AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Notes of interest from Apple's Q207 quarterly conference call
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Notes of interest from Apple's Q207 quarterly conference call

post #1 of 40
Thread Starter 
Apple, which on Wednesday announced its most profitable March quarter in history, held a financial conference call with analysts and members of the media. In-depth coverage of the topics discussed during that call follow.

Apple's Mac Business

In total, Apple shipped 1.517 million Macs during the quarter, representing 36 percent yearly growth. This included 891,000 notebooks and 626,000 desktop systems.

Demand for MacBooks and MacBook Pros during the quarter was exceptional. Notebook sales grew 79 percent year-over-year and accounted for 59 Percent of Macs sold during the quarter. Notebook sales generated $1.354 billion in revenue.

Desktop sales accounted for about 40 percent of the Macs sold during the quarter, rising only slightly from the year-ago quarter in which Apple sold 614,000 units. Desktops accounted for $914 million of quarterly revenue.

The Mac is clearly gaining market share, with sales growing 36 percentmore than three times the industry growth rate, Apple chief executive Steve Jobs said in a statement.

Mac distribution points have grown from 5800 to 8000 on a year-over-year basis.

Apple is still evaluating and plans to make decision on its Circuit City Mac pilot sometime this quarter.

Meanwhile, the company said it plans to partake in some "unique merchandising" as it expands its Best Buy Mac pilot to around 200 stores throughout the year.

Both Mac and iPod margins were quite strong during quarter, benefiting from very favorable commodity environment (particularly memory).

Apple's Music Business

Apple shipped 10,549,000 iPods during the quarter, representing 24 percent growth year-over-year, and accounting for $1.689 billion in revenue.

Apple's "Other Music Related Products and Services" added $653 million in revenue, up 35 percent year-over-year.

iPod shuffle was especially popular during the quarter thanks to the addition of new models in four vibrant colors.

In the United States, iPod commands over a 70 percent share of the digital media player market. It holds over a 60 percent share in Australia and Canada, over a 50 percent share in Japan and Hong Kong, over a 40 percent share in the UK, Switzerland and Denmark, and about a 28 percent share in Germany.

Apple ended the quarterly "comfortably" with iPod channel inventory of 4-6 weeks.

iTunes now has over 5 million songs, 350 TV shows, and 500 movies.

iTunes accounts for over 85 percent of legal music downloads in the United States, according to Nielsen SoundScan.

Both the iPod and Mac were key to Apple achieving its 35.1 percent gross margin.

Apple's Consumer Electronics Business

"We're off to very good start" on Apple TV, the company said. It would provide no further details, likely as sales totals are still low given the device's relatively short time on the market.

Apple did say that it plans to leverage its proven capability in the area of software development to gradually add new software features and applications to both its iPhone and Apple TV products free of charge to customers.

Additional iPhone tidbits are available in a separate report on the aforementioned subject.

Apple's Retail Business

Apple's retail store revenues for the quarter totaled $855 million, up 34 percent from $636 million year-over-year. The stores generated $32 million in profit in addition to $174 million in "manufacturing profit."

The company opened a total of 7 news stores during to quarter to end with 177 stores.

With an average of 172 stores open during the quarter, average store revenue was about $5 million.

Over 21.5 million people visited Apple's retail stores during the quarter, which breaks down to 10,000 customers per store, per week.

The stores sold 275,000 Macs, up more than 75 percent from the year-ago quarter.

Apple maintained that it is on target to launch new international retail stores in Glasgow, Scotland and Sydney, Australia sometime later this year.

In a surprise and much-welcomed announcement, Apple said it will be opening its third Manhattan retail store at 14th Street and 9th Avenue in the meatpacking district. No date was given.

Apple's Business and Mac Sales by Region

Apple Americas accounted for $2.447 billion in revenues, up 15 percent year-over-year. This included the sale of 605,000 Macs, up 22 percent year-over-year.

Apple Europe accounted for $1.249 billion in revenues, up 29 percent year-over-year. This included the sale of 433,000 Macs, up 37 percent year-over-year.

Apple Japan continued to "frustrate" Apple, accounting for just $283 million in revenues, down 8 percent year-over-year. This included the sale of 79,000 Macs, down 4 percent year-over-year.

Apple Asia-Pacific (plus FileMaker Inc.) accounted for $430 million in revenues, up 32 percent year-over-year. This included the sale of 125,000 Macs, up 89 percent year-over-year.

Direct sales -- retail, online, direct to education and enterprise, and the iTunes music store -- accounted for 50 percent of Apple's sales during the quarter.

Other notes

Apple capitalized about $27 million related to software development during quarter.

Capital expenditures for the quarter were $105 million.

Apple's cash stockpile rose over $700 million during the quarter to $12.6 billion.

Apple should be doing something with all that cash, but it isn't -- yet. Although it continues to discusses options such as share buybacks internally, it has "nothing to announce at this time."

The tax rate for the quarter was 32 percent.
post #2 of 40
Way to go Apple.
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #3 of 40
What is it about Apple computers does Japan dislike? Is it the non-existence of a sub-notbook, a lack of some wonky port support on the Mac, or something else entirely?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #4 of 40
If Steve and Co. wants more customers and more money, their number one business priority right now at this point in time should be getting Apple stores to every country in the world outside the US. One country, one store at a time. Pick a country, pick a location, add a store, next counrty do the same, and so on and so fourth. They are being very, very slow in adding Apple stores to Europe, France doesn't even have a store (64 million people), Germany doesn't have a store (82 million people).

We're not really asking for too much here, they really need to seriously address this issue, they are adding stores all over the US all the time. I just think it's really high time Apple started focusing properly on Europe, Austrailia and Asia. Huge markets go uptapped here, and Microsoft is just winning more new customers everyday in these parts where it's diffucult to see real Apple computers in high numbers, in the flesh in stores.

DaHarder just got banned. Let's crack open the champagne.

Reply

DaHarder just got banned. Let's crack open the champagne.

Reply
post #5 of 40
Nice quarter for Apple ... the portable sales were very strong versus last year Q2. Q3 and Q4 will continue to show strength.
post #6 of 40
What to do with all of that money?!!??

They need to buy the Seattle Supersonics, change the name to the Washington Apples and build a new state-of-the-art colliseum in Redmond!!!

Give away free tickets to MS employees and have free videopodcasts of every game!!

The mascots could be large, fuzzy "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" guys who play a little one on one during time outs!!!

The cheerleaders could dance the iPod dances, dressed in the Shuffle colors!!!

The Sonics are pushing for a new stadium that isn't popular with local taxpayers/officials and the owner wants to move them to Oklahoma City. This would give Apple major local cred and tap into the drizzle segment of the geek culture.

Or

They could hire 300 software engineers, get Leopard out by August, buy out Elgato and a few game companies and create a seemless DirectX emulator!
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
post #7 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGregor View Post

What to do with all of that money?!!??

I've wondered this as well... it seems that while Apple does acquire a company here and there, is there something out there that would be worth spending this kind of money on?

Seems that it's better to integrate smaller companies with kick-ass products into the Apple culture than to take on a well-known company with well-known products.

Considering they took Computer out of the corporate name, who knows what they'll buy next?
post #8 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGregor View Post

What to do with all of that money?!!??

How about they start paying a dividend on their shares? My AAPL stock just sits there going up in value, but it doesn't DO anything for me. i.e. It keeps gaining potential energy, but it has no kinetic energy.

- Jasen.
post #9 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasenj1 View Post

How about they start paying a dividend on their shares? My AAPL stock just sits there going up in value, but it doesn't DO anything for me. i.e. It keeps gaining potential energy, but it has no kinetic energy.

- Jasen.

They plan on buying Microsoft in 5 years.




PS: your name is already in the left-hand column.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #10 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasenj1 View Post

How about they start paying a dividend on their shares? My AAPL stock just sits there going up in value, but it doesn't DO anything for me. i.e. It keeps gaining potential energy, but it has no kinetic energy.

- Jasen.

Nice metaphor I'll take both too please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGregor View Post

What to do with all of that money?!!??

Chrysler? 'Apple takes over ... not only the living room but also the garage ...'

Just kidding ...
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #11 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDreamworx View Post

I've wondered this as well... it seems that while Apple does acquire a company here and there, is there something out there that would be worth spending this kind of money on?

Seems that it's better to integrate smaller companies with kick-ass products into the Apple culture than to take on a well-known company with well-known products.

Considering they took Computer out of the corporate name, who knows what they'll buy next?

They do several things with the money. For one, they have a subsidiary, Braeburn, whose main mission is supposed to be to handle Apple's investments. They make considerable money from those investments, even with the previous quarter's record sales, I think income from investments accounted for about 40% of the net income.

IIRC, Apple was going to do a joint-venture investment of several billion USD with Samsung on a new plant to make flash chips, but the publicity blowback in South Korea basically scuttled the deal. I think Apple has from time to time fronted the R&D or plant construction costs to other companies for certain new technologies in exchange for a short term exclusive on the product. They put down significant deposits with several flash chip makers to secure the quantity of chips that they think they need.

I think Apple's done a pretty good job of choosing what company or technology to buy.
post #12 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

What is it about Apple computers does Japan dislike? Is it the non-existence of a sub-notbook, a lack of some wonky port support on the Mac, or something else entirely?

Computer sales in Japan seem to be slow for everyone.
post #13 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGregor View Post

What to do with all of that money?!!??

They need to buy the Seattle Supersonics, change the name to the Washington Apples and build a new state-of-the-art colliseum in Redmond!!!

Give away free tickets to MS employees and have free videopodcasts of every game!!

The mascots could be large, fuzzy "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" guys who play a little one on one during time outs!!!

The cheerleaders could dance the iPod dances, dressed in the Shuffle colors!!!

The Sonics are pushing for a new stadium that isn't popular with local taxpayers/officials and the owner wants to move them to Oklahoma City. This would give Apple major local cred and tap into the drizzle segment of the geek culture.

Or

They could hire 300 software engineers, get Leopard out by August, buy out Elgato and a few game companies and create a seemless DirectX emulator!

Oh please!

While I could go with the INTELLIGENT ideas mentioned in your post, you really have no sense of humor at all.

Hire 300 software engineers? You've got to be kidding?
post #14 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDreamworx View Post

I've wondered this as well... it seems that while Apple does acquire a company here and there, is there something out there that would be worth spending this kind of money on?

Seems that it's better to integrate smaller companies with kick-ass products into the Apple culture than to take on a well-known company with well-known products.

Considering they took Computer out of the corporate name, who knows what they'll buy next?

There were a lot of things they could have done.

They could have bought a whole bunch of Mac programs that would move them closer to what they seem to want, and need.

They could have bought Painter, Poser, Bryce, and a number of others at fire sale prices several times in the past few years.

They should have also engaged Adobe in a bidding war for Macromedia.

Flash alone would have been worth it for Apple to acquire. Then they would have controlled that important standard, which would have leveraged Quicktime much further.

But they seem to be afraid of these types of purchases. It's too bad.
post #15 of 40
as they say on fark, quick and dirty...



bottom row, center pair are doors, others are display windows.
first floor sales, second floor genius bar and training, like ginza, regent st, etc.

based on http://www.rkf.com/listings/NEW/401W14St_main.asp seen via tuaw.
post #16 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Computer sales in Japan seem to be slow for everyone.

Japan is one of the most technology-sensitive and gadget-loving markets in the world.
With ipods being everywhere (and thus not being much of an elite gadget anymore), and there being much smaller computers than the macbook on the market (such as the sony vaio subnotebooks, which have the homefield advantage in Japan) it is to be expected to see apple struggle.
post #17 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

There were a lot of things they could have done.

They could have bought a whole bunch of Mac programs that would move them closer to what they seem to want, and need.

They could have bought Painter, Poser, Bryce, and a number of others at fire sale prices several times in the past few years.

They should have also engaged Adobe in a bidding war for Macromedia.

Flash alone would have been worth it for Apple to acquire. Then they would have controlled that important standard, which would have leveraged Quicktime much further.

But they seem to be afraid of these types of purchases. It's too bad.

While traditional business schools teach that bigger is better and acquisition is good, more and more evidence is coming out that the added value of any major acquisition or merger is limited at best, and quite often negative.
It is far from easy to integrate a separate business culture into your own, (re-)train staff and adapt to new managers. Apple is a very lean, very mean, very focused company, and major acquisitions would distract from this.
It makes much more sense to just buy exclusive licenses, take a major minority share in a company or buy a startup whose main asset is that genius designer that you need than to integrate traditional, bulky, complex companies like macromedia used to be.
post #18 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiddenWolf View Post

Japan is one of the most technology-sensitive and gadget-loving markets in the world.
With ipods being everywhere (and thus not being much of an elite gadget anymore), and there being much smaller computers than the macbook on the market (such as the sony vaio subnotebooks, which have the homefield advantage in Japan) it is to be expected to see apple struggle.

Nevertheless, computer sales in Japan have been a bear for everyone the past few years.
post #19 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiddenWolf View Post

While traditional business schools teach that bigger is better and acquisition is good, more and more evidence is coming out that the added value of any major acquisition or merger is limited at best, and quite often negative.
It is far from easy to integrate a separate business culture into your own, (re-)train staff and adapt to new managers. Apple is a very lean, very mean, very focused company, and major acquisitions would distract from this.
It makes much more sense to just buy exclusive licenses, take a major minority share in a company or buy a startup whose main asset is that genius designer that you need than to integrate traditional, bulky, complex companies like macromedia used to be.

That's not the holy grail in business schools, or at least, it had better not be.

This is a business by business decision. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. If the idea was a good one, it should be fine. If it wasn't, then it was a bad decision, period.

There is no golden rule here.

Adobe seems to be doing a very good job of integrating the two companies. It gives Adobe a grip in areas it couldn't otherwise control.

Those same areas are ones that Apple needs to either be able to control, or to be able to keep out of the wrong hands. At least Adobe is somewhat of a neutral party. With MS coming out with a Flash competitor, hopefully Adobe has the funds to be able to fend it off.
post #20 of 40
The purchase of Schemasoft maybe the the most interesting of Apple purchases, could this be the base for a iPhone app that, like Preview, opens many file formats ? Do people want to create a spread sheet or type a word doc on a phone , or do they just want to be able to read them ?
It's a matter of taste
Reply
It's a matter of taste
Reply
post #21 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGregor View Post

What to do with all of that money?!!??

They need to buy the Seattle Supersonics, change the name to the Washington Apples and build a new state-of-the-art colliseum in Redmond!!!

Give away free tickets to MS employees and have free videopodcasts of every game!!

The mascots could be large, fuzzy "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" guys who play a little one on one during time outs!!!

The cheerleaders could dance the iPod dances, dressed in the Shuffle colors!!!

The Sonics are pushing for a new stadium that isn't popular with local taxpayers/officials and the owner wants to move them to Oklahoma City. This would give Apple major local cred and tap into the drizzle segment of the geek culture.

Or

They could hire 300 software engineers, get Leopard out by August, buy out Elgato and a few game companies and create a seemless DirectX emulator!

I would buy companies and technologies that would help further the Mac..

1. Elgato. EyeTV would fill Apple's greatest hole, lack of PVR capabilities. With PVR capabilities, the Mac, AppleTV, iTunes would be a very strong (and easier to use) alternative to Window's Media center.

2. Flip4Mac. It's Quicktime windows media and Final Cut codecs would be very useful additions to Apple's portfolio

3. Purchase Toast from Roxio or enter into an OEM deal.

4. The snobs among us are going to hate this one, but expand their horizons and user base by purchasing or creating a Mac boutique brand. Velocity Micro could be a relatively inexpensive buy and they already have their own retail channel.
post #22 of 40
Originally Posted by MacGregor
What to do with all of that money?!!??

Buy EMI ($3 billion) Buy Sony ($65 billion)
post #23 of 40
They need a small sub notebook for Japaness market.
They also need Something like EyeTV that makes watching TV on a mac possible. Places like Japan with high population density will need this function.
Why another store in NY? There are enough cash to bring a store to most country in EU as well as Asia Regiion like Hong Kong and Singapore. Why Ignore those potential customers?
post #24 of 40
Quote:
Apple Japan continued to "frustrate" Apple, accounting for just $283 million in revenues, down 8 percent year-over-year. This included the sale of 79,000 Macs, down 4 percent year-over-year.

So bring out a subnotebook already!
An 11-inch (completing the 11, 13, 15, 17 range) would go down really well here and then they could actually compete with the other manufacturers. The Japanese like small. Duh!
post #25 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

If Steve and Co. wants more customers and more money, their number one business priority right now at this point in time should be getting Apple stores to every country in the world outside the US. One country, one store at a time. Pick a country, pick a location, add a store, next counrty do the same, and so on and so fourth. They are being very, very slow in adding Apple stores to Europe, France doesn't even have a store (64 million people), Germany doesn't have a store (82 million people).

We're not really asking for too much here, they really need to seriously address this issue, they are adding stores all over the US all the time. I just think it's really high time Apple started focusing properly on Europe, Austrailia and Asia. Huge markets go uptapped here, and Microsoft is just winning more new customers everyday in these parts where it's diffucult to see real Apple computers in high numbers, in the flesh in stores.

Apple plans to open its first retail store in Munich (Apple Germany's headquarters) in the second half of 2008. Two more stores are to follow, in Berlin and Frankfurt. There will be 5 German stores altogether. The problem with Germany is that Apple has to compete with large Mac resellers like Gravis and, more recently, Saturn, which is the German equivalent of Best Buy for Americans.
post #26 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Chrysler? 'Apple takes over ... not only the living room but also the garage ...'

So then the car metaphor would work wouldn't it?

"Too much of a good thing is great." Mae West
Reply
"Too much of a good thing is great." Mae West
Reply
post #27 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasenj1 View Post

How about they start paying a dividend on their shares? ....APL stock just sits there going up in value, but it doesn't DO anything for me. i.e. It keeps gaining potential energy, but it has no kinetic energy.

- Jasen.

Brilliant!
post #28 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by undergroundninja View Post

as they say on fark, quick and dirty...

bottom row, center pair are doors, others are display windows.
first floor sales, second floor genius bar and training, like ginza, regent st, etc.

based on http://www.rkf.com/listings/NEW/401W14St_main.asp seen via tuaw.

Nice won..

DaHarder just got banned. Let's crack open the champagne.

Reply

DaHarder just got banned. Let's crack open the champagne.

Reply
post #29 of 40
Quote:
There were a lot of things they could have done.

They could have bought a whole bunch of Mac programs that would move them closer to what they seem to want, and need.

They could have bought Painter, Poser, Bryce, and a number of others at fire sale prices several times in the past few years.

They should have also engaged Adobe in a bidding war for Macromedia.

Flash alone would have been worth it for Apple to acquire. Then they would have controlled that important standard, which would have leveraged Quicktime much further.

But they seem to be afraid of these types of purchases. It's too bad.

If there is one thing Melgross has said...that I agree with? It's this.

Bullseye. I was pulling my hair out that Apple didn't pick these apps up for a song.

Painter, Bryce, Poser...sold for a snip years ago.

And there was Macromedia...for Flash.

Still, maybe they feel in quicktime and with Adobe's continued commitment to the Mac...they have the leverage they need...for now.

Maybe...if iPhone generates the income they desire...they can buy Adobe from pocket change from iPhone?

Adobe's done all the hard work of converting the suite to intel cpus and integration over applications... How much for Adobe? Keep the pc versions on the back foot and the Mac gains marketshare with the superior versions integrated with OS Leopard?

Apple the software house? It's time it to come. And the potential profit is there to be had. Look at the software they make now compared to years ago? Loads. And quality too.

But I'd like to see them grow some stones and take buy out Adobe...aquire key gaming companies like Blizzard...and grow the software label in much the aggressive way M$ has. Not willy nilly? But key targets...eg to boost Mac gaming...Id games would be good. Valve...etc.

Lemon Bon Bon
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #30 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Brilliant!

This has been spoken about for years. Supposedly Apple is now discussing either a share buyback, not something I ever agree with, or a dividend.

We'll see.
post #31 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

If there is one thing Melgross has said...that I agree with? It's this.

Bullseye. I was pulling my hair out that Apple didn't pick these apps up for a song.

Painter, Bryce, Poser...sold for a snip years ago.

And there was Macromedia...for Flash.

Still, maybe they feel in quicktime and with Adobe's continued commitment to the Mac...they have the leverage they need...for now.

Maybe...if iPhone generates the income they desire...they can buy Adobe from pocket change from iPhone?

Adobe's done all the hard work of converting the suite to intel cpus and integration over applications... How much for Adobe? Keep the pc versions on the back foot and the Mac gains marketshare with the superior versions integrated with OS Leopard?

Apple the software house? It's time it to come. And the potential profit is there to be had. Look at the software they make now compared to years ago? Loads. And quality too.

But I'd like to see them grow some stones and take buy out Adobe...aquire key gaming companies like Blizzard...and grow the software label in much the aggressive way M$ has. Not willy nilly? But key targets...eg to boost Mac gaming...Id games would be good. Valve...etc.

Lemon Bon Bon

Adobe might be too expensive now. I've seen estimates of up to $15 billion. They could have gotten MacroMedia for not much more than $4 billion. I think Adobe got it for $3.4 or so.

I hope this wasn't the only thing I said that you've agreed with.
post #32 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

.... a share buyback, not something I ever agree with, or a dividend.

Why not?
post #33 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Why not?

Companies buy back their shares for the ostensible reason to increase shareholder value. The idea is that the shares will go up because of it. It's a fairly complex concept, but the basis of it is that with less shares, the P/E will go down, thus causing the share price to rebound.

But it almost never happens.

There are other reasons to buy shares back, but for other purposes.

Economists think that share buybacks are a bad deal for the shareholders, but potentially good for management if the company is in a situation where a hostile takeover is possible.
post #34 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Companies buy back their shares for the ostensible reason to increase shareholder value. The idea is that the shares will go up because of it. It's a fairly complex concept, but the basis of it is that with less shares, the P/E will go down, thus causing the share price to rebound.

But it almost never happens.

There are other reasons to buy shares back, but for other purposes.

Economists think that share buybacks are a bad deal for the shareholders, but potentially good for management if the company is in a situation where a hostile takeover is possible.

Sorry, but it is not particularly complex. Also, some of your statements -- such as "....with less shares, the P/E will go down;" or ".....it almost never happens" or "Economists think that share buybacks are a bad deal for the shareholders..." etc etc -- are incorrect. (As an aside, I don't understand how even if the "P/E went down" it will cause the "share price to rebound".) Anyhow....

Here's what you need to know about share repurchases, SR (there's a similar set of arguments for dividends, which I won't bore you with).

1) On average markets react substantially positively to announcement of SR (I would be happy to send you the cites for a substantial finance and economics literature on this).

2) There are five six important reasons for why SR results in a positive market reaction (and your claim that it could be a hedge against possible hostile takeovers is not one of them).

3) Here are the reasons. The most important one for the positive announcement effect is: SR signals confidence in future cash flows prospects. By putting its money where its mouth is, the mgmt is seen as credibly telling the market "I think my shares are worth more because of what I know about the future that you don't." The second reason is, it is a tax efficient way to return money to shareholders (dividends are taxed at current income rates, while SP can be at capital gains rate), without setting the usually irreversible precedence of a dividend. The third reason is, it signals greater managerial discipline, since too much cash left lying around in the company is an invitation to misuse (e.g, such as via value-destroying acquisitions), or over time could signal a lack of good ideas for investing future growth (MSFT is Exhibit A for this). Economists refer to this as minimizing a potential "agency problem." A related fourth reason is, it signals to the market that the company is binding itself to the discipline of capital markets visits in the future by saying, "I will go back to external capital and make the case for my investments to fund future growth if and when the need comes around". The fifth reason is, it is a less ownership-dilutive way to buy back and hold treasury stock for future stock and option grants to employees -- you do not have to issue new shares when options are exercised. The sixth reason is, it gets rid of a "cash drag" on net income since cash and marketable securities earn a pittance, certainly way below the cash flow returns that the company's operating assets are generating.

Bottom line: Share Repurchases are, on average, an EXCELLENT deal for shareholders.

(There are a couple more reasons, but this is a tad long, so I'll stop.)
post #35 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Sorry, but it is not particularly complex. Also, some of your statements -- such as "....with less shares, the P/E will go down;" or ".....it almost never happens" or "Economists think that share buybacks are a bad deal for the shareholders..." etc etc -- are incorrect. (As an aside, I don't understand how even if the "P/E went down" it will cause the "share price to rebound".) Anyhow....

Here's what you need to know about share repurchases, SR (there's a similar set of arguments for dividends, which I won't bore you with).

1) On average markets react substantially positively to announcement of SR (I would be happy to send you the cites for a substantial finance and economics literature on this).

2) There are five six important reasons for why SR results in a positive market reaction (and your claim that it could be a hedge against possible hostile takeovers is not one of them).

3) Here are the reasons. The most important one for the positive announcement effect is: SR signals confidence in future cash flows prospects. By putting its money where its mouth is, the mgmt is seen as credibly telling the market "I think my shares are worth more because of what I know about the future that you don't." The second reason is, it is a tax efficient way to return money to shareholders (dividends are taxed at current income rates, while SP can be at capital gains rate), without setting the usually irreversible precedence of a dividend. The third reason is, it signals greater managerial discipline, since too much cash left lying around in the company is an invitation to misuse (e.g, such as via value-destroying acquisitions), or over time could signal a lack of good ideas for investing future growth (MSFT is Exhibit A for this). Economists refer to this as minimizing a potential "agency problem." A related fourth reason is, it signals to the market that the company is binding itself to the discipline of capital markets visits in the future by saying, "I will go back to external capital and make the case for my investments to fund future growth if and when the need comes around". The fifth reason is, it is a less ownership-dilutive way to buy back and hold treasury stock for future stock and option grants to employees -- you do not have to issue new shares when options are exercised. The sixth reason is, it gets rid of a "cash drag" on net income since cash and marketable securities earn a pittance, certainly way below the cash flow returns that the company's operating assets are generating.

Bottom line: Share Repurchases are, on average, an EXCELLENT deal for shareholders.

(There are a couple more reasons, but this is a tad long, so I'll stop.)

Sorry, but I disagree.

I don't know where you get your info from, but what I've read, and have been told over the past 40+ years I've been investing contradict your advice.

When a company buys back, and then retires the shares, the P/E goes down. It's simple math.

Much stock purchases by institutions are for "technical" reasons. The company is worth more than the stock indicates, partly due to the lower than normal P/E.

I would love to see that literature, because I've seen very little positive comments on share repurchases. Sometimes there is a small, short-lived bounce, but it rarely lasts. Companies often do a repurchase because the shares are going down. The buyback doesn't help.

The hedge against hostile takeovers is a well known one, so I'm surprised that you don't know it. With the company holding more of their shares, which are controlled by management, management has more leverage.

Often, companies attempting takeovers, if they are thwarted in buying the required number of shares will even ask (demand) that more shares be issued.

When repurchases are aimed at management and employee incentives, they are sound.

But, overall, there are problems.

This link illustrates the non-value of many repurchasing plans, I'll quote a bit as well.

http://www.chicagogsb.edu/capideas/o...epurchase.html

Quote:
Managers have substantial discretion to time their firm's stock repurchases, which increases diluted EPS. The authors sought to identify if and when firms were repurchasing their own shares to manage diluted EPS, and whether employee stock options played a role in these decisions. The issue is especially pertinent since repurchases are often portrayed as being good for the company. However, the authors argue that repurchases for the purpose of managing diluted EPS should have no real effect on firm value.

The authors find that managers increase the level of their firm's stock repurchases to offset the effects of securities such as employee stock options, which can decrease diluted EPS. Numerous articles in the financial press have suggested that managers repurchase shares to offset EPS dilution in response to employee stock option plans, and executives acknowledge that their decisions to issue and repurchase shares are influenced by potential earnings per share effects.

The authors also find that managers increase their firm's stock repurchases when earnings fall short of the level required to maintain the past growth rate of diluted EPS. This finding suggests that some EPS growth cannot be attributed to improved firm performance, but rather repurchase activity.

The study controls for several other motives often cited for repurchases, including distributing excess cash flow, signaling to offset perceived undervaluation, and re-leveraging the firm.

While stock repurchases may temporarily boost diluted EPS, these actions do not create any value for shareholders.

"Repurchasing your own stock for this purpose is like taking money from your left pocket and moving it to your right pocket," says Wong.

Bens adds, "The cash managers are using to buy back shares could have been put to better use. If there is no upside to repurchases to offset this dilution, and there is a potential downside, why do it?"

this is the typical reaction to most share repurchasing I've read over the years.

Better use of the funds would be for R&D, plant modernization (if indicated), advertising, acquisition of pertinent technology, etc.

Another quote from that article:

Quote:
while they are not opposed to stock repurchasing, Bens and Wong caution that the logic behind these repurchase decisions is not especially sound.

"Investors should be aware of how much managers are repurchasing to manage earnings per share," says Bens. "As a manager, I would be aware that it's a fool's game. You are not really creating value, but a lot of managers behave like they are."

The stock market may seem to reward these repurchase decisions with an increased stock price, but that should not be a reason for buying back stock if it has only a short-term effect. Bens notes that increasing a firm's stock price through repurchases is very different from true value-enhancing strategies such as finding new customers for the firm.

Another article:

http://www.nber.org/digest/nov98/w6467.html

A short quote from there:

Quote:
And though the hostile takeovers prevalent in the mid-to late 1980s undoubtedly fueled a substantial fraction of the repurchase activity during that period, the decline in hostile takeovers in the early 1990s did not produce a reversion to the level of repurchase activity that prevailed before the takeover boom.

Another one:

http://ideas.repec.org/p/sce/scecf4/256.html

And, of course, the quote:

Quote:
to avoid unwanted takeover attempts; and, to counter the dilution effects of employee and management stock options

I could go on posting more and more links, but while it may be popular for those who don't analyze this to any great depth to think this is a great idea, those that do are either ambivalent, or negative. At best, it is a neutral resulting policy.
post #36 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Sorry, but I disagree.

...... At best, it is a neutral resulting policy.

Oh boy. This is what happens when one looks at selective evidence (or relies on what one has been been told or on personal experience) on a HUGELY researched topic.

Let me just say that there are many, many good summaries of the overwhelming amount of research in financial economics on this topic. I will recommend one, since it is written in a simple, clear, and rigorous fashion, and will appeal to a lay person, or a manager, or a financial expert, or even an academic who thinks that (s)he might know a lot about the issue. (It also has a comprehensive set of citations of the relevant literature). I hope you will find it of interest to download and read it if you would like to learn more about it.

It is called "Clear Thinking On Share Repurchases:"

http://www.leggmason.com/funds/knowl...egy_011006.pdf

It will take way to long for me to respond to you point-by-point (and would take this forum too far afield from what is of interest) -- but I would be very happy to engage in a conversation privately if you wish!
post #37 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Oh boy. This is what happens when one looks at selective evidence (or relies on what one has been been told or on personal experience) on a HUGELY researched topic.

Let me just say that there are many, many good summaries of the overwhelming amount of research in financial economics on this topic. I will recommend one, since it is written in a simple, clear, and rigorous fashion, and will appeal to a lay person, or a manager, or a financial expert, or even an academic who thinks that (s)he might know a lot about the issue. (It also has a comprehensive set of citations of the relevant literature). I hope you will find it of interest to download and read it if you would like to learn more about it.

It is called "Clear Thinking On Share Repurchases:"

http://www.leggmason.com/funds/knowl...egy_011006.pdf

It will take way to long for me to respond to you point-by-point (and would take this forum too far afield from what is of interest) -- but I would be very happy to engage in a conversation privately if you wish!

Thanks for the link, and I will read it, though I don't think that continuing this much further either publicly, or privately will change either of our opinions. I can gather a good deal of research as well.

The problem with economics is that is is not a science. While it attempts to explain past results, it doesn't do well in predicting the future, so there are different schools of thought. One or the other gains ascendency for a while, before sinking down. This happens on a continual basis, so we surely won't come to any agreed upon conclusions here. But, that's fine.
post #38 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by csimmons View Post

Apple plans to open its first retail store in Munich (Apple Germany's headquarters) in the second half of 2008. Two more stores are to follow, in Berlin and Frankfurt. There will be 5 German stores altogether.

1 + 2 = 5

I'm confused?
Did you mean to say; two more stores in Berlin and two in Frankfurt, or did you mean something else?

DaHarder just got banned. Let's crack open the champagne.

Reply

DaHarder just got banned. Let's crack open the champagne.

Reply
post #39 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Thanks for the link, and I will read it, though I don't think that continuing this much further either publicly, or privately will change either of our opinions

I agree. But I should add -- I mean this genuinely -- that I think you are a gentleman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The problem with economics is that is is not a science. While it attempts to explain past results, it doesn't do well in predicting the future, so there are different schools of thought. One or the other gains ascendency for a while, before sinking down. This happens on a continual basis, so we surely won't come to any agreed upon conclusions here. But, that's fine.

Again, I agree. Economists are good at saying 'what' or 'when,' but never the two at the same time. Also, many of the empirical insights are an "on average" basis, and thus may or may not apply for any number of reasons to an individual data point (such as Apple).

That said, there are, occasionally, some items of empirical evidence that are so robust, and they conform to theoretical models so well, that they become folk wisdom. In financial economics (a field I happen to know reasonably well), there are a handful of such items of evidence. I was merely referring to one of them.

I appreciate the conversation.
post #40 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I agree. But I should add -- I mean this genuinely -- that I think you are a gentleman.

Thanks.



Again, I agree. Economists are good at saying 'what' or 'when,' but never the two at the same time. Also, many of the empirical insights are an "on average" basis, and thus may or may not apply for any number of reasons to an individual data point (such as Apple).

That said, there are, occasionally, some items of empirical evidence that are so robust, and they conform to theoretical models so well, that they become folk wisdom. In financial economics (a field I happen to know reasonably well), there are a handful of such items of evidence. I was merely referring to one of them.

I appreciate the conversation.[/QUOTE]

Same here.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Notes of interest from Apple's Q207 quarterly conference call