace the batteries on some models of the iPhone 6S that could unexpectedly shut down, but pose no safety risk. The company says the smartphones affected were manufactured between September and October of last year. If your phone is affected, Apple will swap in a new battery free of charge.I estimate that Apple sold 49.5 million iPhones between the months of September and October (perhaps less). Of those phones the iPhone 6S/S Plus represented 70% of the mix, so roughly 34.65 million phones were affected (potentially). I’m anticipating that Apple’s warranty costs, which is an accrued expense, already reflects a decent chunk of the financial impact. But, if in the event there are any material changes, the impact on cost of goods sold will be reflected in Apple’s next quarterly earnings announcement.Source: AppleThe impact from warranties has declined between FY’15 and FY’16. The cost of iPhone 6S battery repairs may push costs higher, but I don’t anticipate the impact to push costs as high as FY’15 considering iPhone 6/6 Plus “bend gate.” So, the absolute worst case scenario is perhaps a couple hundred million dollars of impact over the course of a single quarter. Keep in mind, batteries cost substantially less than the cost of replacing bent iPhones, so Apple’s estimated cost for warranty repairs is unlikely to reach FY’15 levels. Furthermore, Apple sold fewer iPhones in FY’16 than FY’15, and the number of iPhones affected by battery issues is limited to 35 million units, whereas faulty casings for iPhone 6/6 Plus negatively impacted warranty costs for the entire production run for the full duration of the year.Will Apple move production back to the United States?I’m not completely sold on this, as we’re simply in the rumor stage. I mean, we know markets are jittery, but who would trade off this kind of speculation?Here’s what CNBC reported:Apple is Foxconn's biggest customer but Chairman Terry Gou is worried about the rising production costs of such a move, the Nikkei reported, citing a source saying that costs will double. It's important to note that the discussions began in June, five months before Trump won the election.Even if costs were to double, the impact on iPhone margins isn’t that substantial as the cost of assembly, manufacturing, and testing costed $5 per iPhone unit sold, according to IHS. Now even if those costs were to double, it only amounts to $10 per iPhone sold. So, assuming ASPs for iPhones remain flat (which they won’t) at $645, the impact from USA production translates to 77 basis percentage points of negative impact on iPhone gross margins (approximately).In other words, it’s not a major headwind, and there’s hardly any certainty that Foxconn will move production to the USA. So, until we cross that bridge, I’m maintaining my forecast assumptions on cost of revenue, and since ramping production will likely take a couple years, we won’t witness any of the financial impact in a meaningful timeframe anyway.Also, the negative commentary on production related costs was due to Trump’s election. Investors reduced exposure to consumer electronics in response to Trump’s comments on a 45% tariff on Chinese imports. Now, I seriously doubt Trump will push that type of legislation once in the White House, but I’m going to surface a brief quote from Goldman Sachs anyway:While we think Trump will most likely pursue trade agreements that are less radical than his protectionist rhetoric, we nonetheless acknowledge that his negotiations could be more aggressive and hence more risky. Any trade agreement involves horse-trading over details, and we would expect the Trump administration to place more priority on provisions designed to benefit US manufacturing and other Trump constituencies. But, like most trade agreements, we expect the broad emphasis to remain on free trade.I’ve also mentioned in past articles that the stereotyped Trump rhetoric seems overplayed, and a more strategic alternative may exclude tariffs altogether. Rebalancing trade would require far more extensive reform.Key highlights from Apple panelists at UBS Tech ConferenceThe assembled panelists included: Adam Lashinsky (Fortune Editor), Horace Dediu (Apple Analyst), and Mark Gurman (former journalist at 9to5mac and Bloomberg Columnist).Lashinsky mentioned that innovation dry spells at Apple last for around six year. Given we’re at the six-year mark for any radical product introductions (when measuring from the original introduction of the iPad), the expectations for another breakthrough is sometime in 2017 or perhaps 2018. Dediu mentioned that Apple’s efforts in technology can be scaled with R&D investments, but efforts in original content aren’t as scalable given the localization of content, and the length of success for original movie/show franchises from competing studios. I.e. re-creating the success of Walt-Disney isn’t going to be easy, and every now and then, we run into major hits like Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. But, it’s difficult to engineer creativity, or use cash to re-create the atypical Hollywood blockbuster hits.The deadline for 2020 to 2022 release of the Apple Car may be pushed back, as Gurman points out that Apple transitioned away from developing all the separate components in parallel and may be moving towards a serialized approach where they develop the autonomous software first, instrument cluster/tech second, and the mechanical components next. Apple will reassess their autonomous efforts in a year.Finally, the panelists concluded that while Apple is likely to disrupt its biggest category “the iPhone” via some form of cannibalization, the likelihood of completely killing the iPhone remains slim. Apple still supports iPods and Macs despite the existence of iPhones and iPads. Replacing prior categories with enhanced families of products has yet to fully occur, but efforts to produce better product lines will likely continue. Speculation of a potential disruptor to the iPhone comes in the form of AR/VR (actual reality or virtual reality) according to the panelists. ConclusionWhile I’m generally dismissive of headline negativity, I felt it was worth pursuing some of the prevailing news topics to remove the seeds of doubt among Apple investors. The commentary by the panelists helps to illuminate long-term investment themes for investors, but it’s also likely their predictions will differ materially from reality.Nonetheless, I continue to maintain the view that Apple is a structural winner given its depressed earnings multiple, meaningful catalysts to earnings, and ramp-up of iPhone shipments in a two-phase megacycle.I continue to reiterate my high conviction buy recommendation.