or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by commoncents

"Buying back that much stock is a cheap parlour trick to artificially boost the price in the short term. Once the market corrects and guys like Carl have sold off all their shares then the price goes into free fall. Plus your taking 50B off the table that could be used for long term growth." Sorry, but you're just flat out wrong. Twice over. First, buying back stock when it is below intrinsic value increases the value of all remaining shares. Period. And if AAPL at...
You just have to laugh when the numbers for the wild guesses are all so specific, like "36,146" for the first entry. If you're taking wild guesses like this, why not just call it 36,000?
So let's assume that the U.S. never eliminates this tax on repatriated funds (and if you don't think this is a good assumption, I'd love to hear your rationale).   Then what should Apple do, leave the money overseas FOREVER?     If they NEVER bring it back, it's worthless to shareholders.   And if they're going to do it some time, why not now?  As they say, time is money.  And the money they're sitting on is losing purchasing power by the day...it's like water in a...
  First of all, the fundamental reason to buy back shares is if you believe that they are available for significantly less than the intrinsic value of the business.  Period.  If the shares are indeed below their intrinsic value and many are repurchased, then the value of the business for the remaining shareholders will be increased.  When that will show up in the share price?  Who knows.  Mr. Market is quite fickle.  But the value will have been increased nonetheless.  (If...
  Once again, MATH is needed to speak intelligently about this. They could replicate the entirety of the manufacturing plants making every single component that goes into every single Apple device, and yet still not even use up the free cash flow coming in over the next twelve months, much less touch the $150,000,000,000 sitting idle. Please...please, anyone else who wants to argue against a huge buyback (or one-time dividend), put at least some crude guestimates of...
  Did you even read my post? This isn't an either-or situation.  No one with half a brain is suggesting Apple skip a single penny of investment into developing the core business.  The point for those who are not math-challenged is that even after Apple has done all this, they can't come close to even spending the ongoing cash flows, much less the $150,000,000,000 that is sitting around doing nothing.  It boggles my mind how numerically illiterate so many are that they...
  While Tim Cook's move was likely brilliant and bold, this has nothing to do with Icahn's point.  The amount spend here is a drop in the ocean compared to 1) the cash Apple already has sitting by idly, and 2) the multi tens of billions to flow in this year, and next year, and the year after that. So if Apple can find about 300 more investments like this in the next 12 months that make sense.  Great.  If not, they should be using more of the idle cash for good use (of...
If you'd like to pay 12% like Romney...   ...then do it.   Go ahead.  Bust your butt for decades and earn the success he has.  Then you can do exactly what he is doing.   I'm sick and tired of all the people who say that "the rich" don't pay what they deserve.  Maybe everyone else isn't earning their keep?
When can I add one for my Nexus tablet or Kindle Fire...HD of course?? And how about the cash register accessories? Do they have those for my tablets? JK. Yet this is just one more of umpteen thousand examples of where iPad is ahead of the competition by miles, yet doesn't show up in the only stat the simple-minded use: global "shipments" marketshare.
    Well the magic for Apple has been getting all of these people to pay $650 (though often "financed" through subsidies) even though they barely make use of the iPhone's capabilities.  Why would Apple want to mess that up??
New Posts  All Forums: