or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Crowley

 Nothing quite so dramatic, but sure.  A company is a legal construct and needs to have an owner (or owners).  No owner, no company. Pretty much yeah.  If you own 20% of something and someone else owns 80% you pretty much have to go along with what they want; they can even force you to sell to them if they want.  Not my rules.
 You implied there was some reason for Apple buying back share that I wasn't aware of.  I was just being clear about what I was saying. When did I suggest Apple doesn't own anything?  I suggested that Apple the legal entity cannot own itself as a legal entity, it has to have shareholders (public or private), and they cannot themselves be a shareholder (except for in the temporary instance of retaining shares for award to staff as bonuses and incentives).  Sure Apple the...
 Tim Cook the legal entity is not the same as Apple the legal entity.  And he definitely doesn't have enough money.  Pretty much a nonsensical statement.  if all the shares get retired then ownership gets retired and the company ceases to exist.  You don't need to retire all the shares to take a company private, you centralise enough of them under single ownership.  Yeah, sure, ok.  But even as a theoretical exercise when we're talking on the scale of $600 billion dollars...
In my words?  I didn't say that at all.  Apple controls the money in Apple's coffers.  Apple owns all of Apple's assets.  But they do not own the company as a legal institution.  A company cannot own itself. The $90 billion obviously goes into the trading accounts of the shareholders that Apple buys the shares from.  Where else would it go? In terms of Apple, they get one of two things, depending on what they do with the shares bought back: If they retain them then they...
That's not what going from public to private means.  People buy a company and take it private.  Companies don't buy themselves.  Buying shares to retire them is not the same as buying them for ownership.     And the idea of a company having free cash that exceeds its market value is a bit weird.  Market value includes free cash, so the remaining assets of the company would have to be zero, or negative.  It wouldn't be completely impossible, because the company may have...
I'll cope with it.
 Logically that's practically impossible.  How would a company be able to afford to buy back its entire value?  Where would the money come from?  It would never happen in the real world. For example, if Apple did this, then that final share would be worth hundreds of billions of dollars; their complete market cap of asset value, brand value, future profit estimate value, plus any cash and minus debt.  Meanwhile Apple probably has little cash available, having used it all...
That's not how it works. Apple doesn't own any of itself, it can't. Some shares may be held for award to staff as options, but that's not the same thing. If Apple buys and retires shares then that simply means the remaining shareholders own a slightly bigger piece of the Apple pie.
The product plan really has nothing to do with buy backs and stock splits.
Apple don't buy back shares by quantity, they buy back according to value. They don't say "we're going to buy 100 million shares", they say "we're going to buy $600 million of shares". Likewise, the point of the buy back is not to retire an absolute number of shares, but a proportion of the whole. The buy back will have the exact same proportionate effect after the stock split.As I keep saying, the stock split makes absolutely no difference to the rationale behind, or...
New Posts  All Forums: