To put that in perspective, Facebook is a $60B company. This just goes to show how much cash Apple is generating.
- Joined: May 2010
- Posts: 646
- Select All Posts By This User
To put that in perspective, Facebook is a $60B company. This just goes to show how much cash Apple is generating.
Or, it is exactly enough...
Wait… "are" going to vote Cook off the Island? Well first of all, Shareholders don't vote for CEO. They vote for Board Members who then appoint/fire officers. It'll be a cold day in hell...
And "distributed over several years" makes it sound long and unpalatable. What's wrong with simply pointing out the facts? The end of FY 2015 is… when? Do the math… yah. Is that "several years"? Really…?? How about "roughly two years…" Then it becomes a good, careful pace for buying back SIXTY BILLION dollars in shares. Anything faster would artificially inflate the stock price, and then you'd have something ELSE negative to say, for sure...
What's your agenda here?
Agreed. And to add to your point, Apple wants to have the liberty of buying back the shares when they want so that they can buy wihtout disrupting the market. I'm hoping Cook can buy all those shares back shares at below $400 or even better yet at $330, which is my basis in my Apple shares.
From now till 2015?
So basically, they aren't reducing the cash hoarde at all. They are just growing it slower.
From an investor perspective, AAPL and MSFT are slowly starting to converge. MSFT investors too, thought their stock would rebound. It never did. Instead, MSFT stabilized in a new trading range and became a blue chip dividend stock. Real risk that this is what will happen to AAPL if there are no blockbuster new products on the horizon or the board isn't interested in returning money to shareholders.
WILL happen… if, and if, and if and when and if……. I mean, look at Microsoft!!!
Seriously, man… look at Apple. That's who we're talking about, and I see none of the same illusions that you do.
I'm fine with Apple having a cash reserve (I prefer "reserve"… from a business perspective, that's a healthy thing to have. "Hoard" is a word with negative connotations used by people who just want more of that pie for less invested)...
You keep speaking "from an investor perspective"…. but, as an investor, my perspective isn't at all like the one you claim to know everything about.
From MY investor perspective, 2015 is only 2 years, and that's an excellent, conservative pace for a share buyback of this magnitude. It keeps the options open and maximizes possible results (while minimizing disruption). It's fine with me that they aren't DRAINING the cash reserve, but enacting a capital return that makes sense and keeps the reserves healthy. Meanwhile, they're increasing my dividend another 35 cents a share which is about what I expected. Actually 5 ~ 10 cents higher than I expected (I expected a 25 ~ 30 cent increase).
From an investor perspective, I have little to complain about, other than the artificially low value of the stock at present, and I don't blame Apple management for that. Something tells me that's about to change, however. Up up and away…….
Wait. So the entire framework for capitalism is bunk and investor concerns are entirely irrelevant beyond a certain point in time? Interesting. Why doesn't Apple put that in its disclosure?
Sorry, but whether you like it or not, last I checked, Apple is a publicly listed company and as such they certainly have to respond to shareholder concerns. If they don't want to inconvenience themselves with something so bothersome, they are free to buy us out and take the company private. Would be interesting to see Apple follow Dell's precedent!
Yeah, blah blah blah. Capitalism **** Yeah! etc.
You're already attempting to answer every post in the thread all by yourself so I'll just let you continue. You're wasting yours, and every else's time though.
Here for example, you haven't even addressed my argument, just put words in my mouth that I didn't say and pushed out some more dogma about stuff that I wasn't even talking about.
Can you actually hear anyone but yourself? The only people that care about what you're saying think you're completely wrong. What does that tell you?
I get the argument. Heck, I thought that too as I watched Apple go through $700 and crash through my position at $580.
But here's the thing about P/E. It's based on market sentiment about whether or not the company is going to grow or is able to generate income going forward. The iTV rumours keep advancing by a year every year. No new products, while Apple faces commoditization on its existing products and outright hostility to the idea of returning cash, is bound to keep investor sentiment negative towards Apple's P/E.
I picked up some AAPL today, before the announcement. I think the stock is ridiculously cheap. But I won't lie. I am very fearful that AAPL may well settle under $500 for years to come and I'll either have to eat my losses or wait a very long time for the $3 dividend to make up for it.
Wait a minute... in your previous post you went all macho about investments not being "emotional", then in this post seemed to be basing pretty much all your perspective on emotion (and fear) and what I'd point to as supposition and false narrative.
I remember when Apple was at 580. I wouldn't have bought in at that particular point. Why did you? And more importantly, how emotional a decision was it? (I'm speaking of the opposite emotion known as "irrational hubris"). This isn't an 'attack' by the way… a real question.
It's a good question. On the way back down I would have certainly sold around $640, give or take, if I had bought in at $580… 10% is a decent return on a short turnaround. Once it tucked under $600, I'd have been sold out and sitting in a wait-and-see orbit...
Unless we're talking about 100 shares… then, I don't know if it warrants discussion...
I would certainly call the drop 'unfounded'. After almost two years of record revenue growth under Cook, including the period in question (where the stock price dropped by $300 : 45%), with all the numbers looking pretty great, especially when taking broader markets into consideration (it's easy to forget that Apple has been giving us this extraordinary financial performance throughout a prolonged global recession and ongoing economic weakness).
The Maps "fiasco" isn't the first thing Apple has ever misfired on (under Jobs we had a fair share of those), and it shouldn't have any measurable impact on stock price, much less a 45% effect. After all, did the "fiasco" with the .mac rollout cause a major dip in stock value? Nope…).
"Execs dumping stock" overstates the situation to a huge degree. I'm sensitive to that stuff, and did NOT see it that way at all. (Check Microsoft in the same period, however… m-hm...)
"Followed by execs leaving"… um. What...? Do you mean Ron Johnson leaving for JCP? Or Forstall and Browett (a "shakeup" that was required in my view)? Reality check: three people does not an 'executive exodus' make.
"Lower profit margin"…? Erm… you can't be referring to the mild fluctuations in overall margins alongside significantly higher revenues resulting in immensely increased profits? That's what we're used to seeing with Apple, and those fluctuations are NEVER an issue… are you parroting some MSM 'analyst' talking head or something? TODAY is the first time in TEN YEARS that the company has seen REDUCED profit margins.
This is not a LOSS either, merely a very slight reduction in the level of margin. Not showing growth for ONE quarter, for the first time in ten years does not a profit exodus make either.
In the end, that was quite a list you came up with, most of it not very relevant in fact...
This is a company that learns from its mistakes, identifies and fixes problems, and always comes up with results beyond expectation. I can't slight them in the least. That said, I buy and sell their stock mostly according to how I think the market will perform, and not based all that much on Apple's corporate/financial performance. Those don't correlate well and often. I pay more attention to "market sentiment" to judge my buy/sell cycles…
Yes, combined with borrowed funds apparently.
I wish they could repatriate their offshore funds more affordably. I'd love to have more of that cash circulating in our domestic economy...
Maybe instead you should cry all YOU want. Your goals as an investor are not necessarily the goals of all other investors, and as someone who, less than a decade ago, bought in at 85 a share, I'm STILL flying on cloud nine, having more than sextupled my money. I'm in for the long haul, and like me, there are more investors out there who understand the stupidity, arrogance, and emotional response of short-sighted, short-term investors and day traders in the marketplace, hence, we do not "lose our shit" if Apple drops from 700 to 350 in under 12 months when their fundamentals are so clearly superhuman.
This is how it is with Apple. We in for the long haul know where its going, and we're patient. We who are in for the long haul understand that short-haulers cause these kinds of fluctuations and we sit calmly through them, just like we did in 05, 08 and now 2013. You who are in for the short term should perhaps consider finding another game to play if you can't handle the truth of the marketplace.
You aren't qualified to criticize Tim Cook yet.
There is no negative spin. This is what everyone who is bearish on Apple was suggesting and hoping they do. It won't get them back to 700, but it is a way to return capital to investors, which is the end game for any corporation....
After hours performance isn't a great indicator, since most people don't trade after-hours... And historically, after-hours performance isn't a great indicator of what will happen in the next trading session.
There starting with 2 billion in buy backs this month, and plan to buy back 400mill shares according to Oppenhiemer, to push the stock to a more valuable level.
There not buying all of there shares back that would be extremely stupid.
2 billion this month starting according to Oppenhiemer. But I agree it would be a great big MIDDLE FINGER to wall street.
????? Ron Johnson left of his own accord to run JC Penny. Not because Apple was in trouble, Forestall was fired because he refused to admit that the maps problems were his direct responsibility and because he played well with no one (one very particularly important person to apple in fact Jony Ive). And Browett? He was a dumb ass that tried to run the retail chain like walmart cost cutting and reducing workforce and causing all kinds of problems not because he was trying to help Apple but because he was trying to impress the management team by in effect saying "LOOK AT ME!!!! Im doing such a good job"
The crazy thing about the dividends (IMO) is that you can be an AAPL shareholder just one day before the dividend is issued, get the benefit, then sell the stock immediately. How in the world is that creating long term value for Apple?
He didn't personally get on the phone to call Jetz to tell him to get out at $700. Or $650. Or $600. Or $585...
You'd better hurry up and tell Tim Cook, because that's exactly what he said they're going to do.
Most of Apple's cash is overseas.
It's a lot cheaper to borrow money at today's US rates, than to pay the taxes to bring that cash into the US.
Analysts say that basically, Apple is betting that there'll be a tax amnesty sometime in the future, and it'll all work out.