or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple's buybacks exploited stock dips to generate billions in shareholder value
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's buybacks exploited stock dips to generate billions in shareholder value - Page 2

post #41 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwdav View Post

Buying back shares increases the earnings per share which will increase the value of the shares. Plus it saves Apple paying the dividend on those shares.

 

Correct.  Basically if they earn the same 40B each year but cut the shares in half the EPS will double per share.  They also won't pay a dime to the retired shares.  

 

Apple's weak buyback stance makes me constantly wonder if they are not as confident in their future as we would hope they are.  Not completely surprising when you look at the insider sells from top management and board members.  Most (almost all) have blown out all their stock or held just a few hundred shares upon their vesting. In other words nobody wanted to hold the stock the moment they were allowed to sell it.  It was like a hot potato.  If I were management and felt the future was very bright I'd hold a significant portion or at least half, wouldn't most people?

 

I have to say I'm not a huge Icahn fan nor am I an anti-Icahn guy but I do respect his simple math and logic on the huge buyback.  It's sad that Calpers beat him down on this.  If a buyback ever made sense this was one of them. Even Buffett told Steve Jobs to use the cash to buyback shares.  Had Jobs listened the EPS today would be closer to $100/share and a PE of 10 would be a $1000/share stock.  

 

Now if you don't think the future is that bright then management IS doing the right thing by holding tons of cash. Cash is the lifeblood of a corporation that is falling on hard times.  A small share count is not worth much if your company is shrinking fast or losing money (remember nokia and blackberry).  Maybe they think that cash might be necessary in the next 4 to 8 years and thus better to keep it then waste on repurchases I guess.  Only they know from their perch but this seems to be what Cook is telegraphing by his actions.

post #42 of 94
I'd love to see it mandatory that all company shares be held for a minimum period, say 24 hours or a week. In it's current form the market is just too manipulable. Day traders, and high speed trading systems on algorithms who start and end the day with no shareholdings produce nothing but pure profit (money pick-pocketed from others).
post #43 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvigod View Post
 

 

 

Yes I read it all.  The proposal from Icahn was NOT to use overseas cash.  It was to borrow at historically low interest rates which for apple would be sub 3%.  After they expense the interest it would be closer to 2% net interest or as close to free as they can ever get.  Why a no brainer?  Apple is earning 40/share on a market cap of 500B.  Take out the cash and it's under 400B.  This makes the earnings yield on the buyback over 8% net to apple.  Basically a number that if they flatline EPS for 9 years is a 100% return on the investment JUST FROM THE BUYBACK.  They would be paying back the loan out of cash flow and exceeding the interest rate by that 8%.

 

This simple no brainer finance seems to be incomprehensible to the Apple management team and board.  Icahn is the only smart guy in the room.  It absolutely amazes me. This is not calculus folks.  Just simple grade school math.

 

Maybe it's because Apple is in the industry of manufacturing computers and not manipulating their own share price through dubious financial arrangements.

post #44 of 94

After all the conspiracy theories about the investors and media manipulating the market, I'm surprised the conspiracies haven't turned towards the biggest beneficiary of the drop in price - Apple.  Apple was the manipulator!!  They were driving down the price so they could buy at the low point and ride the tide back up!!  Down with Apple!!

post #45 of 94

Would have been smarter to take that 40 billion and buy Tesla, that's where the future tech is.  Elon would bring back some of the magic to Apple.  Cook is a good operations guy but Apple is missing the magic it had when Steve was at the helm.

post #46 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple's use of its own cash to buy back shares means that the additional $1.4 billion in value was lost by spooked sellers and effectively credited to the shareholders who remained invested in the company, as the value of the retired shares are absorbed by the remaining shares.

In total, Apple has bought back more than $42 billion of its own shares over the past two years, retiring around 84.5 million shares, or nearly 9 percent of the total shares outstanding when it launched its repurchase program.

 

Apple is retiring these shares? I thought they were just buying them back? 

post #47 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvigod View Post

Looks like they should have listened to carl icahn and bought back 150B worth. If their tiny buyback was profitable they could have gained over 15B very quickly and retired an enormous amount of the float (almost 1/3 of it). Savings over the years from not paying out a dividend to 1/3 of the shares was an extra bonus. This as Icahn said was a no brainer. Apple just didn't have the confidence to go big. They may be missing a rare opportunity and already seem to possibly have missed the best chance they had. It may only get more expensive from here.

While handing around fifty billion to the US government in tax?
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 #48 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvigod View Post

Correct.  Basically if they earn the same 40B each year but cut the shares in half the EPS will double per share.  They also won't pay a dime to the retired shares.  

Apple's weak buyback stance makes me constantly wonder if they are not as confident in their future as we would hope they are.  Not completely surprising when you look at the insider sells from top management and board members.  Most (almost all) have blown out all their stock or held just a few hundred shares upon their vesting. In other words nobody wanted to hold the stock the moment they were allowed to sell it.  It was like a hot potato.  If I were management and felt the future was very bright I'd hold a significant portion or at least half, wouldn't most people?

I have to say I'm not a huge Icahn fan nor am I an anti-Icahn guy but I do respect his simple math and logic on the huge buyback.  It's sad that Calpers beat him down on this.  If a buyback ever made sense this was one of them. Even Buffett told Steve Jobs to use the cash to buyback shares.  Had Jobs listened the EPS today would be closer to $100/share and a PE of 10 would be a $1000/share stock.  

Now if you don't think the future is that bright then management IS doing the right thing by holding tons of cash. Cash is the lifeblood of a corporation that is falling on hard times.  A small share count is not worth much if your company is shrinking fast or losing money (remember nokia and blackberry).  Maybe they think that cash might be necessary in the next 4 to 8 years and thus better to keep it then waste on repurchases I guess.  Only they know from their perch but this seems to be what Cook is telegraphing by his actions.

You are really talking about the benefit to apples shareholders here rather than to Apple the company. If they flatline earnings but buy back stock so the EPS increases it doesn't matter to the company, just to the shareholder who had stock and who has made money. The companies earnings are still the same. Margins etc. EPS is just a metric.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #49 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post

Yes, genious move. Hope they do that again every time.

In my opinion buyback when AAPL is falling seems good in the short term, but is very bad in the medium/long term: billions of profits wasted in a zero-profit activity (the buy-back), no new assets for the company, no value transferred to the stakeholders (billions are burnt to recover from fall, not to fuel growth). If Apple executes a buy-back everytime AAPL falls, in the end you will have the same AAPL value, but with all cash billions burnt. As an investor, I would prefer to see those billions burnt in research, development and acquisitions.
post #50 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradipao View Post

In my opinion buyback when AAPL is falling seems good in the short term, but is very bad in the medium/long term: billions of profits wasted in a zero-profit activity (the buy-back), no new assets for the company, no value transferred to the stakeholders (billions are burnt to recover from fall, not to fuel growth). If Apple executes a buy-back everytime AAPL falls, in the end you will have the same AAPL value, but with all cash billions burnt. As an investor, I would prefer to see those billions burnt in research, development and acquisitions.

Yeah. Far from showing confidence it shows an inability to do anything else with the money. I remember when people here were all opposed to buy backs. And Apple has retired these stock so where's the money? Prior to the earnings they were where they are in stock price but they had more outstanding stock and a bigger capitalisation. More importantly, if you look at the company, divorced from its shareholders it has less money.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #51 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post

Yes, genious move. Hope they do that again every time.

Yes, brilliant indeed. Apple spends billions on its stock. The stock barely budged as a consequence, and in the long term neither Apple or investors get anything from the move.
post #52 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgh71 View Post

Apple can't afford to take itself private

Apple can't take itself private even if it could afford it. It can buy and retire shares, but at the end of the day somebody would have to buy Apple. Ironically, Apple buying the shares would make it less expensive to buy.
post #53 of 94

Apple isn't playing by the rules and ultimately doesn't care what Wall Street and its apologists think.  They're not just marching to the beat of their own drum, they're executing a 10-25 year strategy while Wall Street remains focused on the next product launch.

 

And while Google gets rewarded for making bad investments and burning billions, nobody seems to notice that the biggest acquisition in Apple's history (themselves) just took place.

 

Apple has the makings of a super-company.  Because Apple doesn't give a crap about Wall Street, Apple the stock and Apple the company have become radically different things.  To invest in Apple is to make a bet on the world's first super-company.

post #54 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Yeah. Far from showing confidence it shows an inability to do anything else with the money. I remember when people here were all opposed to buy backs. And Apple has retired these stock so where's the money? Prior to the earnings they were where they are in stock price but they had more outstanding stock and a bigger capitalisation. More importantly, if you look at the company, divorced from its shareholders it has less money.

Still opposed...but it does have some marginal value in dividends and investor relations.

Large acquisitions are also great at destroying value. I prefer this route over buying something like Motorolla. Or Nest.
post #55 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrismarriott View Post
 

Apple isn't playing by the rules and ultimately doesn't care what Wall Street and its apologists think.  They're not just marching to the beat of their own drum, they're executing a 10-25 year strategy while Wall Street remains focused on the next product launch.

 

And while Google gets rewarded for making bad investments and burning billions, nobody seems to notice that the biggest acquisition in Apple's history (themselves) just took place.

 

Apple has the makings of a super-company.  Because Apple doesn't give a crap about Wall Street, Apple the stock and Apple the company have become radically different things.  To invest in Apple is to make a bet on the world's first super-company.

 

Here is a man that uses it's brain! What staggers me is that this isn't some very complicated logic but at the same time most people (especially those working in the financial dept) fail to recognize this or to understand it.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post
 

lol. "Irrational stock dips." The market was less than impressed with Apple's performance, and reacted accordingly. That's not irrational, that's the stock market doing its thing. What's "irrational" is Apple saying its stock is worth what it says it's worth. That's not how it works, Tim. If you want to take your ball and go home, that's fine, but this Apple apologist "article" is just silly.

The market? What defines the market? Some financial institutions that give periodic specialized 'advise' to the market? Or 'players' that establish some targets for traded companies, based on their 'analysis' or based on 'inside rumors'? 

 

If that is the case, and we all know the truth, then how absurd it is to think that the 'market was less impressed' considering that most of their reports have been positive and shown growth. Oooh so it was not exactly the growth "the market" expected (shoot straight from the market's ass)?! Then it may be better for those short minded players to bail out on aapl, and let the true stockholders bet on the future.

post #56 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Yes, brilliant indeed. Apple spends billions on its stock. The stock barely budged as a consequence

 

As expected.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

in the long term neither Apple or investors get anything from the move.
 

Bit early to be judging that, don't you think?  Investors gain a higher proportional ownership, which is a good thing if you are optimistic about Apple's future.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #57 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwdav View Post

Buying back shares increases the earnings per share which will increase the value of the shares.

 

Only if earnings exceed expectations.  Future earnings expectations are accounted for in the share price.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #58 of 94
Quote:

Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

 

Those people just try milking a company dry, then move on to the next victim with zero regard to these companies actually trying to make a long-term difference.

Its disgusting.  Apple is trying to change the world, and all these guys just want to use it to make money. 

post #59 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

lol. "Irrational stock dips." The market was less than impressed with Apple's performance, and reacted accordingly. That's not irrational, that's the stock market doing its thing. What's "irrational" is Apple saying its stock is worth what it says it's worth. That's not how it works, Tim. If you want to take your ball and go home, that's fine, but this Apple apologist "article" is just silly.

Sounds like you buy into Wall Street religion. Wall Street long ago abandoned the valuation of stock based on fundamentals for technical trading and the "psychology" of the market.
post #60 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by SudoNym View Post

Its disgusting.  Apple is trying to change the world, and all these guys just want to use it to make money. 

 

Blame Michael Scott and Steve Jobs for taking Apple public back in 1981.  They got into the game.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #61 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by wessew View Post

As Apple continues to buy in shares and if the price continues to stagnate, the cost to take the company private declines. At some point, the company will be worth more to management and principal investors private than public. When that threshold is crossed you may get a leveraged buyout proposal for the remaining shares outstanding at what amounts to a bargain to management and whoever else is providing seed capital. Apple has a very strong balance sheet. Apple is cash and cash flow rich. It's earnings are underpriced and underappreciated in the market. Either the stock will go up dramatically over time or something like the above will eventually occur.

 

The first steps in taking a company private is to reduce the number of outstanding shares / shareholders over time to avoid it looking like a tender. Then the board and majority shareholders can vote to delist the company. A private company can still have stock and shares that they can trade amongst themselves or others. Usually these investors pony up the capital to buy out the other public shareholders that don't want to go along for the ride. 

post #62 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post


Yes, brilliant indeed. Apple spends billions on its stock. The stock barely budged as a consequence, and in the long term neither Apple or investors get anything from the move.

 

Wrong.  Apple will reissue those shares at a possible higher price as employee compensation/ stock options.

 

Their basis is about $475 for the stock they bought back.

When they issue options/stock compensation at todays price it would be $545.

They saved a bunch of money with the buyback.

Also don't forget the savings of not paying dividends.

post #63 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by aspenboy View Post
 

the price of aapl shares is so disconnected from fundatmentals that if the outstanding shares dropped by 25%, I wonder if the share price would rise at all.

 

 

 

Nothing on Earth short of Apple acquiring Tesla can make the stock rise.   Hardly any investor with any sense at all wants to own Apple when they can buy almost any tech stock on the planet and get quicker returns.  Apple's share price momentum collapses every financial quarter like an elevator going up and down between a few floors.   Good for short-term traders, but lousy for long-term shareholders.  There's almost no hope at all of Apple gaining any appreciable smartphone market share as long as Samsung is offering dozens of new smartphone models at every price point possible on every carrier in the world.  For every one product Apple offers, Samsung offers 10 similar products.  That's an almost impossible strategy to beat.

post #64 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post
 

Nothing on Earth short of Apple acquiring Tesla can make the stock rise.   Hardly any investor with any sense at all wants to own Apple when they can buy almost any tech stock on the planet and get quicker returns.  Apple's share price momentum collapses every financial quarter like an elevator going up and down between a few floors.   Good for short-term traders, but lousy for long-term shareholders.  There's almost no hope at all of Apple gaining any appreciable smartphone market share as long as Samsung is offering dozens of new smartphone models at every price point possible on every carrier in the world.  For every one product Apple offers, Samsung offers 10 similar products.  That's an almost impossible strategy to beat.

I smell a troll. Period. Not even going to bother to reply to that vomit of a text.

 

PS: When vomit appears, one should always read instead of "investor" "speculator".

post #65 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
 

 

As expected.

 

Bit early to be judging that, don't you think?  Investors gain a higher proportional ownership, which is a good thing if you are optimistic about Apple's future.

Almost no one is optimistic about Apple's future which is the fundamental reason why Apple's share price is in the toilet.  Google is seen as having a bright future but Apple's future is pretty much in doubt since the iPhone market has dried up thanks to the continual flood of Android devices day after day, week after week, ad infinitum...  and Steve Jobs untimely death isn't helping much, either.

 

If Apple took all $159 billion of its reserve cash and bought its stock back, the share price still wouldn't rise.  There'd just be a hell of a lot less shares to go around and it still wouldn't change Wall Street's perception that Apple is a turd investment with no future.  Shareholders would simply have greater ownership in a company of falling value.  Which is pretty much what we have now.

post #66 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreiD View Post

I smell a troll. Period. Not even going to bother to reply to that vomit of a text.

PS: When vomit appears, one should always read instead of "investor" "speculator".

He's been here since 2007. In any case this place started as a forum for investors hence the insider term.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #67 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post
 

Almost no one is optimistic about Apple's future which is the fundamental reason why Apple's share price is in the toilet.  Google is seen as having a bright future but Apple's future is pretty much in doubt since the iPhone market has dried up thanks to the continual flood of Android devices day after day, week after week, ad infinitum...  and Steve Jobs untimely death isn't helping much, either.

 

If Apple took all $159 billion of its reserve cash and bought its stock back, the share price still wouldn't rise.  There'd just be a hell of a lot less shares to go around and it still wouldn't change Wall Street's perception that Apple is a turd investment with no future.  Shareholders would simply have greater ownership in a company of falling value.  Which is pretty much what we have now.

 

Don't be blaming Apple for your FAILURES.

 

No one told  you to buy Apple at $700.  That was YOUR MISTAKES!

 

If you bought Apple when it was $400 instead of $700 you would be up 40% right now!  Plus you would be getting a 3% dividend yield.  But instead you bought Apple when the hype was the highest at $700.  You are the IDIOT not Apple.  If  you bought at $400 or even $500 you are sitting pretty right now.  The only reason you are bitter is because they made a mistake by buying at the very top.  Stop blaming Apple, BLAME YOURSELF.

 

I laugh when you talk like Google is the be all and end all.  Have you been investing for only 2 years?  Seriously.  Stocks go in cycles and rotations.  Google is the hot stock now and Apple is warm.  But the rotation can change at any time.  Google could easily go ice cold.  From Jan2010 to Jan2012 Google was stuck at $600.  For 24 months! 

 

Google return last 5 years:  275%

Apple return last 5 years:  580%

 

Look in the mirror and see where the true blame should lie when you bought Apple at $700

post #68 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post
 

Almost no one is optimistic about Apple's future which is the fundamental reason why Apple's share price is in the toilet.

 

Which makes it a great time to buy.  Wall Street is hyper aware of every Apple weakness, but don't appear to be recognising Apple's potential for disruption.  It's very conservative.  Meanwhile, Apple's phone business is mature and generating stable revenues, and Apple has other things cooking.

 

The old wisdom for trading is to buy when everyone else is selling and sell when everyone else is buying.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post
 

If Apple took all $159 billion of its reserve cash and bought its stock back, the share price still wouldn't rise.

 

Of course not.  Instant return is not the intent of a buy back.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #69 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


He's been here since 2007. In any case this place started as a forum for investors hence the insider term.

I didn't argue against his creation date of the account. Nor about if his comments were related to the activity of investing or not.

 

I didn't see a single argument of support in his claims. Considering his claims are so razor sharp in conviction without any proper evidence of the so called convictions, in contrast to the article and to the general consensus on this thread, i consider this trolling. 

post #70 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple's efforts to take advantage of irrational stock dips in order to buy back its own shares at a discount has transferred billions of dollars from panicked speculators to its long term investors.

The stock sellers were paid for their stock by Apple so the value transfer is really from Apple's cash to remaining investors, not from panicked sellers to the remaining investors. They have also been buying back from what they describe as a financial institution with only a small amount from the open market. I'm not sure if that happened on this occasion though but if it did, it was more likely an agreement of some sort rather than a panic sell. If it was on the open market then it would be more panic selling but again, they were paid for the shares. Unless the market cap increases, the sellers haven't lost anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley 
If it's Apple buying them then theoretically it shouldn't do, except as a temporary fluctuation because of the trade volume.

The share price should rise on buying back the shares and retiring them if the market cap stays the same. If not, the market cap would drop without reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvigod 
Apple's weak buyback stance makes me constantly wonder if they are not as confident in their future as we would hope they are.

It depends on what you mean. They can remain as the most valuable company in the world and not grow any more. Microsoft's stock has been almost flat for 14 years yet they make billions every year in income.

It's not that they'd lack confidence in their future, they'd lack confidence in growth. Lacking growth is not particularly important if you remain highly profitable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz 
Apple is retiring these shares? I thought they were just buying them back?

They are retiring them, which is why suggestions that they are buying them back cheap are not as meaningful as if they were to sell them later on or offer them to staff. Retiring them is equivalent to giving the cash used for the buyback to the remaining stockholders, most of which are institutions: index funds, banks, insurance companies etc but it also benefits staff holding stock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd 
Far from showing confidence it shows an inability to do anything else with the money.

Especially when they do such a large buyback so quickly. That was a pretty irrational move for Tim, who authorized it. Not that it was the wrong thing but it's a distraction for them and clearly they are making decisions outside of their comfort zone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreiD 
Oooh so it was not exactly the growth "the market" expected (shoot straight from the market's ass)

Stockholders and analysts are like film critics. They don't make the films, they wouldn't even know how, they just express their own reaction to the performance and assume it's indicative of who they try to represent.

The problem with the market is not stockholders, it's second-hand stockholders. It's people who buy into a company from the outside. At the beginning, when it was the 3 founders, the shares were split between them. The 3rd guy who you don't hear about much bailed out early because he had assets that could have been taken from him if the company went into debt:

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/apple/apples-third-founding-partner-tells-his-story-3301603/

These people (the two Steves) were the essence of the company, they had the drive to turn it into something of value. Over the years, the shares become valuable to other people and when they are split out to the public, it's these second-hand stockholders that are the problem because they are removed from the motive of the company founders to create value and the motive is to create profit. Value and profit are not the same thing. Traders seem to believe this at times but not always. Tesla and Amazon create value but almost no profit. Google creates profit with advertising but advertising is hated by almost everyone. Where they are seen as creating value by some is with the likes of Chrome, Android, even search where they don't make profit directly, the profit all comes from the ads and tracking - the valueless pursuit.

With Apple, I think they've struggled the whole way to get people to believe that it's not just about profit. There's a cynicism and resentment towards what Apple does but it's strange because they're one of the companies that creates both value and profit from the same pursuit. Maybe that's why traders think that if the profit goes down, it means they aren't as valuable a company.

Still, traders place more value on Apple than every other company just now and I'd say the uncertainty causing the fluctuations is from not having a reliable enough reference point to determine the intrinsic value easily. Now that the smart device market is saturating, it's becoming more clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Swinson 
The first steps in taking a company private is to reduce the number of outstanding shares / shareholders over time to avoid it looking like a tender. Then the board and majority shareholders can vote to delist the company.

This kind of thing might be best for Apple but their shares are worth so much that I don't think they can narrow down the interested parties enough without those parties individually being extremely wealthy. Tim said before that they weren't interested in doing this. He mentioned something about it being less appealing to leadership candidates and that it's best for the stock to be spread widely. It avoids the possibility of having few individuals (like Carl Icahn) getting too much control. You can imagine if Tim took so many shares off the table that Carl could pull another TWA. If he could get enough of his Wall Street cronies to loan him enough to buy up a controlling interest, he could replace the board, drain all their cash and make his exit.
post #71 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

The share price should rise on buying back the shares and retiring them if the market cap stays the same. If not, the market cap would drop without reason.

The market cap will drop because the company has less cash (or more debt), which they've used for the buy back.  The share price as part of that equation will stay exactly the same.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #72 of 94
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Blame Michael Scott

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #73 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
 

The market cap will drop because the company has less cash (or more debt), which they've used for the buy back.  The share price as part of that equation will stay exactly the same.

 

Wall street dont give sheet about cash and debt.

They are not giving Apple any credit for the $150B in cash.

post #74 of 94

That's simply not true.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #75 of 94
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
That's simply not true.

 

You’re right. They care about the cash being given to them, regardless of the debt.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #76 of 94

That kind of invective isn't useful.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #77 of 94
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
That kind of invective isn't useful.

 

Get over your vendetta.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #78 of 94

:lol:  Peace out weirdo.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #79 of 94
@ mvigod: "Apple's weak buyback stance makes me constantly wonder if they are not as confident in their future as we would hope they are."

Perhaps they envision a USE for mega bucks...a large acquisition, buildout, who knows? There are other uses of cash than stock buyouts and finagles. I feel, though, that a lot is in flux right now. So they aren't doing anything that would tie up cash until things shake out. Just my two cents.
Edited by palomine - 2/19/14 at 9:37am
What is really factored into the price is a kind of perpetual sense of disbelief that any company could be as good as Apple is. ~Retrogusto
Reply
What is really factored into the price is a kind of perpetual sense of disbelief that any company could be as good as Apple is. ~Retrogusto
Reply
post #80 of 94

The stock is priced correctly based on todays expectations.  There's nothing exciting going on here, it's dead money.  Stock is back down today.  The execs wasted those billions without anything to show for it, market cap stays the same, they just have less shares and less money.  The company is focused on building monuments to their greatness, and not looking to the future.  Too scared that they'll make a mistake, they're frozen and letting the future pass them by.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple's buybacks exploited stock dips to generate billions in shareholder value