or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Why Apple, Inc decided to split its stock 7-1
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why Apple, Inc decided to split its stock 7-1 - Page 2

post #41 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post
 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but in a Trad IRA, won't your AAPL cap gains be taxed as current income rate rather than capital gains?

I believe so. My income tax rate will be much lower than a capital gains tax rate (unless I'm missing something). I'm in retirement mode so I'm not trying to get a huge annual income, only withdrawing enough to pay bills and enjoy life. This method also helps keeps my ACA health insurance costs down substantially. I'm not one of those people who is trying to die with the most amount of money, I'd just like to have enough to buy a few things and have some fun but not stress over everything.

post #42 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


There is no 180° turn here. Cook didn't say they would never split the stock just to split it the next year. He stated Apple had been looking into it and would continue to look into. He also stated that with the "current information" it wasn't advantageous to them. Clearly the "new information" suggested it was now advantageous. Whether you agree with when the stock should have split or by how much is irrelevant to this fact. All you call do is opine that Apple waited too long and is too slow to react, but that is not fact, just an opinion. And why blame Cook as if Apple wasn't slow to move under Jobs reign where Apple was a good half-decade after first PMP and decades after the first mobile phone and tablet. Apple rarely acts impetuous which is a big reason I am a fan of the company.

 

Sure he didn't say they would never do it BUT he did say this:  "And the current information we have would suggest that there's very little support that it helps the stock."

 

So what changed from May 2012 and every quarter after that up until last week?  What new information did they have?  Was it possible the current information was all the same as it was in May 2012 (because guess what, it was) and Cook just interpreted the same information the wrong way back then.  He realized from the same information NOW that his old decision on that same information was 180 degrees wrong and flipped.  Good for him for finally doing it. Shame on him for not getting it right the first time.

 

They simply felt they were above it and would win the special race to $1000/share.  Or perhaps they didn't understand the psychology of splits that they do today.  Had Cook read my letters it was all spelled out for him.  

 

 As a result lost the coveted race to $1000 (google won) and alot more.  The stock became a laughing stock and shunned by many.  Today it is still well off over 100/share from it's all time high (15%) which many argue at 700/share was STILL cheap. Today it continues to trade for a cheap valuation and Cook allowed the stock to be "broken".  It will always be a cheap stock based on valuation because of this mistake and lack of foresight.   I lost confidence in Cook and time will show why.  I'm an apple fan and user too so I should be biased in favor of Apple's future.  Been using macs and apple products since 1990.  I own 5 ipads, 3 iphones, ipad mini, several ipods, macbook and imacs.   It's actually as a user I see the holes in the boat now.

post #43 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvigod View Post

So what changed from May 2012 and every quarter after that up until last week? What new information did they have?

Why don't you ask him?
Quote:
 Was it possible the current information was all the same as it was in May 2012 (because guess what, it was)

Can you prove that no information about Apple's financials and future has changed in TWO YEARS?! I can show you 7 quarterly results that were not available in May 2012.
Quote:
and Cook just interpreted the same information the wrong way back then.

So you think it's more likely that you (with no information on the internal workings of Apple) are so brilliant that despite the hundreds, if not thousands, of people working in their accounting departments (with detailed numbers, the ability to run scenarios against those numbers, and with higher ups having access to what is coming down the pipe) that you know more than they do? That's seems grandiose to the extreme.
Quote:
As a result lost the coveted race to $1000 (google won) and alot more.

Coveted race to $1000? No reasonable person covets such a thing.
Quote:
The stock became a laughing stock and shunned by many.

Maybe believe 9/11 was a conspiracy but it doesn't make them any less nutty or wrong.
Quote:
Today it is still well off over 100/share from it's all time high (15%) which many argue at 700/share was STILL cheap. Today it continues to trade for a cheap valuation

If you thought it was undervalued then it was foolish for you to sell.
Quote:
I lost confidence in Cook and time will show why.

Despite the company's valuation being higher under Cook than any CEO.
Quote:
Been using macs and apple products since 1990.  I own 5 ipads, 3 iphones, ipad mini, several ipods, macbook and imacs.

Ugh! You saying you own Apple products in no way makes you an expert on Apple's financial future, especially not over the people that are working within the company.
Quote:
It's actually as a user I see the holes in the boat now.

It sounds like sour grapes to me; you got impatient and made a rash decision you're not regretting. You see holes despite Apple doing what you wanted them to do. Well I wanted Apple to remove the ODD several years before they did it, but that's because it was what I personally wanted. When they did I state that Apple was wrong for not doing it years earlier, I was simply glad they finally did it.

Personally, I think all this a massive setup for a major new product category. I think Apple is playing a long game that is going to completely knock the rest of the industry off their feet within a year and suck up even more of the mindshare than they already have.
Edited by SolipsismX - 4/29/14 at 12:08pm

"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 #44 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post

At the end of the day this is no longer Steve Jobs' Apple.
No new product line in 3 years and now a stock split.

Congrats, your comment is still in the running to become America's Next dumb comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvigod View Post

Too bad Cook waited so long.  I pleaded with him and Apple Investor relations in May of 2012 to split the stock.  
...

When Apple announced earnings on Jan 23rd of 2013 and didn't announce a split I sold every share I owned after hours at the end of the conference call.  Did better still today in what I reinvested in even after paying the tax hit on the big gains I had.   It's just amazing the 180 Cook did and his lack of vision to pull the trigger ahead of time rather than so very late in the game.  I fear he will do this with other decisions and trends.  He's slow moving and slow to realize things in the future.  I truly believe he lacks a vision and understanding but who can blame him as he was an operating officer, not a visionary.

Congrats, your comment is still in the running to become America's Next dumb comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvigod View Post

Sure he didn't say they would never do it BUT he did say this:  "And the current information we have would suggest that there's very little support that it helps the stock."

So what changed from May 2012 and every quarter after that up until last week?  What new information did they have?  Was it possible the current information was all the same as it was in May 2012 (because guess what, it was) and Cook just interpreted the same information the wrong way back then.  He realized from the same information NOW that his old decision on that same information was 180 degrees wrong and flipped.  Good for him for finally doing it. Shame on him for not getting it right the first time.

They simply felt they were above it and would win the special race to $1000/share.  Or perhaps they didn't understand the psychology of splits that they do today.  Had Cook read my letters it was all spelled out for him.  

 As a result lost the coveted race to $1000 (google won) and alot more.  The stock became a laughing stock and shunned by many.  Today it is still well off over 100/share from it's all time high (15%) which many argue at 700/share was STILL cheap. Today it continues to trade for a cheap valuation and Cook allowed the stock to be "broken".  It will always be a cheap stock based on valuation because of this mistake and lack of foresight.   I lost confidence in Cook and time will show why.  I'm an apple fan and user too so I should be biased in favor of Apple's future.  Been using macs and apple products since 1990.  I own 5 ipads, 3 iphones, ipad mini, several ipods, macbook and imacs.   It's actually as a user I see the holes in the boat now.

Stock buy backs, more cash in hand.

As for this race to a $1000, that's the stupidest thing ever. Apple could have reversed split to reach that target if it was a meaningful goal.
post #45 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post
 

I believe so. My income tax rate will be much lower than a capital gains tax rate (unless I'm missing something). I'm in retirement mode so I'm not trying to get a huge annual income, only withdrawing enough to pay bills and enjoy life. This method also helps keeps my ACA health insurance costs down substantially. I'm not one of those people who is trying to die with the most amount of money, I'd just like to have enough to buy a few things and have some fun but not stress over everything.

 

More power and fun to you then.  Someday when the kids are done with college, I hope to live the much simpler life that you are living.

post #46 of 99
"Google's split was designed to silence shareholder input by taking away their rights in exchange for nothing."

I don't think the author really understands what happened there. That statement alone taints the entire article and turns it just into another fanboy piece.
post #47 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvigod View Post

When Apple announced earnings on Jan 23rd of 2013 and didn't announce a split I sold every share I owned after hours at the end of the conference call.  Did better still today in what I reinvested in even after paying the tax hit on the big gains I had.   It's just amazing the 180 Cook did and his lack of vision to pull the trigger ahead of time rather than so very late in the game.  I fear he will do this with other decisions and trends.  He's slow moving and slow to realize things in the future.  I truly believe he lacks a vision and understanding but who can blame him as he was an operating officer, not a visionary.

LOL.  I don't know what the mvi part means, but obviously you are are a god among men.  Please write to the board asking them to appoint you in Cook's place.

post #48 of 99
Silly question: What's the best way (easiest and with minimal fees) to buy several shares of AAPL? I'll consult a financial advisor, but this may be far simpler than I think.
For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
post #49 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia View Post

Silly question: What's the best way (easiest and with minimal fees) to buy several shares of AAPL? I'll consult a financial advisor, but this may be far simpler than I think.

Not a silly question. Cheapest and easiest way I know is to use an online broker.

Some of them will also have deals for free trades, discounted rates, and other options based on the amount you open your account with.
Edited by SolipsismX - 4/29/14 at 2:58pm

"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 #50 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Personally, I think all this a massive setup for a major new product category. I think Apple is playing a long game that is going to completely knock the rest of the industry off their feet within a year and suck up even more of the mindshare than they already have.

Sol, you may be right!

There was a good discussion on another thread about how iPads are changing the way some people use computers:
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

One of the problems here is I thinking that everything will remain the same except for the addition of touch. I don't believe that will be true. I would like the option, not the requirement. I now do a lot of work on my iPad that I ordinarily would do on my Mac Pro. That includes video and photo editing, CAD, etc. a bigger screen would make that all better.

I don't see it as being out of the realm of possibility that apps on the Mac could have two UIs. You could make a choice, touch or keyboard. So if you slid the screen down to the almost horizontal position, you would choose the touch UI, and visa versa. I can see advantages in both.

Being dogmatic either way isn't helpful. There's room for both.

Even long-time users like @melgross are increasingly using iPads to perform tasks formerly reserved for laptop and some desktop computers -- and in the process, successfully using touch in lieu of mouse/kb.

IMO, Apple hasn't quite solved the iPad UI/UX -- need an easier, more robust way to share data and files among apps and devices, need more convenient and granular way to manipulate the touch interface, etc. But, I think these are doable as the present tech evolves.

Also, the [data] cost of always being connected needs to be addressed.

Maybe what you are defining is a post post-pc personal [computer] appliance where the device assumes ones alter-ego.
Edited by Dick Applebaum - 4/29/14 at 1:19pm
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #51 of 99
Originally Posted by Scoopertino View Post

Apple rethinks stock split, goes for more gusto

Take that, Wall Street! Apple’s Board just rescinded its proposed 7:1 stock split, replacing it with something a bit more dramatic.

How does 10,000:1 sound?

Starting on June 7, a single share of AAPL will decrease in price from its 4/24/14 closing price of $594 to a little more than a nickel.

Why the sudden turnaround?

CEO Tim Cook says it’s all about making Apple stock more affordable to mainstream investors.

“If the goal is to make AAPL more affordable, why dork around? Let’s get on with it,” says Cook in an Apple press release.

According to sources, Cook became obsessed with penny stocks after he read an article about penny stock millionaires on a site called How Life Works. It’s a site he’s relied on in the past for fashion and health tips.

“Imagine being able to buy 1,000 shares of AAP for $59,” says Cook. “When the stock hits $700 again, that would be worth $700,000.”

“True,” said one stock market analyst. “And when the stock gets back to $700, we’ll be vacationing on Mars via teleportation.”

Brushing aside the doubters, a spokesman for Cook said “Criticism of Apple is nothing new. And by the way — do you know the stock symbol for that teleportation outfit?”

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #52 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

How horrible. Steve Jobs would have never… OH WAIT HE DID EXACTLY THOSE THINGS.

REALLY? NAME IT.
NAME A 3 YEAR PERIOD WHEN SJ RETURNED AND THERE WASNT A NEW PRODUCT LINE INTRODUCED.
 
Where's the new Apple TV?
Reply
 
Where's the new Apple TV?
Reply
post #53 of 99
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post
REALLY? NAME IT.

 

Sure.

 

Two splits under Steve after his return…

 

And between 2003 and 2005 there weren’t any “new products”.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #54 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post

REALLY? NAME IT.
NAME A 3 YEAR PERIOD WHEN SJ RETURNED AND THERE WASNT A NEW PRODUCT LINE INTRODUCED.

Do you ever think before you post? 1oyvey.gif Two seconds of research to find Apple's 2nd and 3rd split on June 21, 2000 and February 18th, 2005. (Do I need to write "respectively" for you to know which came after the other?)
Mac in 1984 … 17 years … iPod in 2001 … 6 years … iPhone in 2007 … 3 years … iPad in 2010. The iPad took three years despite using pretty much all the parts of the iPhone and you think Apple should be able to reinvent the TV, watch, and anything else in under 3 years after each new product release. 1rolleyes.gif
Edited by SolipsismX - 4/29/14 at 1:43pm

"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 #55 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


LOL
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #56 of 99
I love the fact that Ive watched my shares grow since I bought 600 shares at 7.00 each watched it split to 1200 and now 8400.. Im looking so forward to 119.25 per share! I will have made my million! 1smile.gif Ive never lost faith in the fruit, and Im not only a shareholder, but a fan and tech support specialist for all of the Apple Products! Go Fruit!!! 1smile.gif
post #57 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Mac in 1984 … 17 years … iPod in 2001 … 6 years … iPhone in 2007 … 3 years … iPad in 2010. The iPad took three years despite using pretty much all the parts of the iPhone and you think Apple should be able to reinvent the TV, watch, and anything else in under 3 years after each new product release. 1rolleyes.gif

 

Not to mention that (as many don't realize) the iPad was in development BEFORE the iPhone when Apple decided to change course and release the phone first, so that three year interval was pretty much a fluke and a one-off.  Most companies would be lucky to have just one of these game changing product launches in their entire history yet Apple is criticized for not having one every couple of years or so.

 

It's funny though how when it was introduced, the pundits widely heralded the iPad as anything bug a major new product category and "just a giant iPod Touch" yet now likely the same pundits use that three year interval as "the norm" for Apple for major product releases.  By their own logic they should use at least 6 years.  Where are all those "giant iPod" people now?

post #58 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Not a silly question. Cheapest and easiest way I know is to you an online broker.
Some of them will also have deals for free trades, discounted rates, and other options based on the amount you open your account with.

Thanks for the link!

For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
post #59 of 99
Stock splits don't change real value though, for one seventh the price as before, you get one seventh the company as before. The only reason it makes any difference is when you're dealing with non-rational influences.
post #60 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post
Correct. Everybody had the same number of votes after the split that they had before, contrary to DED's idea that Google somehow took votes away from people.

 

Brin and Page (mostly those two) have Class B shares that are nominally the same value as everybody else's Class A shares but have 10 times the voting power.  Issuing regular stock and selling Class B shares (to live life lavishly) over the last decade and more has diluted their control down to just over 55 percent.

 

Now how can you have your cake and eat it?  That is to raise money without losing control of your company...

 

That's simple - split all shares into half, with one half retaining the voting power, then sell all your non-voting shares for big bucks.  Repeat as many times as you want to raise more cash.  They have over 55% of the shareholder votes anyway so it will always pass.

 

Right now, Brin and Page are pretty talented, but 50 years from now, who knows what direction Google will be headed with trust-fund baby heirs at the helm.


Edited by Bravadu - 4/29/14 at 3:29pm
post #61 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post
 

Maybe he's referring to how Google issued a different class of shares. I don't really follow GOOG all that much, but I remember reading something about that. In addition to GOOG, there's also something called GOOGL I noticed.

 

Google wanted to be able to issue more shares for employee incentives.  As they do that, the owners would have to issue themselves an equal percentage of shares in order to maintain the same ownership.  They did not want to do that.  In their corporate charter they stated something to the effect that they don't want to be beholden to Wall Street or be forced to make decisions quarter to quarter.

 

Larry and Sergey have over 50% of the voting shares at Google between them- so if they agree on anything it is a given.  Schmidt has just enough so that if Larry and Sergey disagree he gets to be the swing vote.

 

They did not want to disrupt that structure as it is what allows Google to be Google.  If they were beholden to Wall Street, Greenlight and Icahn would be diving in and screaming that they need to get rid of cars, robots, and who knows what else.

 

To acheive that they created a new class of shares that has no voting rights.  The stock split itself changed nothing as far as ownership percentages or voting strength.   It does allow Google to issue more shares to employees in the future without running the risk that Larry and Sergey lose total control of the company.

 

Investors in Google should be well aware of that.  If you buy into Google you are basically just investing, not trying to dictate control of the company.

post #62 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

 

To acheive that they created a new class of shares that has no voting rights.  The stock split itself changed nothing as far as ownership percentages or voting strength.   It does allow Google to issue more shares to employees in the future without running the risk that Larry and Sergey lose total control of the company.

 

Larry and Sergey will also be able to buy more yachts and more planes without having more control slip out of their fingers.

 

It's good to be able to have your cake and eat it too, but you need more than 50% control in the first place to make it happen.

 

I think that letting other shareholders have a say is a good thing even if it's activist shareholders like Icahn or the others.  If they can somehow pull off a voting win, then that's democracy at work.

post #63 of 99

Sure he didn't say they would never do it BUT he did say this:  "And the current information we have would suggest that there's very little support that it helps the stock."   So what changed from May 2012 and every quarter after that up until last week?  What new information did they have?

 

Maybe Cook finally read your letter and decided you were right.

post #64 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Stock splits don't change real value though, for one seventh the price as before, you get one seventh the company as before. The only reason it makes any difference is when you're dealing with non-rational influences.

 

Like the ones with money.

post #65 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia View Post
 

Thanks for the link!

 

I recommend www.schwab.com ... just personal preference. I like being able to go visit one of their offices if I have a question or concern. I used to have an E-trade account a loooooong time ago, but they screwed up an order and it was difficult to get ahold of a real person. I pulled my entire account.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #66 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

How horrible. Steve Jobs would have never… OH WAIT HE DID EXACTLY THOSE THINGS.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Sure.

 

Two splits under Steve after his return…

 

And between 2003 and 2005 there weren’t any “new products”.

In all fairness, Steve also said, during a conference call, that he would not authorize a stock split after the last one because he wanted to show the true value of the company and stock splits dilute the perceived value.

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #67 of 99
After the splits this stock is easily going to $100 by EOY 2014.
post #68 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

In all fairness, Steve also said, during a conference call, that he would not authorize a stock split after the last one because he wanted to show the true value of the company and stock splits dilute the perceived value.

I don't think he anticipated the success of the iPhone and iPad. At $600 it does prevent a lot of investors from getting in. So much so that I think it's hard to imagine Jobs not being alright with the split.


edit: To be clear, I do agree with Jobs that it can dilute the perceived value but making the stock too expensive will definitely prevent many investors from getting onboard. Now some could say that those that can't afford $600 per share don't deserve to invest with Apple but what if you have $1000 to invest. Not a bad starting point but at $1000 you can only invest $600 for one share (and one share also gets perceived in a negative light as opposed to having a dozen shares at the 7:1 split value. It also means that an investor can invest their $1000, not just $600 and probably squeeze out that extra $28 to buy just over $1000 worth instead of 11 shares just under $1000, but trying to squeezing out a couple hundred dollars more for 2 whole shares seems less likely to me.

PS: If Apple never did a split the share price today, ignoring all psychological aspects of splitting, would be $4738.64 with 23. (Is that math correct for 3x 2:1 splits?)
Edited by SolipsismX - 4/29/14 at 4:23pm

"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 #69 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bravadu View Post

 

Larry and Sergey will also be able to buy more yachts and more planes without having more control slip out of their fingers.

It's good to be able to have your cake and eat it too, but you need more than 50% control in the first place to make it happen.


I think that letting other shareholders have a say is a good thing even if it's activist shareholders like Icahn or the others.  If they can somehow pull off a voting win, then that's democracy at work.
1. What does class B shares have anything to do with current split between class a and class c?
It was there even before split.
2. What stops you or any investor from selling your class C shares without voting power with class A?
As he explained, this was done for employee stocks.
Try to understand the purpose before blinding bashing.

As far as Ownership % goes, this is very common Where company was invented by 1-2 person entity.
For eg. Microsoft with Bill gates before recent release of shares for charity or Google or Facebook.
They invented the company and keeping voting power, which is obvious. What is wrong with that?
post #70 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post

REALLY? NAME IT.
NAME A 3 YEAR PERIOD WHEN SJ RETURNED AND THERE WASNT A NEW PRODUCT LINE INTRODUCED.

This guy seems quiet now
post #71 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

However, as Apple's stock has tumbled into oblivion in 2013, 

Oblivion? Really?

Started 2013 at $549 and April it was $390.

Really good drop but not even close to oblivion...

post #72 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Samsung's board has  just announced its proposed 129,000:1 stock split, making the value of each share a penny.  Samsung CEO Dr. Oh-Hyun Kwon today stated, "This is just one more example of Samsung's smooth innovation. Penny stocks are the next big thing."

post #73 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Do you ever think before you post? 1oyvey.gif Two seconds of research to find Apple's 2nd and 3rd split on June 21, 2000 and February 18th, 2005. (Do I need to write "respectively" for you to know which came after the other?)
Mac in 1984 … 17 years … iPod in 2001 … 6 years … iPhone in 2007 … 3 years … iPad in 2010. The iPad took three years despite using pretty much all the parts of the iPhone and you think Apple should be able to reinvent the TV, watch, and anything else in under 3 years after each new product release.

What's an Apple TV ?  Time Capsule? Nano?  Cube?  iBook? Magic mouse? Trackpad? 

IS English your second language????1rolleyes.gif 

 
Where's the new Apple TV?
Reply
 
Where's the new Apple TV?
Reply
post #74 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post

What's an Apple TV ?  Time Capsule? Nano?  Cube?  iBook? Magic mouse? Trackpad? 

The Apple TV is certainly a new product category but that also occurred in 2010 — or 2009 if you start with the atypical pre-announcement announcement — so it's still inline with the iPhone release time. Its' not just now getting off of "hobby' status (under Cook, I might add) so if it's radically change, as people hope, we might want to consider that the start of the product category; especially if you want to consider the Time Capsule a new product category just for putting an HDD in a Airport Extreme.

As for the others, we're talking about an iPod, two Macs, one is a router, and two are peripherals for a Mac.

PS: Magic Mouse? Really? You want to use Apple's mouse as proof that Apple under Jobs was nothing but a machine of brilliant ideas and innovation. Shame on you for wasting our time. 1oyvey.gif
Quote:
IS English your second language????

If you want to make a foolish comment about my ability to communicate well, much less in English, you're going to regret it.
Edited by SolipsismX - 4/29/14 at 11:47pm

"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 #75 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post
 

I think 1 aspect of this split a lot of people are ignoring is that this makes the Apple stock available to the vanity "investor".

 

This may be someone who isn't really into investing, but is an Apple fan, and would like to "own" a piece of Apple. It's far easier to do that if you have to pay only $70 instead of $500.

 

Now, this may not affect AAPL's price at all, but what it does is strengthens the loyalty of the customer. Such purchases won't help Apple on the financial side, but will help them on the customer retention, and word of mouth advertising sides, as this person is far more invested in the company (pun intended) than if he only purchased the products and did not have that single stock.


Yeah...I pretty much want at least a share for that reason.

post #76 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post

What's an Apple TV ?  Time Capsule? Nano?  Cube?  iBook? Magic mouse? Trackpad? 
IS English your second language????1rolleyes.gif
 

So you include an iPod nano but won't include the iPad Air or the iPhone 5? You include the Cube but won't count the Mac Pro?

Let me guess, Cook iterates and only Jobs innovates.
post #77 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bravadu View Post
 
 

Larry and Sergey will also be able to buy more yachts and more planes without having more control slip out of their fingers.

 

It's good to be able to have your cake and eat it too, but you need more than 50% control in the first place to make it happen.

 

I think that letting other shareholders have a say is a good thing even if it's activist shareholders like Icahn or the others.  If they can somehow pull off a voting win, then that's democracy at work.

 

I don't believe Larry and Sergey are primarily money motivated, but I'm sure they're not allergic to money and probably find the stuff quite useful.  If anything they are so rich that they just really don't have to care (each of them has more than twice the wealth Steve Jobs had).  I believe they do it because they want to change the world- and if you look at the projects they are doing most are consistent in that track and may not make Google a dime.  Having that much control is what allows them to do the moonshot projects that would not be allowed at more traditional companies- and that's what I think they are concerned about losing the ability to do.  Just as Jobs' biography is a good book whether you like or hate Steve, 'Googled' is a great read and pretty good insight to how Google got its start.

 

That structure is more and more common among tech companies.  There are advantages and disadvantages.  As a shareholder your best bet is to know what you're investing in and put your money in accordingly.  If not having a say in a company and knowing that they do far-fetched projects rubs you the wrong way- I definitely wouldn't recommend Google shares for you.

post #78 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post
 

I believe so. My income tax rate will be much lower than a capital gains tax rate (unless I'm missing something). I'm in retirement mode so I'm not trying to get a huge annual income, only withdrawing enough to pay bills and enjoy life. This method also helps keeps my ACA health insurance costs down substantially. I'm not one of those people who is trying to die with the most amount of money, I'd just like to have enough to buy a few things and have some fun but not stress over everything.

 

Depending on your age and how much you have in the IRA, a better strategy might be to withdrawal as much from your IRA each year, so long as you don't have to pay more than 20% tax on it. Take the extra money you took out and put it in a Roth IRA. (Invest it back in AAPL or other dividend stocks) Do this every year until all the money is gone from your traditional IRA. Now you have all your money in a Roth IRA and everything in it is tax free for the rest of your retirement. Plus you only paid capital gains rate on all the money you had in the traditional IRA. 

 

70 and 1/2 is the magic number. At that age you are required to withdrawal a minimum amount depending on how much you have in it. That minimum amount (RMD) may put you above the 35% tax bracket if there's still too much money in your IRA. Taking it out a little at a time every year might not be enough. Specially if you have a lot of  AAPL and it duplicates in the next 5 years what it did in the past 5 years.  In which case, selling a big chunk of your AAPL that is in your IRA now and buying it back (after taxes) in a Roth might be the thing to do if you think AAPL with reach $120/s. At that point, it would have paid for the 28% to 35% tax you might have paid to take it out of your IRA all at once. And really, you're are going to have to pay at the least 15% to 20% tax on it even if you took it out over several years. But by that time, AAPL could be at $200/s. With all the gains being all taxable if it were still in your IRA and tax free in you pay the taxes now and transfer it into a Roth.  It's never too late to plan for your retirement, even after you retire. 

post #79 of 99
If an individual investor is selling an $80 share and paying $5 to $15 in fees to a broker, there is no hope for said investor.
post #80 of 99

Quote:

Originally Posted by jungmark View Post
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post
 

What's an Apple TV ?  Time Capsule? Nano?  Cube?  iBook? Magic mouse? Trackpad? 

IS English your second language????1rolleyes.gif 


So you include an iPod nano but won't include the iPad Air or the iPhone 5? You include the Cube but won't count the Mac Pro?

Let me guess, Cook iterates and only Jobs innovates.

 

I advice you not to piss this guy off unless you know Max Von Sydow personally.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Why Apple, Inc decided to split its stock 7-1