or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple repurchases $14B of own stock over two weeks after 8% decline
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple repurchases $14B of own stock over two weeks after 8% decline - Page 2

post #41 of 72
Honestly to needs to stop talking about new products especially when everybody knows he's not going to offer up any details. All we get now is the media mocking his statements because they're the same statements he's made umpteen times before. All he has to do is say "you're going to like what you see" and leave it at that. Don't get into any discussions on timelines or whether it's updates to existing products or new "categories". I'm not aware of any other tech company getting grilled as much about new product "categories" as Apple does. Tim needs to stop letting Wall Street and the media push him around.
post #42 of 72

Wall Street investors are freaking scared of putting any money into Apple because they don't want to get burned like they got burned in 2012.  Who can blame them.  Many investors went out on a limb because a couple of Apple's target prices went over $1000.  A no-brainer right.  Hell, NO!  Apple fell like a ten-ton brick from the top of the Burj-Khalifa into the sub-basement, quickly wiping out hundreds of billions of dollars of dreams in an instant.  One day Apple was at $705 and shortly after at $390.  Who wants to go through that again?  Apple burned practically everyone that put their faith in that company.  YTD, Apple's share price still sucks horribly compared to other tech companies.

 

Apple is getting back what it deserved for giving away the smartphone market to Samsung and the rest of the Android bunch.  Apple had the opportunity to destroy Google's pet project of Android in all of 2012 but did almost nothing as Samsung went all out to wipe Apple's iPhone out of existence.  Now, Apple can't even manage to sell 55 million iPhones in a quarter because Samsung is selling around 86 million mediocre smartphones and sucking up huge amounts of market share.

 

So, Wall Street is not interested in buying Apple stock because they can make plenty of money elsewhere.  Apple had better be confident in itself because no one else is confident in Apple.  I still think Apple will be wasting its cash with any future buybacks.  Apple needs to take that cash and go directly after Google's search engine and ad business and rip it to shreds.  That would have all those rich Google investors who believe Google's search engine is invincible running for their lives.

post #43 of 72
I think this is a good move.

At the same time, my enthusiasm starts to wane when I remember that Apples shares dipped below $400 last April... Then hovered in the $400s for months.

With that in mind, this move strikes me as more necessary than bold.

Bold would have been last summer.

Either way, I am happy as an APPL long.
post #44 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

So Apple can time their stock repurchases? I thought they were either carried out on a known schedule or they were carried out by a disinterested third party without Apple's direction.

Doesn't leaving the ability to repurchase shares when the stock is low (for whatever reason) create a conflict of interest? It would behoove the CEO or another highly placed person to undermine the stock in order to create an ideal buyback situation. Not saying that is what has happened (after all, if they were more focused on the opportunity, they should've bought back billions of their own stock when it sunk to the mid-$80 range at the beginning of the Depression/Recession...they could have essentially taken the company private at that point).
Quote:
Originally Posted by foad View Post

I would think that if Apple provided false information that tanked the stock and then bought, I think that would be illegal. If the market reacts negatively of its own free will and Apple takes advantage of it, then I don't see where the conflict would be. I could be completely wrong though.
if anybody has read Steve Jobs' autobiography, you could see that before he came back to Apple from Next, his bud Larry Elison was mulling over doing exactly that, taking it private & giving jobs 25%, but he was against it as he said that he wants to go back to Apple's CEO if Apple wants it and not have it handed over to him... Ironically this is what started the options scandal , because jobs remembered this 25% that he was supposed to have in options and he felt that he was receiving much less for doing a great job, given to the low share value during the recession… Little bit of history for y'all
post #45 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

.Apple is getting back what it deserved ...

Another Odo-ism. Can't you get past the fact that your investment timing was bad and you bought in at the wrong time? There are times to get aboard and times to bail out. You missed on both counts, it appears. I sympathize, but it's not Apple's fault.

You're right that the market is not interested in Apple right now. I had a good ride with AAPL at 60% compounded annually for nearly four years, but I'm looking elsewhere at present. If someone bought high and is holding AAPL now, the decision in the current scenario is when to take one's losses and move on. The stock simply is not going to produce the meteoric gains that it did from early 2009 up to mid-2012, although solid but moderate gains should still be ahead.
Edited by Kibitzer - 2/6/14 at 10:11pm

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply
post #46 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibitzer View Post

Another Odo-ism. Can't you get past the fact that your investment timing was bad and you bought in at the wrong time? There are times to get aboard and times to bail out. You missed on both counts, it appears. I sympathize, but it's not Apple's fault.

You're right that the market is not interested in Apple right now. I had a good ride with AAPL at 60% compounded annually for nearly four years, but I'm looking elsewhere at present. If someone bought high and is holding AAPL now, the decision in the current scenario is when to take one's losses and move on. The stock simply is not going to produce the meteoric gains that it did from early 2009 up to mid-2012, although solid but moderate gains should still be ahead.

He's taken the reigns from Teckstud and Odo-isms are a good name but perhaps we need to put these cynical, foolish, and inaccurate anti-Apple comments in a Tumblr feed titled Constipated Oddisms (this way we don't step on any copyrights he may have with his username).
Edited by SolipsismX - 2/7/14 at 1:16am

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #47 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post
 

Wall Street investors are freaking scared.... waaaahhh....waaaaahhh....waaaahhhh 


You know, there was a time way back when you weren't such a whiner.  That time is long gone.  You really need to take a chill-pill.  When I see your posts, I already know what it's going to be about before even reading it.  Go elsewhere will you?

post #48 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

Apple is getting back what it deserved for giving away the smartphone market to Samsung and the rest of the Android bunch.  Apple had the opportunity to destroy Google's pet project of Android in all of 2012 but did almost nothing as Samsung went all out to wipe Apple's iPhone out of existence.  Now, Apple can't even manage to sell 55 million iPhones in a quarter because Samsung is selling around 86 million mediocre smartphones and sucking up huge amounts of market share.

Too bad Apple is sucking up all the money, Samsung is scraping by on the same low end junk that almost killed Nokia.

Wall St thrives on volatility, it's how they fleece suckers and the unwary out of their money.

Scaring the timid into dumping their stock.

It's the World's biggest shell game, three card Monty fishing for rubes.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #49 of 72
At what rate does Apple accumulate cash monthly?
post #50 of 72
What about buying 53, Tim? That would be a good use of a few 100M.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #51 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuestateplanninglawyer View Post

OK - Here we go.

This was a great move by Tim Cook - fantastic action, and positive statement to WS Journal.

I am a HUGE Tim Cook supporter -only adjustment that I hope for in his actions was this - more positive verbal communications to the Press - and decisive action. This purchase was.

I am sure that Carl is thrilled with this statement. What we need is aggressive follow-up - authorized another $50 Billion - and keep buying buying buying on all weakness under $600. Borrow at low rates and lets get this stock up to $600 and don't let it fall below that number.

Mindset will then change with new product announcements and we will move where it should be which is in the $700-800 range.

Ultimate good move would be to announce additional program at the meeting, and a great stock split saying that Apple is extremely confident with its growth and new product launches in the forthcoming calendar year. -- great for Apple recruitment of top engineers, and long term shareholders

 

It is not in Apple's interest to do anything - such as announcements of intention - that might cause a rise in the value of their stock, making any intended buyback considerably more expensive.

 

In other words, what's best for Apple is actually the opposite of what you and Carl would consider to be in your best interests.

 

I love it when people like Carl say the have "Invested in Apple" when all they have done is take a gamble in the hope of enriching themselves.  The only people who actually have invested in Apple are those who bought the shares on first issue where the money paid went to Apple to fund it directly.  All subsequent share transactions are simply irrelevant to Apple as they don't materially benefit from them.

post #52 of 72

For every buyer there must be a corresponding seller, so who were the people willing to sell $14bn worth of Apple stock? To me Apple seem like they will dominate consumer computing for the next 5 years at a minimum.

post #53 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


I wonder. Considering the raft of penalties and charges levied against Apple by our government handlers in recent years, someone from the SEC may decide that the earnings call, followed by a large stock drop, followed by a massive buyback equals an opportunity to throw the book at Apple.

There's nothing there. Cook et al did nothing that gave them a differential advantage relative to any other shareholder.
post #54 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post


I think the message was we already have a buy back program and that Carl can go suck it. That is what Netflix told Carl, and its stock has being doing quite well since Carl sold. Carl fans should go research how he made his fortune as a corporate raider. He destroyed TWA making himself rich and leaving stockholders with nothing.

 

Carl was 't exactly hurting from that transaction (Netflix).

 

This is clearly a long-term holding by Carl, I personally (and Apple should) love that Carl parked $4 Billion in stock, got the focus back to how great Apple product line is.  "Free" loan - "Free" Advertising.  That's what drove the stock up from the high $300 where it was stuck due to manipulation and BS Stories from NY Times, and fools that like Apple turmoil for attention and profit.

 

In this case, Carl has been a "godsend" -  Focus- in this case

post #55 of 72

Totally agree - 

 

All I do is "reinvest" automatically dividends.  I will continue to do so until the stock is at $800 per share.

 

…….

 

 

If you want income, sell a share.

 

-----

 

However, a small dividend like they have does bring in some people looking for income.   Just don't jack it up since its better to use the cash to reduce the number of shares outstanding.

post #56 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post
 

 

It is not in Apple's interest to do anything - such as announcements of intention - that might cause a rise in the value of their stock, making any intended buyback considerably more expensive.

 

In other words, what's best for Apple is actually the opposite of what you and Carl would consider to be in your best interests.

 

I love it when people like Carl say the have "Invested in Apple" when all they have done is take a gamble in the hope of enriching themselves.  The only people who actually have invested in Apple are those who bought the shares on first issue where the money paid went to Apple to fund it directly.  All subsequent share transactions are simply irrelevant to Apple as they don't materially benefit from them.

 

You clearly are above your head/pay grade on this subject.

 

We long term longs (I am one of the longest, up over 500% on my first shares purchased now) that have a high % allocation do not want additional shares - we have enough.  In fact, I kept buying options hand over fist when SJ was not well since I was "angry" what NY Times and other foul reporters/manipulators were saying about him and Apple's so-called pending demise.

 

Do you really think Carl wants to purchase more shares at $4 Billion now???

 

If Apple per share increases above $650-800 range - then so be it perhaps, no more repurchases. Do you really think that Apple wants to artificially get its price down so it can buy more shares?????????  No - its called taking advantage of a poor situation until changes.  Apple wants share price up - and trending reasonably up at least 10-20% a year to assist its employees and recruitment.

 

Comment of your so uninformed - so you really think that stock price irrelevant for borrowing?  (the value of the company)????  You don't think it impacts interest rates on loans (such as borrowing to pay dividends since cash stuck overseas due to terrible us tax policy)?   Irrelevant for recruitment?     You must be one of the guys that thinks raising the minimum wage whatever is irrelevant for how many people will be employed!

 

I gather you are one of those guys who blame whatever is not going right for them or whoever on "those rich people"?  I am not in Carl's category - but I am not angry at him because he is rich like some are

post #57 of 72

I have been saying this for a while, I do not believe the buy back will help Apple and iCahn most likely will not benefit from it or any other investors. If you have an account with Seeking Alpha you can read this person summary of what the buy back may not help. This guy did a nice job and if what he states happens then apple will be wasting the money buying back it own stock.

 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1994671-apple-a-piggy-bank-forever

post #58 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuestateplanninglawyer View Post


In this case, Carl has been a "godsend" -  Focus- in this case

God no!
post #59 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


Fine by me. I'd rather have amazing growth and insane profitability than dividends. I was against the instituting of dividends at Apple and still see it as capitulation to Wall Street demands.

 

One has nothing to do with the other.  Paying dividends didn't stop growth, lack of new products stopped the growth.  Seriously, is it that hard to understand?

post #60 of 72

18 billion of the 60 billion buyback plan left, 20 billion in domestic cash left (and if you need to ask how I know don't bother responding, it's in the financials), only raised 17 billion of the 50 billion in debt they were going to take on.  I can only assume in March/April they will announce another 17-33 billion in debt, an expansion of the buyback program by another 50 billion, and that they will take on up to another 50 billion in debt.  Rates are still low so might as well continue to sit on the cash overseas and hope for that tax holiday.

 

But in the end that is all just financial manipulation.  It only matters if you think you can trust Cook, because what matters now are new products.  Cook has been alluding to them since he became CEO and Wall Street stopped buying his rhetoric a long time ago.  In theory a CEO should be in the best position to evaluate when and how to do buybacks.  So if you trust Cook you should be buying with both fists, and if you don't no reason to own the stock.

post #61 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by tkell31 View Post

One has nothing to do with the other.  Paying dividends didn't stop growth, lack of new products stopped the growth.  Seriously, is it that hard to understand?

Lack of new products? Did I not see new iMacs, MBPs, iPhones and iPads in 2013? We even got a new Mac Pro. Do you honestly believe if they had updated all the iPods there would have been major growth a la 2009 when the iPhone was exploding? The bottom line is growth as a percentage is not infinitely sustainable.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #62 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Lack of new products? Did I not see new iMacs, MBPs, iPhones and iPads in 2013? We even got a new Mac Pro. Do you honestly believe if they had updated all the iPods there would have been major growth a la 2009 when the iPhone was exploding? The bottom line is growth as a percentage is not infinitely sustainable.

 

I guess I should have been clear, new product lines.  I figured it was understood from the context, but apparently not.  iPhones and iPads are about tapped out in terms of revenue growth.  But the point remains, initiating dividends had nothing to do with the slowing growth.

 

Sure, law of large numbers and all, but new product lines would at least provide better growth then what we've seen for the last 18 months.

post #63 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by tkell31 View Post

I guess I should have been clear, new product lines.  I figured it was understood from the context, but apparently not.  iPhones and iPads are about tapped out in terms of revenue growth.  But the point remains, initiating dividends had nothing to do with the slowing growth.

Sure, law of large numbers and all, but new product lines would at least provide better growth then what we've seen for the last 18 months.

OK, so was Steve Jobs also a shitty CEO since he had such huge gaps between new product categories? For example, the iPod in 2001 and the iPhone 6 years later in 2007? And before that we had the Mac in 1984 or do you count the Newton when Jobs was gone as a huge success in this scenario?

The iPad has pretty much everything the iPhone had except a larger display and an idealized GUI and SDK for the display's new dimensions and yet that took 3 years to release, but now that Cook is charge you and Wall Street weirdly expect Apple to create a brand spankin new product category annually or bi-annually. Do you honestly not see how insane that sounds from a business standpoint?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #64 of 72
I hope Apple will continue to do this every time after a keynote. That'll teach a lesson to those daily traders.
post #65 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


OK, so was Steve Jobs also a shitty CEO since he had such huge gaps between new product categories? For example, the iPod in 2001 and the iPhone 6 years later in 2007? And before that we had the Mac in 1984 or do you count the Newton when Jobs was gone as a huge success in this scenario?

The iPad has pretty much everything the iPhone had except a larger display and an idealized GUI and SDK for the display's new dimensions and yet that took 3 years to release, but now that Cook is charge you and Wall Street weirdly expect Apple to create a brand spankin new product category annually or bi-annually. Do you honestly not see how insane that sounds from a business standpoint?

Exactly. And if Benjamin Franklin had not allowed so much time to lapse in product and category development, he would have invented the electric light and not Thomas Edison.

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply
post #66 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


OK, so was Steve Jobs also a shitty CEO since he had such huge gaps between new product categories? For example, the iPod in 2001 and the iPhone 6 years later in 2007? And before that we had the Mac in 1984 or do you count the Newton when Jobs was gone as a huge success in this scenario?

The iPad has pretty much everything the iPhone had except a larger display and an idealized GUI and SDK for the display's new dimensions and yet that took 3 years to release, but now that Cook is charge you and Wall Street weirdly expect Apple to create a brand spankin new product category annually or bi-annually. Do you honestly not see how insane that sounds from a business standpoint?

I literally have no idea where the shitty CEO comment is coming from.  Are you even responding to my comment?  This started because I said paying dividends had absolutely nothing to do with slowing growth, but instead had to do with a lack of new product (lines).  

 

Annually?  Twice a year? (which is what bi-annual means, but you probably meant biennial and that is still disingenuous)  Come on dude don't be a goof.  When was the iPad released?  Stop pretending it was just last year or something.

 

Growth has slowed to a standstill, it has nothing to do with the dividends and everything to do with no new product lines compounded by the sheer size of the company.

post #67 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by tkell31 View Post

 

 

Growth has slowed to a standstill, it has nothing to do with the dividends and everything to do with no new product lines compounded by the sheer size of the company.

 

It did level off rather quickly there, but how often have they introduced something as big as that? The iPod laid a lot of the groundwork and partly tested the distribution model that later grew into the app store (still surprised a porn company hasn't purchased fap store okay no more parenthesized bad jokes). While they could introduce new categories where they currently have zero presence, it seems unlikely that they'll introduce anything that big in the near future. Looking at the example of the iphone, people typically grab their phone, wallet, and keys when they leave their house. Smartphone popularity pivoted on adding additional functionality to a class of device that they would carry anyway.

post #68 of 72

So, Tim does listen to Carl at the end.  Hope Carl won't start dumping now when price is back up to the 520 range.

post #69 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by ipen View Post
 

So, Tim does listen to Carl at the end.  Hope Carl won't start dumping now when price is back up to the 520 range.

 

Interesting when Carl would sell any shares. 

 

Not a chance before 700s I say.   I don't see him selling then more than is customary to diversify a bit - 10% or so per $100 up

 

No way he is selling 1 share until minimum 600s - 500s are a joke to him and me - 

post #70 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuestateplanninglawyer View Post
 

 

Interesting when Carl would sell any shares. 

 

Not a chance before 700s I say.   I don't see him selling then more than is customary to diversify a bit - 10% or so per $100 up

 

No way he is selling 1 share until minimum 600s - 500s are a joke to him and me - 

 

Interesting how Icahn's latest tiny investment had no effect after he tweeted it, in fact the price continued to fall.

 

When a company is as big as Apple, only serious money talks, the less than one percenters, like Carl Icahn should put up or shut up.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #71 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

For every buyer there must be a corresponding seller, so who were the people willing to sell $14bn worth of Apple stock?

The previous large buybacks came from an agreement with a "financial institution" and a small portion from the open market. Most of Apple's biggest stockholders are banks and larger investment funds although no single institution has that many shares:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=AAPL+Major+Holders

The reason to sell at this level is that Apple isn't a high growth company. If any of the funds bought in at say $300, selling at $500 would be a good return for them.
post #72 of 72
I'm hoping over time only Apple and I own any AAPL

Then Tim and I can sit down and talk ... 1smoking.gif
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple repurchases $14B of own stock over two weeks after 8% decline