or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Carl Icahn calls Apple a 'no brainer' investment as his stake grows to over $3B
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Carl Icahn calls Apple a 'no brainer' investment as his stake grows to over $3B - Page 2

post #41 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Yes it is all free money. What's wrong with that term?
Btw many things are taxed multiple times. Why aren’t you screaming bloody murder on paying sales tax with money you paid income tax on?


because buybacks avoid ALL TAXES and dividends don't.  You need to pay Corp taxes (Apple does), Corp state taxes (Apple does), Fed taxes (investor does), and State taxes (investor does).

 

I'm not saying all dividends are bad.  Just highlighting one benefit of a buyback vs div

post #42 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flabingo View Post

Carl's argument is the excess cash. But if Apple has good earnings on Monday, then the cash will not be a big issue, but if the earnings disappoint, it will be a different story. By the way who is in charge of managing the cash? I doubt that it is Tim Cook. It would seem that he does not have the background and time to manage it.
And the Chairman of the board works full time for a Google company as CEO. The makeup of the board does not have anybody with much financial or investment background.

 

Should be the CFO Ophenhimer.

post #43 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Yes it is all free money. What's wrong with that term?
Btw many things are taxed multiple times. Why aren’t you screaming bloody murder on paying sales tax with money you paid income tax on?

 

John: Uncle I want to start my own business selling pizza's

 

Uncle: Sounds like a good idea.

 

John:  Could I borrow $100,000 from you for capital?  I'll give you 50% of the profits

 

Uncle: Sure sounds good

 

5 years latter

 

Uncle: So John have you made any money with your Pizza business?

 

John:  Yup. Big time bioch!  I made $500,000 last year!

 

Uncle:  ............so where is my share?

 

John:  FU mother buker.  I'm the one who lifted my finger.  YOu did jack sheet.  Here I'll give you $100.

 

Uncle:  WTF I'm going to sue you!

 

John:  FU.  You should be happy with the $100.  Its FREE MONEY. FREE MONEY. FREE MONEY............

post #44 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post


because buybacks avoid ALL TAXES and dividends don't.  You need to pay Corp taxes (Apple does), Corp state taxes (Apple does), Fed taxes (investor does), and State taxes (investor does).

I'm not saying all dividends are bad.  Just highlighting one benefit of a buyback vs div

I understand your point and agree, but given the choice between no dividend and a highly taxed one, I'll take the latter. Some money will always be better than no money.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #45 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

John: Uncle I want to start my own business selling pizza's

Uncle: Sounds like a good idea.

John:  Could I borrow $100,000 from you for capital?  I'll give you 50% of the profits

Uncle: Sure sounds good

5 years latter

Uncle: So John have you made any money with your Pizza business?

John:  Yup. Big time bioch!  I made $500,000 last year!

Uncle:  ............so where is my share?

John:  FU mother buker.  I'm the one who lifted my finger.  YOu did jack sheet.  Here I'll give you $100.

Uncle:  WTF I'm going to sue you!

John:  FU.  You should be happy with the $100.  Its FREE MONEY. FREE MONEY. FREE MONEY............

That's pretty funny, but not the point I'm trying to make.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #46 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


That's pretty funny, but not the point I'm trying to make.

 

Whats your point?  Your saying investors don't deserve dividends because they don't lift a finger.  So any dividend is FREE MONEY.

 

The opposite is true.  For dividend paying stocks the dividend is calculated as an important part of their return.  And for income investors it is the MOST important variable.

post #47 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

Guess what?  Their are probably shareholders/partners that own the company you work for that don't lift a finger to help the company.  Yet you are allowing them to take the MAJORITY of the profits?  Why work for such a company!  Why not go at it on your own!  Why not start your own business!  Since its soooooooooooooooooooooooo easy!  You don't even need to lift a finger!  Then once you own the company and retire would you expect to be able to get profits out of the company?  Of course not!!! You are not lifting a finger anymore so you dont DESERVE any money from it!!!!  Its FREE MONEY! You should be happy to get 1 cent! 

It's not my company, so how am I allowing anyone to take the majority of the profits? I do own stock and along with my wages I also get quarterly dividends.

Nowhere did I say anything was easy. Starting a company is anything but, and FYI there are lots of retired people that own companies that are chugging along just fine and earning them some nice change.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #48 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


It's not my company, so how am I allowing anyone to take the majority of the profits? I do own stock and along with my wages I also get quarterly dividends.

Nowhere did I say anything was easy. Starting a company is anything but, and FYI there are lots of retired people that own companies that are chugging along just fine and earning them some nice change.

 

My point is those who contribute CAPITAL (buy stock) are very important to a company.  Just because they don't lift a finger in everyday operations does not mean they don't need to be compensated when the company is doing well.  Thus the dividends they receive are not FREE MONEY.  The dividends they receive is the RETURN on INVESTMENT.  They bear the risk of losing their entire investment unlike an employee who gets paid every pay period regardless of profit.

post #49 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

$150,000,000,000 cash

x 25% (average of S&P, Dow, and Nasdaq index)

 

= $37,500,000,000

 

Thats how much Apple lost from opportunity cost for having its cash in 1% accounts

 

$150,000,000,000 cash

x 35% (amount Apple is up from 6 month bottom of $385)

 

= $52,500,000,000

 

Thats how much Apple lost from opportunity cost because they did not buyback at $385

 

Of course they could not do what is stated above.  But it just illustrates the massive amounts of possible money Apple is losing for itself and its investors because the cash is doing nothing.

  Your 35% example is purely anecdotal(ie one data point) and totally misleading to future performance.

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #50 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

Lets look at Carl's biggest investments in 2013 and their return:

 

Forest Labs 95% return in 2013

Chespeake Energy 30%

Herbalife  125%

Netflix  120%

 

It cannot be denied.  The dude helps what ever stock he owns and pushes. 

 

You guys always show hate for the guys manipulating the stock down.  Why do you hate on a guy who is manipulating it up?  Don't hate the player hate the game. 

Unless you have access to all of his investments, it's not wise to base your opinion of him to just his "biggest 4 holdings". That's like the people who come back from Vegas bragging about their biggest wins .... but you never hear about their losses. Icahn's history is that of a person who will destroy companies (jobs, peoples lives, etc.) with absolutely no regard to all of the people who are harmed . He should be the poster boy for all that is wrong about today's "capitalism". Greed personified.


Edited by newbee - 1/22/14 at 12:30pm
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #51 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

My point is those who contribute CAPITAL (buy stock) are very important to a company.  Just because they don't lift a finger in everyday operations does not mean they don't need to be compensated when the company is doing well.  Thus the dividends they receive are not FREE MONEY.  The dividends they receive is the RETURN on INVESTMENT.  They bear the risk of losing their entire investment unlike an employee who gets paid every pay period regardless of profit.

Yes but the only one that made a capital contribution to the company was the initial investor, any subsequent investor money goes directly to the previous stockholder, and so on and so forth. Now a company will benefit directly when the price of their shares go up
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #52 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post
 

Unless you have access to all of his investments, it's not wise to base your opinion of him to just his "biggest 4 holdings". That's like the people who come back from Vegas bragging about their biggest wins .... but you never here about their losses. Icahn's history is that of a person who will destroy companies (jobs, peoples lives, etc.) with absolutely no regard to all of the people who are harmed . He should be the poster boy for all that is wrong about today's "capitalism". Greed personified.

 

Ichan had 35% return in 2011

http://nypost.com/2012/01/08/icahnt-believe-carls-35-return/

 

35% in 2013

http://www.insidermonkey.com/hedge-fund/icahn+capital+lp/4/

 

27% return the last 5 years. DAMN!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2014/01/21/billionaire-carl-icahns-investment-fund-returned-31-in-2013/

 

so what were you saying about Vegas?


Edited by sog35 - 1/22/14 at 11:58am
post #53 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post
 

  Your 35% example is purely anecdotal(ie one data point) and totally misleading to future performance.

 

WRONG.  If Apple listen to Ichan and others back in July they would have made 35% in share growth.  AND THATS A FACT.

post #54 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Yes but the only one that made a capital contribution to the company was the initial investor, any subsequent investor money goes directly to the previous stockholder, and so on and so forth. Now a company will benefit directly when the price of their shares go up

 

So is dividends FREE MONEY or not?

Yes or No.

 

IS not dividends EARNED by the one who gets it?

Yes or No.

post #55 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

$150,000,000,000 cash

x 25% (average of S&P, Dow, and Nasdaq index)

 

= $37,500,000,000

 

Thats how much Apple lost from opportunity cost for having its cash in 1% accounts

 

$150,000,000,000 cash

x 35% (amount Apple is up from 6 month bottom of $385)

 

= $52,500,000,000

 

Thats how much Apple lost from opportunity cost because they did not buyback at $385

 

Of course they could not do what is stated above.  But it just illustrates the massive amounts of possible money Apple is losing for itself and its investors because the cash is doing nothing.

I love the phrase "opportunity cost". Imagine if I had only bet the farm on the last 20 years of Super Bowl winners ... hell, I'd be a multi-millionair for sure. Just think of all that "opportunity cost" wasted. Shameful.

 

Hint for sog35 :     "opportunity cost" is Wall Street Jargon designed to fool investors  ..(read suckers) .. into "proving" that the "expert" knows what he is talking about. It's called "baffling with bullshit". 

See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #56 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post
 

I love the phrase "opportunity cost". Imagine if I had only bet the farm on the last 20 years of Super Bowl winners ... hell, I'd be a multi-millionair for sure. Just think of all that "opportunity cost" wasted. Shameful.

 

Hint for sog35 :     "opportunity cost" is Wall Street Jargon designed to fool investors  ..(read suckers) .. into "proving" that the "expert" knows what he is talking about. It's called "baffling with bullshit". 

 

If you think leaving $150,000,000,000 in a bank earning 1% is good capital allocation then I cannot reason with you.

 

Opportunity cost is an important metric in any financial decision.  Ignoring it is ignoring reality.

 

Is Opportunity cost real.  HELL YES.  My 401k is in an index fund and it went up 33% last year.  Thats not baffling with bullshit. 

 

Some of you are so blinded by Ichan reputation that you ignore all reason.  Just because Ichan was unethical does not mean his buyback ideas are bad for Apple.  Warren Buffet himself told Steve Jobs to buyback shares.

 

So you are comparing investing with an index fund to betting on the Superbowl?  Man, your financial acumen is............


Edited by sog35 - 1/22/14 at 12:12pm
post #57 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

 

wrong.  Dividends force investors to pay higher taxes. 

 

Read the Intelligent Investor. This is considered one of the definitive investing books of all time. Endorced by tons of people, including Buffet himself. The central premise is to look for stable companies with good management that pay out dividends. Apple is a stable company with good management with no debt that pays the largest dividend. 

 

The tax differences you speak of depend on a lot of variables. For example, is your investment in a retirement account? If so, what kind, a Roth IRA or Traditional IRA? If you are selling stock, how long have you held on to the stock? So, to cite tax differences pretty much means little to many investors, myself included. 

 

Further, buying back Apple's own stock is pretty much a waste of its money and undermines the longterm stability of the company. First, Carl wants Apple to spend all of its $150 billion of its cash buying back its own stock. Since, Apple would be retiring the stock after purchase, what does Apple obtain for the purchase? Nothing. This largely benefits short term investors, who arguably are not investors that Apple should be concerned about.  Second, Carl wants Apple to purchase its own stock on an expediated pace. This means Apple would be buying back its own stock that really does not benefit it at a premium. Further, Apple's cash is largely over seas, so to make the purchase it has to 1) bring its money back to the US and take a huge tax hit, or 2) take on debt to finance the purchase. Neither approach is responsible. 

 

Apple rightfully is opposing the measure because Apple has always been a conservative company. From past experience, it knows the future is not predictable. Evaluating pay outs to inventors annually based on current finances is the way to go. Apple likely will recommend an increase in dividends, and a larger cash buyout that it already has, but far short of what Carl wants. That is responsible. 

post #58 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

$150,000,000,000 cash

x 25% (average of S&P, Dow, and Nasdaq index)

 

= $37,500,000,000

 

Thats how much Apple lost from opportunity cost for having its cash in 1% accounts

 

$150,000,000,000 cash

x 35% (amount Apple is up from 6 month bottom of $385)

 

= $52,500,000,000

 

Thats how much Apple lost from opportunity cost because they did not buyback at $385

 

Of course they could not do what is stated above.  But it just illustrates the massive amounts of possible money Apple is losing for itself and its investors because the cash is doing nothing.

 

How is that relevant? Apple would be buying back the stock and retiring it. So if the stock goes up, Apple can not resell the stock. 

post #59 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

How is that relevant? Apple would be buying back the stock and retiring it. So if the stock goes up, Apple can not resell the stock. 
It doesn't have to be retired. I think they can resell it if they chose to. Has Apple stated any buybacks will absolutely be retired? As I understand the last round was but I didn't note whether they had to commit to that.
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/retiredstock.asp
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #60 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post
 

 

Read the Intelligent Investor. This is considered one of the definitive investing books of all time. Endorced by tons of people, including Buffet himself. The central premise is to look for stable companies with good management that pay out dividends. Apple is a stable company with good management with no debt that pays the largest dividend. 

 

The tax differences you speak of depend on a lot of variables. For example, is your investment in a retirement account? If so, what kind, a Roth IRA or Traditional IRA? If you are selling stock, how long have you held on to the stock? So, to cite tax differences pretty much means little to many investors, myself included. 

 

Further, buying back Apple's own stock is pretty much a waste of its money and undermines the longterm stability of the company. First, Carl wants Apple to spend all of its $150 billion of its cash buying back its own stock. Since, Apple would be retiring the stock after purchase, what does Apple obtain for the purchase? Nothing. This largely benefits short term investors, who arguably are not investors that Apple should be concerned about.  Second, Carl wants Apple to purchase its own stock on an expediated pace. This means Apple would be buying back its own stock that really does not benefit it at a premium. Further, Apple's cash is largely over seas, so to make the purchase it has to 1) bring its money back to the US and take a huge tax hit, or 2) take on debt to finance the purchase. Neither approach is responsible. 

 

Apple rightfully is opposing the measure because Apple has always been a conservative company. From past experience, it knows the future is not predictable. Evaluating pay outs to inventors annually based on current finances is the way to go. Apple likely will recommend an increase in dividends, and a larger cash buyout that it already has, but far short of what Carl wants. That is responsible. 

 

Carl's current proposal is to buy back $50B all in 2014.  Please note that Apple's free cash flows for 2014 is estimated at $50B.  I agree that doing a $150B buyback in 2014 would be ridiculous.

 

I would like a larger dividend.  But the problem with dividends is they are almost permanent.  Once you raise the dividend it is very hard to lower it without massive consequences from income investors.  A buyback is temporary and can easily be adjusted each year without consequence.

 

Apple could easily pay $50B in buybacks in 2014:

 

I estimate their US cash flow is about $20B

Float a bond for $30B - a bond won't hurt them because interest rates are still ridiculously low and less shares outstanding means less dividends to pay.  When the bond was floated last year for the buyback it was estimated that Apple may have not lost a single cent after taking into account the savings in dividend payments and tax deductions on interest.

 

So after floating the bond what would Apples balance sheet look like @12.31.14?

 

$200,000,000,000 Cash

$30,000,000,000 bond note

 

Net cash $170,000,000,000

 

Keep in mind Apple has already promised to buyback an additional $36B.  All Ichan wants is an additional $14B and to accelerate the buyback while the stock is still cheap.

post #61 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flabingo View Post

Carl's argument is the excess cash. But if Apple has good earnings on Monday, then the cash will not be a big issue, but if the earnings disappoint, it will be a different story. By the way who is in charge of managing the cash? I doubt that it is Tim Cook. It would seem that he does not have the background and time to manage it.
And the Chairman of the board works full time for a Google company as CEO. The makeup of the board does not have anybody with much financial or investment background.

Apple does have a CFO and a controller.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

WRONG.  If Apple listen to Ichan and others back in July they would have made 35% in share growth.  AND THATS A FACT.

Past results do not guarantee future earnings. There is no Facts on WS.

Fact Apple is already doing a buy back. I'm voting no.
post #62 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

So is dividends FREE MONEY or not?
Yes or No.

IS not dividends EARNED by the one who gets it?
Yes or No.

Has a long term Apple stockholder ever gotten a dividend before last year? They bought Apple as a growth stock not a dividend stock, so when Apple paid out a dividend for the first time it was money that stockholders were not expecting so I would consider that free money.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #63 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

Is Opportunity cost real. 

 

So you are comparing investing with an index fund to betting on the Superbowl?  Man, your financial acumen is............

#1 ...  "Opportunity cost" speaks only of past performance ... no one speaks of the "Opportunity cost" of a losing stock because that wouldn't support the "genius" of the analyst speaking ... professional or amateur. As they say, hind site is 20/20. Anyone can quote the past, but only fools try to guarantee the future.

 

#2  On 1/23/07 iShares index fund closed at143.20 ... on 10/10/08 closed at 91.50 ... a decline of almost 40% and didn't return to that level until 09/06/12 (144.35).  5 ½ years of no gain, not even counting the devaluation of the $$. 

 

So yeah, I'd say that the stock market and Vegas are very similar ... with only the speed of the game that is necessary to remove a lot of people of their money. Remember, any dollar won by someone is a dollar lost by someone else. There's gambling and investing and it is unwise to confuse the two. Financial "acumen" is to recognize the difference.

See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #64 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Has a long term Apple stockholder ever gotten a dividend before last year? They bought Apple as a growth stock not a dividend stock, so when Apple paid out a dividend for the first time it was money that stockholders were not expecting so I would consider that free money.


dividends were paid from 1987 to 1995

 

Dividends are NOT free money. PERIOD. Learn.

post #65 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post
 

#1 ...  "Opportunity cost" speaks only of past performance ... no one speaks of the "Opportunity cost" of a losing stock because that wouldn't support the "genius" of the analyst speaking ... professional or amateur. As they say, hind site is 20/20. Anyone can quote the past, but only fools try to guarantee the future.

 

#2  On 1/23/07 iShares index fund closed at143.20 ... on 10/10/08 closed at 91.50 ... a decline of almost 40% and didn't return to that level until 09/06/12 (144.35).  5 ½ years of no gain, not even counting the devaluation of the $$. 

 

So yeah, I'd say that the stock market and Vegas are very similar ... with only the speed of the game that is necessary to remove a lot of people of their money. Remember, any dollar won by someone is a dollar lost by someone else. There's gambling and investing and it is unwise to confuse the two. Financial "acumen" is to recognize the difference.

 

nice job cherry picking dates.

 

again if you see nothing wrong with tying up $150,000,000,000 @ 1% I can't reason with you.

 

come back to me after you look at 30 to 40 year market returns (you know the same window as people save for retirement)

 

I never said Apple should have invested the $150B in the market. I'm just comparing their return with the market return.  The cash should have been returned to investors (by dividends/buybacks) and they can take the risk they deem acceptable.  But losing BILLIONS of dollars every year to inflation because of $150B doing nothing cannot be ignored.

post #66 of 130

Right on.  Icahn's previous AAPL is standing at about $430.  He needs the price to go up so he can make money (=cash out).  When he does, AAPL takes a hit.  If that cascades, everyone loses (except of course those who can buy at the bottom...) It's functionally stock manipulation on his part with no long term gain for investors, and less flexibility for Apple to use their capital.  

post #67 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

I love the phrase "opportunity cost". Imagine if I had only bet the farm on the last 20 years of Super Bowl winners ... hell, I'd be a multi-millionair for sure. Just think of all that "opportunity cost" wasted. Shameful.

Hint for sog35 :     "opportunity cost" is Wall Street Jargon designed to fool investors  ..(read suckers) .. into "proving" that the "expert" knows what he is talking about. It's called "baffling with bullshit". 

I'll simplify what 'opportunity cost' is. I'm often asked to work on Saturday and sometimes Sunday in which I get paid overtime. If on a particular day I don't work and go on a day trip, then that trip cost me whatever I spent that day plus the income I could've earned. Since I had the 'opportunity' to earn and didn't, it gets added to my 'cost'.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #68 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

nice job cherry picking dates.

again if you see nothing wrong with tying up $150,000,000,000 @ 1% I can't reason with you.

come back to me after you look at 30 to 40 year market returns (you know the same window as people save for retirement)

You do realize Apple will continue to invest $150,000,000,000 conservatively even if it falls for Crazy Carl's plan. Any buy back would be from loans. So you want to pay 2-3% interest on billions in loans? For what exactly? So Crazy Carl can reach his target price faster and bolt, leaving Apple with a lot more debt?
post #69 of 130

but if earnings will be good and share price will go over 600 anyway, is not then better that apple will still have all their 150b cash?  i think it is. i mean whats the difference if share price will be 600+ now or in few months? for long term investors it does not matter i guess.

post #70 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


You do realize Apple will continue to invest $150,000,000,000 conservatively even if it falls for Crazy Carl's plan. Any buy back would be from loans. So you want to pay 2-3% interest on billions in loans? For what exactly? So Crazy Carl can reach his target price faster and bolt, leaving Apple with a lot more debt?

 

The cost of those loans will be close to ZERO, since at current prices they will be saving 2.3% on dividends.  Plus they will be able to deduct interest expense.  So basically they are borrowing the money for FREE.

 

Right now is the PERFECT time to buyback $50B

 

1. Stock is at a cheap valuation (about 10-15% undervalued)

2. Interest rates are still very low

3. Apple has tons of cash $150B and generates $50B free cash flows annually

4. They will save 2.3% on saved dividend payments

 

In a few months several of these factors will no longer be true.  The share price may go up to $600-$650 making a buyback expensive and risky.  Also the dividend rate savings will go down below 2%.  Interest rates could go up in 2015.

post #71 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by total View Post
 

but if earnings will be good and share price will go over 600 anyway, is not then better that apple will still have all their 150b cash?  i think it is. i mean whats the difference if share price will be 600+ now or in few months? for long term investors it does not matter i guess.

 

thats why you need to buyback NOW when its $550 not $600

 

Ichan has been screaming this for MONTHS when it was $460.

 

Please read up on EPS and how effects share price.

post #72 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


I'll simplify what 'opportunity cost' is. I'm often asked to work on Saturday and sometimes Sunday in which I get paid overtime. If on a particular day I don't work and go on a day trip, then that trip cost me whatever I spent that day plus the income I could've earned. Since I had the 'opportunity' to earn and didn't, it gets added to my 'cost'.

 

good explanation.

 

Every decision made has an opportunity cost or opportunity benefit

post #73 of 130

don't forget that Apple pays significant stock options.

 

So if they buy at $550 and two years from now the stock is $650 they will save REAL MONEY when those stock options vest.

 

I think Tim Cook alone has over 1,000,000 stock options

post #74 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


I'll simplify what 'opportunity cost' is. I'm often asked to work on Saturday and sometimes Sunday in which I get paid overtime. If on a particular day I don't work and go on a day trip, then that trip cost me whatever I spent that day plus the income I could've earned. Since I had the 'opportunity' to earn and didn't, it gets added to my 'cost'.

That depends what you define as opportunity. If I say no to working overtime so I can spend some quality time with my wife and children ... is that lost opportunity ?  I consider that gained opportunity. I don't consider family time as a cost. But hey, that's just me ... everyone has to decide for themselves. I guess what I'm saying is that, in my opinion, everything in life should not be judged as a perceived monetary value, .... and unfortunately, that seems to be the case a lot of the times these days, so when someone rails against Apple for the "lost opportunity," without knowing Apple's long term strategy, I just scratch my head in amazement.

See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #75 of 130
Quote:

Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

 

nice job cherry picking dates. ...

 

again if you see nothing wrong with tying up $150,000,000,000 @ 1% I can't reason with you.

 

come back to me after you look at 30 to 40 year market returns (you know the same window as people save for retirement)

 

 

 

You mean like you did with showing a select view of Icahn's stock picks. You showed four stocks that averaged over 100% return ... but his 5 year return was, according to you, only 27%, .... must have had a bunch of losers in there, huh?

 

There have been multiple times in the past that stock market participants would have killed for a 1% gain as opposed to a 40% loss.

 

How many times do we have to read about people that lost all of their pensions because various funds lost all of their money or companies went broke and reneged on their pensions, not to even mentioned the times the money was stolen by various "ponzi" schemes, i.e. Madoff, Enron, etc. .... To only remember what supports your belief and disregard the rest is likened to chasing "fools gold". I hope that you know better than to do that.

See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #76 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

That depends what you define as opportunity. If I say no to working overtime so I can spend some quality time with my wife and children ... is that lost opportunity ?  I consider that gained opportunity. I don't consider family time as a cost. But hey, that's just me ... everyone has to decide for themselves. I guess what I'm saying is that, in my opinion, everything in life should not be judged as a perceived monetary value, .... and unfortunately, that seems to be the case a lot of the times these days, so when someone rails against Apple for the "lost opportunity," without knowing Apple's long term strategy, I just scratch my head in amazement.

That's why the word 'cost' is attached to it. It's purely a economic term. Btw I agree, spending time with family isn't a lost opportunity, it's always worth the income not gained.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #77 of 130

this guy need to go away, if he really does not think apple is doing the right thing stop investing in the company. Any good investors stays way form companies which are not doing the right things. This what I do. Instead this idiot keeps buying more and complains about Apple not doing enough for the investor.

post #78 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

this guy need to go away, if he really does not think apple is doing the right thing stop investing in the company. Any good investors stays way form companies which are not doing the right things. This what I do. Instead this idiot keeps buying more and complains about Apple not doing enough for the investor.

He can't help it, he's a elitist billionaire alpha male, who thinks that he is entitled to tell people what to do.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #79 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

 

Carl's current proposal is to buy back $50B all in 2014.  Please note that Apple's free cash flows for 2014 is estimated at $50B.  I agree that doing a $150B buyback in 2014 would be ridiculous.

 

I would like a larger dividend.  But the problem with dividends is they are almost permanent.  Once you raise the dividend it is very hard to lower it without massive consequences from income investors.  A buyback is temporary and can easily be adjusted each year without consequence.

 

Apple could easily pay $50B in buybacks in 2014:

 

I estimate their US cash flow is about $20B

Float a bond for $30B - a bond won't hurt them because interest rates are still ridiculously low and less shares outstanding means less dividends to pay.  When the bond was floated last year for the buyback it was estimated that Apple may have not lost a single cent after taking into account the savings in dividend payments and tax deductions on interest.

 

So after floating the bond what would Apples balance sheet look like @12.31.14?

 

$200,000,000,000 Cash

$30,000,000,000 bond note

 

Net cash $170,000,000,000

 

Keep in mind Apple has already promised to buyback an additional $36B.  All Ichan wants is an additional $14B and to accelerate the buyback while the stock is still cheap.

 

If Apple ever cannot afford to pay a dividend it will have larger issues, and might need some of that $150 billion. You also don't address how a buy back is good for long term investors, which Carl is not. Apple buying back the stock does very little for Apple and awards mostly short term investors like Carl who want to cash out when the stock gets an artificial bump. Further, Apple's responsibilities are not only to investors, but to the maintaining the health of the company. A stock buy back in which Apple retires the stock does little for Apple. If the stock goes up, Apple has nothing to sell. The only benefit Apple gets is it will have less dividends to pay out, but that amount is insignificant as the amount is tied to profit. In my view, it is a waste of money. Just expand my quarterly check. If Apple has problems where it can no longer give out a dividend, people can just sell. With Apple's financials that realistically will not happen in the next fifteen years.

 

It is strange nobody is crying for Google to disperse its 50 billion dollar plus cash reserve.

post #80 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post
 

That depends what you define as opportunity. If I say no to working overtime so I can spend some quality time with my wife and children ... is that lost opportunity ?  I consider that gained opportunity. I don't consider family time as a cost. But hey, that's just me ... everyone has to decide for themselves. I guess what I'm saying is that, in my opinion, everything in life should not be judged as a perceived monetary value, .... and unfortunately, that seems to be the case a lot of the times these days, so when someone rails against Apple for the "lost opportunity," without knowing Apple's long term strategy, I just scratch my head in amazement.


Good points.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Carl Icahn calls Apple a 'no brainer' investment as his stake grows to over $3B