or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › How much $AAPL has Apple eaten with its $44 billion buyback appetite?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How much $AAPL has Apple eaten with its $44 billion buyback appetite?

post #1 of 57
Thread Starter 
Celebrity investor Carl Icahn made news when he bought over $1 billion of Apple stock earlier this year, but Icahn's investment pales in comparison to the company's own $60 billion stock buyback program, which gobbled up $16 billion in shares over the June quarter.

AAPL stock
Source: Google Finance


At the beginning of the current quarter, Apple had $44 billion left of its buyback budget, which wasn't due to be spent before 2015 according to the terms of the buyback plan. It?s also optional; Apple could decide to stop buying shares and simply let the plan expire.

However, given that Apple splurged a third of its allocated share buyback funds in the June quarter to buy up 36 million shares at an average price of $444, it appears likely that it has continued to aggressively take advantage of its acutely low stock price over the past three months (apparent in the trough of the chart above).

The current September quarter began with AAPL stock at $409 and continued below the average share price Apple had been paying to buy up stock in the prior quarter through the final two days of July. Since then, the stock has only bumped up to a peak of $502, its highest point of 2013 but still 30 percent lower than its highs from one year ago.Another quarter of big stock purchases could reduce the company's total shares by 4 percent to as much as 11 percent.

That means Apple could turn in another record quarter of buybacks that match or exceed the value-performance of the June quarter, easily erasing another 36 million outstanding shares or potentially as many as 100 million shares, were Apple to buy all the stock its current buyback plan allowed at the price levels available in July.

Before retiring any new buybacks, Apple had 908 million shares outstanding, so another quarter of big stock purchases could reduce the company's total shares by 4 percent to as much as 11 percent, resulting in a significant impact on its revenue per share and earnings per share metrics.

The company won't actually report the size of its September quarter buyback until late October when it is scheduled to disclose its overall quarterly results.

Why wait?



The only reason for the company to not have vigorously exercised its buyback program would be if Apple had expected its stock to drop in the future, or if it weren't able to find sufficiently cheap shares to buy.

There's been plenty of opportunity for Apple to buy back its shares at low market rates, evidenced by AAPL shares dropping and staying depressed every time an analyst issued a reduced outlook based on illusory supply checks or the failure of the company to follow the analyst's desired strategies.

On the other hand, there's good reason to believe the company has recognized the current quarter as being as a unique opportunity for buying back shares, one which might not every occur again at today's prices.

In the June quarter, Apple faced reasonable uncertainty about whether its stock price might go down even further in the September quarter. The company knew it wouldn't be introducing any major new products before the end of September, and it had reason to believe that the market might react irrationally to risks inherent in its substantial transition to iOS 7, which it first unveiled in June.

Window of opportunity for cheap buybacks closing



At this point however, 2013 has seemingly nowhere to go but up. Over the next month, Apple is expected to announce new Macs, new iPads and new software along with the new OS X Mavericks. If Apple hasn?t already blown its budget, it may have blown its best chance to do so.

Apple?s upcoming product introductions are all being timed to explode in a spectacular holiday buying season, where they will be met by tepid Android offerings, a weakly positioned Windows 8 and a much ballyhooed "smartwatch" competition that was essentially canceled due to a lack of interest.

Last weekend's iPhone 5s and 5c launch sold 9 million devices, generating at least $5.4 billion in additional revenues for Apple within the quarter, without counting accessories, AppleCare, App Store purchases or other retail-related sales related to that hardware, prompting the company to report that it expects to announce results at the high end of its previously stated guidance of $34 billion to $37 billion in revenue.

That 3 day launch made the company roughly $4 billion more confident than it had been about the current quarter's performance, with just ten days left in the quarter.

Cook?s quiet competence



While more than one irate Apple investor has fumed in public about an apparent lack of action from the company?s chief executive to prop up its share price, it's very likely that Tim Cook has been taking analysts' lemons and making buyback lemonade.

That's not only the most competent action Cook could possibly be taking given the circumstances, but also the very thing Cook announced he would be doing when the share repurchase program was outlined.

Apple was clearly racing to get its new iPhones done in time to include at least some of their initial revenues within the September quarter. The success of the launch is going to have an impact on Apple's share price, which has been beaten up by poorly informed sources fretting about "innovation? for nearly an entire year while the company has had virtually no new products to talk about. It's very likely that Tim Cook has been taking analysts' lemons and making buyback lemonade.

Advancing the new iPhones' launch to occur before the end of the final quarter of Apple's fiscal 2012 means the market will have something satisfying to digest starting in October, just as Apple's peak holiday Q1 sales get started. At that point, having lots of money left over to spend on stock buybacks would greatly dilute the potential value of the buyback plan.

At a share price of $650 or $850, Apple's $44 billion budget would only be able to fetch between about two-thirds to one-half of the buying power that buyback fund could have achieved earlier this quarter.

End of an illusion



Going forward, it will be far more difficult for hedge funds, analysts and competitors to again seed the notion that Apple is doomed and that Samsung can be nothing but successful in taking its place, given how Apple has done nothing but grow stronger this year, while Samsung has erased its legendary reputation for unbridled growth, ?forward thinking? innovation and all-around competence. It has lost in the market, in the courts, and in public perception.

It's also noteworthy that Icahn continued to push Apple's executive team to pursue buybacks into August, after the stock "recovered" to its highest point of 2013. If Icahn were merely after a short term gain, his continued tweeting and a push for dividends would make more sense than lobbying for Apple to buy shares at ostensibly its "new normal." Buybacks only make real sense if a stock is poised to go up.

Apple set records with its $16 billion worth of share buybacks in the June quarter. It could exceed those in the current September quarter. In fact, if it hasn't already it may have forever missed the opportunity to buy its own shares for so little, squandering the value of setting aside $60 billion expressly for the purpose of doing that very thing.
post #2 of 57
I would absolutely LOVE for Apple to go private at some point in the future.

Absolutely LOVE.
post #3 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

I would absolutely LOVE for Apple to go private at some point in the future.

Absolutely LOVE.

I don't think Munster and his ilk will be exactly over the moon at the thought of a private AAPL…

Tim Cook and his team are doing a pretty good job!
Edited by JackTheRat - 9/27/13 at 1:26am
post #4 of 57
Is Apple legally required to speak to analysts each quarter? If not, the company could make this quarter it's last. Even better would be for the company to announce last quarter was the last time.
post #5 of 57
Apple are currently buying back shares and reducing the number of outstanding shares.

For Apple to go private it would have to raise the cash independently to buyback all shares. That includes the shares I have. I can't see how Apple could ever raise $400-500BB to achieve this.
post #6 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackTheRat View Post

I don't think Munster and his ilk will be exactly over the moon at the thought of a private AAPL…

Tim Cook and his team are doing a pretty good job!

I agree, Tim is doing a great job! After so much negativity about Apple's lack of innovation, Tim kept Apple focused on its strategy and that ficus is starting to win the race for Apple. It is amazing that Tim announced the Fall season and 2014 would see a steady stream of Apple's innovations. Right on time, the stream has started.
post #7 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogGone View Post

Apple are currently buying back shares and reducing the number of outstanding shares.

For Apple to go private it would have to raise the cash independently to buyback all shares. That includes the shares I have. I can't see how Apple could ever raise $400-500BB to achieve this.

 

Do they need to buy the whole company or just half of it?

 

Then, if a shitty company that innovates o like verizon can raise 150 Billion, Apple should have no problem to raise at least 250 billion (that would be half), especially with the amount of cash they have now.

 

But if they have to buy the whole thing, why not stop releasing products for a while, let the analysts do what they do best (FUD) and truly go for it?

 

It would be a very different move from companies like Dell. BTW, I feel sorry for Dell. When they were trying to have unique products and had to obviously turn the back to cheap trash, consumers stop buying.

 

Oh well, life is a b*tch. But I have hope for most costumers, now. Maybe not almost everyone is a bunch of ignorant fools and can actually learn:

 

http://www.dailytech.com/Report+Samsung+Smartphone+Tradeins+Soared+Ahead+of+iPhone+5s+Launch/article33454.htm

post #8 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogGone View Post

Apple are currently buying back shares and reducing the number of outstanding shares.

For Apple to go private it would have to raise the cash independently to buyback all shares. That includes the shares I have. I can't see how Apple could ever raise $400-500BB to achieve this.

 

Aren't you misunderstanding the concept of a company going private? It doesn't go private by buying its own shares. That would be kind of bizarre because then no one would own the company.

 

A company goes private when a small group of people buy all the shares and take it off the public stock exchange. They are the ones that would have to raise $400B+. Who has the ability to do that?

post #9 of 57

In March 2013 there were 940million shares outstanding.

After last quarter, there were 908million shares outstanding, and of the 36million shares bought only 22 was retired in time.

If they did a *full* buyback this quarter, they could have spent the $44b at an avg price of say $480 purchasing 91.6 million shares.

 

That would retire a whopping 22million from last quarter + another 91.6million this quarter, reducing the amount of total outstanding shares to 802 million shares.

 

It would make sense for Apple to take advantage of the low share price, and by looking at how much they accelerated the last quarters buyback I would not be surprised if they managed to spend it all this quarter.

 

If you look at the All Time High price of Apple shares at $704, it would have cost Apple $97 billion to retire the same amount of shares. Except Apple did it all for $60 billion. 

 

March 2013: Apple Outstanding Shares: 940millions 

October 2013: Apple Outstanding Shares: 802millions.

 

I hope Tim Cook continues this strategy aggressively, and issues another $100 billion to buyback more shares. At say $550 avg price that would equal a whopping: 181million shares retired, leaving the total amount of outstanding shares at only 621million shares. 

 

It would bring them one step closer to going private, and it would mean that the Q1 2013 profit they made would equal a whopping EPS of $19.6 per share instead of what was reported at $13.1 per share. 

 

If they lent the additional $100b, they could finance it by a mere 3% interest - which could easily be paid back in the next 1-3 years without much of an impact on their balance sheet. Icahn is right, Apple should take advantage of this opportunity and squeeze out as many market "players" and "traders" as soon as possible. 


Edited by hydr - 9/27/13 at 2:57am
post #10 of 57
Apple is actively one of the most profitable companies around that has to buy back its own shares because no big investors will touch the stock. Apple is one of the worst performing stocks on Wall Street in 2013. Companies like Google and Amazon don't even offer dividends and they're certainly not buying their stock back and yet those companies' share prices continue to climb. Meanwhile, Tim Cook sits around scratching his head wondering why he can't put an ounce of shareholder value back into Apple. Apple bought $16 billion worth of shares back and yet the share price still looks like crap. Tim Cook can't even get the stock out of the red for 2013 while the rest of the market is up 20%. What's wrong with this picture.

Tim Cook is no longer running Apple. So-called analysts like Misek and Munster are running Apple. What Munster says carries more weight on Wall Street than what Tim Cook says. Munster appears on TV and basically called Tim Cook a liar about iPhone sales and Tim Cook had nothing to say. That doesn't boost shareholder confidence at all. Tim can't let some two-bit, charlatan analyst bad-mouth him like that and get away with it. Munster acts like he knows more about Apple's sales than Tim Cook. It's no wonder investors are treating Apple like some plague. Jeff Bezos would never put up with that sort of crap. Analysts are taking all sorts of FUD-spewing liberties with Apple.
post #11 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

Apple is actively one of the most profitable companies around that has to buy back its own shares because no big investors will touch the stock. Apple is one of the worst performing stocks on Wall Street in 2013. Companies like Google and Amazon don't even offer dividends and they're certainly not buying their stock back and yet those companies' share prices continue to climb. Meanwhile, Tim Cook sits around scratching his head wondering why he can't put an ounce of shareholder value back into Apple. Apple bought $16 billion worth of shares back and yet the share price still looks like crap. Tim Cook can't even get the stock out of the red for 2013 while the rest of the market is up 20%. What's wrong with this picture.

Tim Cook is no longer running Apple. So-called analysts like Misek and Munster are running Apple. What Munster says carries more weight on Wall Street than what Tim Cook says. Munster appears on TV and basically called Tim Cook a liar about iPhone sales and Tim Cook had nothing to say. That doesn't boost shareholder confidence at all. Tim can't let some two-bit, charlatan analyst bad-mouth him like that and get away with it. Munster acts like he knows more about Apple's sales than Tim Cook. It's no wonder investors are treating Apple like some plague. Jeff Bezos would never put up with that sort of crap. Analysts are taking all sorts of FUD-spewing liberties with Apple.

 

Apple is healthy and they are making a ton of money. 

But their $140B cash on the balance sheet is making the stock a major drag. It´s earning less than a 1% and it´s a *huge* part of Apple now. It´s not helping anyone, and it´s hurting Apple share price. That is a fact. However if they took advantage of this, and applied the cash to buy its own shares it would make the share more attractive.

post #12 of 57
Quote:
"Tim Cook is no longer running Apple. So-called analysts like Misek and Munster are running Apple."
No. Tim Cook is running Apple. So-called analysts like Misek and Munster are running AAPL. The stock is not the company.
post #13 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post

Is Apple legally required to speak to analysts each quarter? If not, the company could make this quarter it's last. Even better would be for the company to announce last quarter was the last time.

They are a publicly traded company. They are legally required to speak to investors each quarter. They can avoid this by going private, but I don't see that being possible in the short term. At minimum, they would have to buyback ALL 900 million shares at a price of about $440 billion (currently) plus hefty acquisition fees. They have cash, but not that kind of cash.


Edited by OllieWallieWhiskers - 9/27/13 at 4:23am
post #14 of 57
Steve Jobs worked damn hard to get that pile of cash. I hope Cook adds more and more to it.

Screw taking on debt. Screw dividends. Screw buy backs.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #15 of 57

I sometimes wonder if "the market" is trying to teach Apple a lesson for not playing along. On one hand this is a bit of a nuisance to Apple because it deals out options to employees, and these are not going to be as attractive if the stock value does not increase. On the other hand Apple should like buying back more for cheap.

 

However, less stocks out there would mean higher dividends, even if profits would not go up. But profits will likely go up more.

What "the market" might be trying to make happen is making all the suckers sell too cheap while spring loading the stock for a dividend rocket launch.

post #16 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

I would absolutely LOVE for Apple to go private at some point in the future.

Absolutely LOVE.

Not an option. Not in a million years.
post #17 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post

Is Apple legally required to speak to analysts each quarter?

Technically, no. But de facto, yes. The sky will fall if a company decides to skip the post-earnings conference call. It is pretty much a required part of the disclosure process for all public companies now.
post #18 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonshf View Post
 

 

Aren't you misunderstanding the concept of a company going private? It doesn't go private by buying its own shares. That would be kind of bizarre because then no one would own the company.

 

Apple would own itself. It would become self aware on August 29th 2017 at 02:14 am Eastern Time. Apple would then launch its nuclear missiles at Russia to incite a counterattack against the humans who, in a panic, tried to short it.

post #19 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interdyne View Post
 

Apple would own itself. It would become self aware on August 29th 2017 at 02:14 am Eastern Time. Apple would then launch its nuclear missiles at Russia to incite a counterattack against the humans who, in a panic, tried to short it.

 

I think you should have ran that past CNBC and Gene Munster first...

post #20 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogGone View Post

Apple are currently buying back shares and reducing the number of outstanding shares.

For Apple to go private it would have to raise the cash independently to buyback all shares. That includes the shares I have. I can't see how Apple could ever raise $400-500BB to achieve this.

Apple wouldn't have to raise the money. Some group of investors would have to come up with the money - either from their own assets or debt (or some combination). Could it be done? Sure - at least theoretically. It would have to involve a number of investors putting up major portions of their assets and lenders willing to put up the rest. But the amounts involved are far too large for it to have even a tiny chance of happening. Your range is too low. The market cap is $440 B, so there's no way it would ever happen in the bottom half of your range. More likely, investors would demand a 20% premium, so you'd be looking at a minimum of $530 B. MINIMUM.


But I have a suggestion. Misek has a target price for AAPL of $425. Apple should offer to buy all of his shares and his investors' shares at $430 - a premium over where the thinks the price should be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hydr View Post

Apple is healthy and they are making a ton of money. 
But their $140B cash on the balance sheet is making the stock a major drag. It´s earning less than a 1% and it´s a *huge* part of Apple now. It´s not helping anyone, and it´s hurting Apple share price. That is a fact. However if they took advantage of this, and applied the cash to buy its own shares it would make the share more attractive.

Well, the cash isn't really a drag on the share price, it's more of a neutral. The way most investors evaluate it is to look at the total market capitalization and subtract the cash to get a cash-adjusted market capitalization (i.e., what the market thinks the company is worth without the cash). They then evaluate the cash-adjusted P/E to see if it's reasonable.

Their current market capitalization is $440 B (or trailing P/E of 12.1). If your numbers are correct (I haven't checked), the cash-adjusted market capitalization is $300 B. That yields a cash-adjusted P/E of just over 8. Consider that the market's average P/E is more than twice that, it's really unfathomable that the P/E is so low. Even if you think Apple is only going to grow as fast as the market average, the share price should be twice what it is.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #21 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

Apple is actively one of the most profitable companies around that has to buy back its own shares because no big investors will touch the stock. Apple is one of the worst performing stocks on Wall Street in 2013. Companies like Google and Amazon don't even offer dividends and they're certainly not buying their stock back and yet those companies' share prices continue to climb. Meanwhile, Tim Cook sits around scratching his head wondering why he can't put an ounce of shareholder value back into Apple. Apple bought $16 billion worth of shares back and yet the share price still looks like crap. Tim Cook can't even get the stock out of the red for 2013 while the rest of the market is up 20%. What's wrong with this picture.

Tim Cook is no longer running Apple. So-called analysts like Misek and Munster are running Apple. What Munster says carries more weight on Wall Street than what Tim Cook says. Munster appears on TV and basically called Tim Cook a liar about iPhone sales and Tim Cook had nothing to say. That doesn't boost shareholder confidence at all. Tim can't let some two-bit, charlatan analyst bad-mouth him like that and get away with it. Munster acts like he knows more about Apple's sales than Tim Cook. It's no wonder investors are treating Apple like some plague. Jeff Bezos would never put up with that sort of crap. Analysts are taking all sorts of FUD-spewing liberties with Apple.

 

You know your right, today no CEO runs it company, wall street does. Another person ask if Apple has to legal talk to analysis and the answer is no, they are only required to make full public disclosures of its action and provide the financials. The only reason CEO have to talk to analysis is to promote their company and stock. However, Cook is doing no different than Steve, saying very little and not responding to the FUD unless the buying consumer who really pays apples bills would be ultimately affect or would change then buy habits if they did not respond.

 

The only different now is when Steve was there people believed in him since the numbers spoke for themselves and there were plenty of analysis who said they would fail but Mutual fund manager and such could not ignore apple since if price kept rising in spite of what any analysis said. I know some very large government pension plans were complaining to the Mutual fund manager why they were not investing heavily in Apple when that happen the stock began raising faster. Today the Analysis took back control and they are basically blackballing Apple unless they do what they want. This tactic did not work on Steve, but Cook has already gone down the slippery slop when he announced the buy back and dividend. We all know Steve would never had agreed.  He is now in the hand of the analysis and they will squeeze like crazy.

post #22 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

Apple is actively one of the most profitable companies around that has to buy back its own shares because no big investors will touch the stock. Apple is one of the worst performing stocks on Wall Street in 2013. Companies like Google and Amazon don't even offer dividends and they're certainly not buying their stock back and yet those companies' share prices continue to climb. Meanwhile, Tim Cook sits around scratching his head wondering why he can't put an ounce of shareholder value back into Apple. Apple bought $16 billion worth of shares back and yet the share price still looks like crap. Tim Cook can't even get the stock out of the red for 2013 while the rest of the market is up 20%. What's wrong with this picture.

Tim Cook is no longer running Apple. So-called analysts like Misek and Munster are running Apple. What Munster says carries more weight on Wall Street than what Tim Cook says. Munster appears on TV and basically called Tim Cook a liar about iPhone sales and Tim Cook had nothing to say. That doesn't boost shareholder confidence at all. Tim can't let some two-bit, charlatan analyst bad-mouth him like that and get away with it. Munster acts like he knows more about Apple's sales than Tim Cook. It's no wonder investors are treating Apple like some plague. Jeff Bezos would never put up with that sort of crap. Analysts are taking all sorts of FUD-spewing liberties with Apple.

Don't be an ass. Tim Cook is doing an amazing job, just like he did when he the stock reached it's all time high and and jut like he did when he took over for Jobs temporarily when the Stock had reached a huge low under Jobs.
post #23 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interdyne View Post

Apple would own itself. It would become self aware on August 29th 2017 at 02:14 am Eastern Time. Apple would then launch its nuclear missiles at Russia to incite a counterattack against the humans who, in a panic, tried to short it.

Siri = skynet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

You know your right, today no CEO runs it company, wall street does. Another person ask if Apple has to legal talk to analysis and the answer is no, they are only required to make full public disclosures of its action and provide the financials. The only reason CEO have to talk to analysis is to promote their company and stock. However, Cook is doing no different than Steve, saying very little and not responding to the FUD unless the buying consumer who really pays apples bills would be ultimately affect or would change then buy habits if they did not respond.

The only different now is when Steve was there people believed in him since the numbers spoke for themselves and there were plenty of analysis who said they would fail but Mutual fund manager and such could not ignore apple since if price kept rising in spite of what any analysis said. I know some very large government pension plans were complaining to the Mutual fund manager why they were not investing heavily in Apple when that happen the stock began raising faster. Today the Analysis took back control and they are basically blackballing Apple unless they do what they want. This tactic did not work on Steve, but Cook has already gone down the slippery slop when he announced the buy back and dividend. We all know Steve would never had agreed.  He is now in the hand of the analysis and they will squeeze like crazy.

Another "Steve would never..." post.
post #24 of 57
It's all good, the stock price will drop soon, thanks to iOS 7 giving users Vertigo and motion sockness. So Tim Cook can buy up all the stock he wants. LOL


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/26/ios-7-design-motion-sickness_n_3995898.html
post #25 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

 

Tim Cook is no longer running Apple. So-called analysts like Misek and Munster are running Apple.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post
 

 

You know your right, today no CEO runs it company, wall street does. 

Respectfully,  not sure this is accurate-  Misek and Munster in part. run the media circus.   Along with the likes of CNBC and WSJ,  FOX etc who churn out the un-reality show.    They do not RUN Apple.  

We can and should chose to turn this noise off.    Suggesting that TC should respond is purposeless and if he did, only validates the circus.   However,   I suspect he is quitly responding in another ways;   capably guiding the company with well positioned products  and superior services,    taking advantage of the value in Apple shares with a significant buyback ....   A year from now he will likely be regarded as a brilliant strategist by skillfully navigating this media madness.    As for the Media Wonks,  no such fate awaits.   

post #26 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonshf View Post
 

 

Aren't you misunderstanding the concept of a company going private? It doesn't go private by buying its own shares. That would be kind of bizarre because then no one would own the company.

 

A company goes private when a small group of people buy all the shares and take it off the public stock exchange. They are the ones that would have to raise $400B+. Who has the ability to do that?

 

It's not typical, but it's entirely possible for a company to own itself and be governed by a board of directors. They could choose to issue privately held shares, but it wouldn't be a legal requirement. 

post #27 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Another "Steve would never..." post.

I expect someone to honestly post "Steve Job would never have wanted Tim Cook as Apple's CEO" at some point.
post #28 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post

It's all good, the stock price will drop soon, thanks to iOS 7 giving users Vertigo and motion sockness. So Tim Cook can buy up all the stock he wants. LOL


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/26/ios-7-design-motion-sickness_n_3995898.html

It's affected me but Android would make me sicker.
post #29 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post

I agree, Tim is doing a great job! After so much negativity about Apple's lack of innovation, Tim kept Apple focused on its strategy and that ficus is starting to win the race for Apple.

Careful, I hear Samsung has a filodendron that could put them on top.
post #30 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

It's affected me but Android would make me sicker.
I'm surprised we haven't seen an article about it here yet. Every major news outl and tech blog has picked up this story. It's going to be the next antenna gate. People are already threatening class action lawsuits if Apple doesn't get on this "problem".
post #31 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by theCore View Post
 

 

Respectfully,  not sure this is accurate-  Misek and Munster in part. run the media circus.   Along with the likes of CNBC and WSJ,  FOX etc who churn out the un-reality show.    They do not RUN Apple.  

We can and should chose to turn this noise off.    Suggesting that TC should respond is purposeless and if he did, only validates the circus.   However,   I suspect he is quitly responding in another ways;   capably guiding the company with well positioned products  and superior services,    taking advantage of the value in Apple shares with a significant buyback ....   A year from now he will likely be regarded as a brilliant strategist by skillfully navigating this media madness.    As for the Media Wonks,  no such fate awaits.   

 

Actually those guys are analyst who happen to have a media outlet, but their analysis which they product and large mutual fund manager buy and other large institutional investors buy which helps make buy and sell decisions. We only hearing what these guys publicly state you are not seeing their full analysis of a company like Apple. You have to ask yourself if this the public view what does the private view look like. They have to be the same since their customers are not going to like if they are making different public statements verse their analysis.

 

I work for a fast growing Start up in the 90's and it was doing very well, however, not well enough for the analysis who followed the company. Since we were small, information flowed pretty freely internally to the company as one would expect. One day there was new direction for the company, most of those new directions center around these so call top performer metrics which all the analysis talk about. Forget the fact the the company was making money and we were meeting our customer expectations. The analysis felt our metrics were not where they needed to be. So big initiatives in the company to improve the metrics. As it was communicated to the entire management team everyone need to focus on these metrics, otherwise, the analysis would to be recommending the company's stock to large institutional investors. Why was this important to management and the employees, we were all stock holders, the founders and the employees own 50% of the companies stock since it did not use VC money to get started and the employees were well rewarded.

 

Needless to say we ran around trying to improve our metrics so the analysis would be happy and they would recommend the stock in the end it hurt the company, since we no longer did was was important for the customer but was was good for the metrics. Everyone quarter the analysis would come back and say okay that metric is okay but now this metric is important. At one point they came back and told the company to issue more share (which diluted it value) and this was done since they did not like how much ownership the employees had, they was all us to be diluted out the business. So basically our CEO stop running the company and let the market analysis run the company.

 

Luck for us this was during the Dotcom buying frenzy and the company was bought out by a very large company for all cash and it was the larges $ buy out of a start company of its time during the 90's so we all got cashed out and it created a large number of Millionaire. and created a number of spin off companies. But the analysis rush back in and mess with the new owners to the point of putting it out of business since they spend more time trying to fix metrics verse selling and meeting customer expectation.

 

When company start managing their business by the metric of wall street it is doom to be irrelevant. Apple is the most classic example of this, they doing well, but the analysis hate them since the wall street metrics are not being met.

post #32 of 57
Hmm, maybe Apple are spreading FUD about themselves through paid analysts to drive the price down so they can buy shares back at a lower price before recovering the price and selling them on for a massive profit.
post #33 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

Apple is actively one of the most profitable companies around that has to buy back its own shares because no big investors will touch the stock. Apple is one of the worst performing stocks on Wall Street in 2013. Companies like Google and Amazon don't even offer dividends and they're certainly not buying their stock back and yet those companies' share prices continue to climb. Meanwhile, Tim Cook sits around scratching his head wondering why he can't put an ounce of shareholder value back into Apple. Apple bought $16 billion worth of shares back and yet the share price still looks like crap. Tim Cook can't even get the stock out of the red for 2013 while the rest of the market is up 20%. What's wrong with this picture.

Tim Cook is no longer running Apple. So-called analysts like Misek and Munster are running Apple. What Munster says carries more weight on Wall Street than what Tim Cook says. Munster appears on TV and basically called Tim Cook a liar about iPhone sales and Tim Cook had nothing to say. That doesn't boost shareholder confidence at all. Tim can't let some two-bit, charlatan analyst bad-mouth him like that and get away with it. Munster acts like he knows more about Apple's sales than Tim Cook. It's no wonder investors are treating Apple like some plague. Jeff Bezos would never put up with that sort of crap. Analysts are taking all sorts of FUD-spewing liberties with Apple.

 

Well said.  Without the buyback program, the stock price will be even lower than what it is now.  Apple needs more shareholder relation experts' help.

post #34 of 57
leavingthebig said:

"Is Apple legally required to speak to analysts each quarter? If not, the company could make this quarter it's last. Even better would be for the company to announce last quarter was the last time."

I think one problem here is that Apple an extremely large capitalization and the economy is moving slowly. Without really large inflows of capital it is very hard to move the stock price upward in any meaningful manner. Cutting off Wall Street's access to the managements expectations about the business will not help here. The difficulty of raising the price is compounded by how many stock owners have earned extremely large profits over the last 7 or 8 years. The actually percentage of stock that trades each day and sets the price for the company is a very small slice of the overall company. Average volume is just over 20 million shares, or 2% of the stock outstanding. Given the rise in algorithmic trading, the actual number of trades that are held over the long term is more like 1% (a quick google link said 3 different numbers with 50% being the lowest guess). So all it takes is slightly more than one percent of the stock owners to want to sell the business on any given day to drop the price. To keep it rising you would need an inflow of cash of $4.82 billion at current prices to keep the price the same. That works out to $1.2 trillion per year assuming none of those shares are traded multiple times a year. I would guess that again at least half of the remaining transactions are short term. Still $600 Billion is no small amount of cash necessary to keep a business's stock price high, especially when the economy is not flush with extra cash.
post #35 of 57

Appreciate this insight,    the curtain is drawn back just a little further-

post #36 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by theCore View Post
 

Appreciate this insight,    the curtain is drawn back just a little further-  

     addressed to  Maestro64

post #37 of 57

Why do you not proof read your posts? :no:

post #38 of 57
Wouldn't a stock split be a good thing?
post #39 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

I would absolutely LOVE for Apple to go private at some point in the future.

Absolutely LOVE.

 

Why would you? Why do you think that would be good?

 

And on a different note, I make the friendly suggestion that you lay off the crack. Apple could never "go private" as you fantasize. They aren't exactly a tiny "Dell" fallen on hard times that can be snapped up for a pittance.

post #40 of 57
jonshf> "Aren't you misunderstanding the concept of a company going private? It doesn't go private by buying its own shares. That would be kind of bizarre because then no one would own the company."

I'm sure you're a nice person, jonshf. It's not your fault you think this. It's our lousy educational system. You are innocent. I still like you.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › How much $AAPL has Apple eaten with its $44 billion buyback appetite?