Seems White is suggesting AAPL's management needs an epiphany or a change at the top. If AAPL released a special dividend last December like Wall Street expected -- and numerous companies did and were rewarded with loyalty for -- AAPL's stock wouldn't be in the doldrums it presently is.
Now let's see if Tim Cook can "grow some smarts" and do the right thing.
Eff WS. The price dropped due to Apple "missing" outrageous WS expectations based on rumors and innuendo.
There they go again. Yanking the chain for more dividends. This is what happens when you allow the dividend camel to get a nose in the cash tent. They are relentless.
Just do a massive share repurchase to keep as treasury stock, and get on with it. Apart from a myriad other pluses, it'll also clean out the stables, allowing all those who have a negative view of Apple to sell and get out.
Massive stock buybacks is a temporary thing. A dividend will be more beneficial in the long term. Also, buybacks doesnt bring the income funds in Apple. Apple is shifting from a growth stock to a value stock, and to do this you need to allow income funds to get in.
Currently the yield support a price of around $350 (yield > 3%) in a zero growth scenario. If Apple can rise the dividends and still continu to pile up cash then they should do it. I am not very optimistic on the next earings... Its pretty clear we will get negative growth for at least the next 2 quarters, which will floor the stock at the yield level + whatever "hopes of growth" investors are willing to give Apple, which is not much.
Apple is earning $44 per share per year. They are paying $10 / year in dividends. IF it would not be for the offshore income, they could double the dividends to $20 and still add 24$ per year to the pile. The problem is also negative growth, can Apple maintain that $44 for the next few years is the real question.
Did you enjoy the $270 bath you took in the last 6 months due to missed executions on Main Street and miscommunications with Wall Street? I didn't and I've been invested un AAPL a lot longer than you.
Did you enjoy the $270 bath you took in the last 6 months due to missed executions on Main Street and miscommunications with Wall Street? I didn't and I've been invested un AAPL a lot longer than you.
Nobody enjoys that loss but if you want Apple to be "loyal" to Wall Street, isn't it better for you to sell AAPL and buy GOOG or whatever? If you bought the stock before 2005 you get a lum sum profit already. Apple is not Apple today by pleasing Wall Street. I think that is the main point.
Also, buybacks doesnt bring the income funds in Apple. Apple is shifting from a growth stock to a value stock, and to do this you need to allow income funds to get in.
What is your logic for why Apple needs to "bring the income funds"? I submit it's unnecessary, a complete waste of time, and your post is Exhibit A. (The "income" people just want more and more; it's precisely the types I am suggesting Apple does not want or need as an investor clientele).
What is your evidence -- based on actual, reported fundamentals, not self-referential and circular arguments like its P/E ratio, which could be the effect as much as the cause -- that Apple's growth has slowed? Relative to what/whom?
Did you enjoy the $270 bath you took in the last 6 months due to missed executions on Main Street and miscommunications with Wall Street? I didn't and I've been invested un AAPL a lot longer than you.
That did suck, but I got in a 65ish, pre-split so I'm still way ahead.
Not realistic? They just have to miss one quarter, let digitimes and Murdock keep doing their jobs, and Baam. Enough money for 50%.
Witch legal battles and why?
Did you even bother to read the link I posted? Can you not see the obvious analogy!?
As to your points about "one quarter", "Digitimes", "Murdock", "Baam" and "money for 50%" I have no clue what you're going on about. (And here, I thought you prefaced your original question with "Serious question"! )
Did you enjoy the $270 bath you took in the last 6 months due to missed executions on Main Street and miscommunications with Wall Street? I didn't and I've been invested un AAPL a lot longer than you.
If the analysts really want to see the stock value improve its simple. They need to just Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform about what Apple might release, should release etc.
Did you even bother to read the link I posted? Can you not see the obvious analogy!?
As to your points about "one quarter", "Digitimes", "Murdock", "Baam" and "money for 50%" I have no clue what you're going on about. (And here, I thought you prefaced your original question with "Serious question"! )
1º the link did not work.
2º -miss expectations for the quarter-let the round of negative rumors continue-let the owner of WSJ keep spreading FUD and the stock collapses. Then, Apple has enough money to go private.
My questions were clear.
But yes, I would like that. People that understand 0 about how Apple operates (and has been doing since 98) shouldn't been allowed to own a single share of APPL.
There's other ways to pay/motivate executives in Apple. Being the ones changing the world is one of them.
Average costumers? They already do that, by providing the best products.
Shareholders? For what?
That is, of course, nonsense.
First, the possibility of raising well in excess of $500 B to takeover the company is remote. If they did, it would be with a bunch of financers, so management would be complex. Finally, even if they pulled it of, it eliminates any possibility for average people to invest and make money in the company. I believe in Apple for the long run and have quite a bit. Your logic makes no sense. One of the following must be true:
1. You think Apple is a good investment. If so, losing the ability to invest would not be a good thing.
2. You think Apple is NOT a good investment. If so, you simply don't invest.
Massive stock buybacks is a temporary thing. A dividend will be more beneficial in the long term. Also, buybacks doesnt bring the income funds in Apple. Apple is shifting from a growth stock to a value stock, and to do this you need to allow income funds to get in.
Nonsense. Dividends go on only as long as the company wants them to go on. A stock buyback has a permanent effect of reducing the number of shares. No matter what the earnings, they are divided by a smaller number of shares.
While dividends could get income funds interested, buying back shares gets the value funds interested. It's a wash.
What is your logic for why Apple needs to "bring the income funds"? I submit it's unnecessary, a complete waste of time, and your post is Exhibit A. (The "income" people just want more and more; it's precisely the types I am suggesting Apple does not want or need as an investor clientele).
What is your evidence -- based on actual, reported fundamentals, not self-referential and circular arguments like its P/E ratio, which could be the effect as much as the cause -- that Apple's growth has slowed? Relative to what/whom?
I agree. Apple needs long term investors. I think their current institutional ownership is far too high. Individuals are generally not going to trade a stock as frequently or as quickly as institutions, nor are they as likely to play year-end games. A 10:1 stock split would go a long way toward solving this problem.
First, the possibility of raising well in excess of $500 B to takeover the company is remote. If they did, it would be with a bunch of financers, so management would be complex. Finally, even if they pulled it of, it eliminates any possibility for average people to invest and make money in the company. I believe in Apple for the long run and have quite a bit. Your logic makes no sense. One of the following must be true:
1. You think Apple is a good investment. If so, losing the ability to invest would not be a good thing.
2. You think Apple is NOT a good investment. If so, you simply don't invest.
Wishing for it to go private is illogical.
Nonsense. Dividends go on only as long as the company wants them to go on. A stock buyback has a permanent effect of reducing the number of shares. No matter what the earnings, they are divided by a smaller number of shares.
While dividends could get income funds interested, buying back shares gets the value funds interested. It's a wash.
I agree. Apple needs long term investors. I think their current institutional ownership is far too high. Individuals are generally not going to trade a stock as frequently or as quickly as institutions, nor are they as likely to play year-end games. A 10:1 stock split would go a long way toward solving this problem.
All the bad news are related to the stock/ways to manipulate it and how APPL has been working. that's why i wish that.
All the bad news are related to the stock/ways to manipulate it and how APPL has been working. that's why i wish that.
It still makes no sense. If you don't want to pay attention to stock manipulation, you simply don't buy the stock. No need for it to be taken private - and going private would do you absolutely no good.
What is your logic for why Apple needs to "bring the income funds"? I submit it's unnecessary, a complete waste of time, and your post is Exhibit A. (The "income" people just want more and more; it's precisely the types I am suggesting Apple does not want or need as an investor clientele).
What is your evidence -- based on actual, reported fundamentals, not self-referential and circular arguments like its P/E ratio, which could be the effect as much as the cause -- that Apple's growth has slowed? Relative to what/whom?
1. Apple is shiftting from growth ownership to value ownership. This makes hedge funds dump Apple in favor of something else. Apple has a huge market cap, which make it reach a point where everyone who can own it already does, which in turn stall the stock price. A yield allow more "funds" to be able to hold some Apple.
2. If you cant see apple yoy growth decelation to a complete halt I dont know what to tell you. Look at the YoY EPS numbers and reduce margins. The reduction in margins is eating up the increase in revenu so the net results is zero EPS growth.
1. Apple is shiftting from growth ownership to value ownership. This makes hedge funds dump Apple in favor of something else. Apple has a huge market cap, which make it reach a point where everyone who can own it already does, which in turn stall the stock price. A yield allow more "funds" to be able to hold some Apple.
2. If you cant see apple yoy growth decelation to a complete halt I dont know what to tell you. Look at the YoY EPS numbers and reduce margins. The reduction in margins is eating up the increase in revenu so the net results is zero EPS growth.
That only happens when they introduce new products, like the ton of products they introduced.
Margins will grow, like they always do. But even if growth was negative, the stock price still is too low based on any reasonable metric.
Did you enjoy the $270 bath you took in the last 6 months due to missed executions on Main Street and miscommunications with Wall Street? I didn't and I've been invested un AAPL a lot longer than you.
Did you enjoy the $270 rise before the fall based on miscommunications from the same Wall Street analysts?
Comments
Eff WS. The price dropped due to Apple "missing" outrageous WS expectations based on rumors and innuendo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ Web
Right, sure, why doesn't Tim Cook take AAPL private -- is that what you're suggesting?
But yes, I would like that.
As has been pointed numerous times before in this Forum, it is simply not realistic for Apple to go private.
Apart from the issue of its size and scope, what will ensue would be the mother of all legal battles (just witness what's starting with Dell -- see, e.g., http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324281004578354003145798658.html -- which would be miniscule in comparison).
A non-starter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Eff WS. The price dropped due to Apple "missing" outrageous WS expectations based on rumors and innuendo.
Then you should put your money where your mouth is, and buy. And hold.
Well I did buy in 2005 and am still holding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
There they go again. Yanking the chain for more dividends. This is what happens when you allow the dividend camel to get a nose in the cash tent. They are relentless.
Just do a massive share repurchase to keep as treasury stock, and get on with it. Apart from a myriad other pluses, it'll also clean out the stables, allowing all those who have a negative view of Apple to sell and get out.
Massive stock buybacks is a temporary thing. A dividend will be more beneficial in the long term. Also, buybacks doesnt bring the income funds in Apple. Apple is shifting from a growth stock to a value stock, and to do this you need to allow income funds to get in.
Currently the yield support a price of around $350 (yield > 3%) in a zero growth scenario. If Apple can rise the dividends and still continu to pile up cash then they should do it. I am not very optimistic on the next earings... Its pretty clear we will get negative growth for at least the next 2 quarters, which will floor the stock at the yield level + whatever "hopes of growth" investors are willing to give Apple, which is not much.
Apple is earning $44 per share per year. They are paying $10 / year in dividends. IF it would not be for the offshore income, they could double the dividends to $20 and still add 24$ per year to the pile. The problem is also negative growth, can Apple maintain that $44 for the next few years is the real question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Well I did buy in 2005 and am still holding.
Did you enjoy the $270 bath you took in the last 6 months due to missed executions on Main Street and miscommunications with Wall Street? I didn't and I've been invested un AAPL a lot longer than you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
As has been pointed numerous times before in this Forum, it is simply not realistic for Apple to go private.
Apart from the issue of its size and scope, what will ensue would be the mother of all legal battles (just witness what's starting with Dell -- see, e.g., http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324281004578354003145798658.html -- which would be miniscule in comparison).
A non-starter.
Not realistic? They just have to miss one quarter, let digitimes and Murdock keep doing their jobs, and Baam. Enough money for 50%.
Witch legal battles and why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ Web
Did you enjoy the $270 bath you took in the last 6 months due to missed executions on Main Street and miscommunications with Wall Street? I didn't and I've been invested un AAPL a lot longer than you.
Nobody enjoys that loss but if you want Apple to be "loyal" to Wall Street, isn't it better for you to sell AAPL and buy GOOG or whatever? If you bought the stock before 2005 you get a lum sum profit already. Apple is not Apple today by pleasing Wall Street. I think that is the main point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
Also, buybacks doesnt bring the income funds in Apple. Apple is shifting from a growth stock to a value stock, and to do this you need to allow income funds to get in.
What is your logic for why Apple needs to "bring the income funds"? I submit it's unnecessary, a complete waste of time, and your post is Exhibit A. (The "income" people just want more and more; it's precisely the types I am suggesting Apple does not want or need as an investor clientele).
What is your evidence -- based on actual, reported fundamentals, not self-referential and circular arguments like its P/E ratio, which could be the effect as much as the cause -- that Apple's growth has slowed? Relative to what/whom?
That did suck, but I got in a 65ish, pre-split so I'm still way ahead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
Not realistic? They just have to miss one quarter, let digitimes and Murdock keep doing their jobs, and Baam. Enough money for 50%.
Witch legal battles and why?
Did you even bother to read the link I posted? Can you not see the obvious analogy!?
As to your points about "one quarter", "Digitimes", "Murdock", "Baam" and "money for 50%" I have no clue what you're going on about. (And here, I thought you prefaced your original question with "Serious question"!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ Web
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Well I did buy in 2005 and am still holding.
Did you enjoy the $270 bath you took in the last 6 months due to missed executions on Main Street and miscommunications with Wall Street? I didn't and I've been invested un AAPL a lot longer than you.
It's only a "bath" if you had to sell.
If so, I feel badly for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Did you even bother to read the link I posted? Can you not see the obvious analogy!?
As to your points about "one quarter", "Digitimes", "Murdock", "Baam" and "money for 50%" I have no clue what you're going on about. (And here, I thought you prefaced your original question with "Serious question"!
1º the link did not work.
2º -miss expectations for the quarter-let the round of negative rumors continue-let the owner of WSJ keep spreading FUD and the stock collapses. Then, Apple has enough money to go private.
That is, of course, nonsense.
First, the possibility of raising well in excess of $500 B to takeover the company is remote. If they did, it would be with a bunch of financers, so management would be complex. Finally, even if they pulled it of, it eliminates any possibility for average people to invest and make money in the company. I believe in Apple for the long run and have quite a bit. Your logic makes no sense. One of the following must be true:
1. You think Apple is a good investment. If so, losing the ability to invest would not be a good thing.
2. You think Apple is NOT a good investment. If so, you simply don't invest.
Wishing for it to go private is illogical.
Nonsense. Dividends go on only as long as the company wants them to go on. A stock buyback has a permanent effect of reducing the number of shares. No matter what the earnings, they are divided by a smaller number of shares.
While dividends could get income funds interested, buying back shares gets the value funds interested. It's a wash.
I agree. Apple needs long term investors. I think their current institutional ownership is far too high. Individuals are generally not going to trade a stock as frequently or as quickly as institutions, nor are they as likely to play year-end games. A 10:1 stock split would go a long way toward solving this problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That is, of course, nonsense.
First, the possibility of raising well in excess of $500 B to takeover the company is remote. If they did, it would be with a bunch of financers, so management would be complex. Finally, even if they pulled it of, it eliminates any possibility for average people to invest and make money in the company. I believe in Apple for the long run and have quite a bit. Your logic makes no sense. One of the following must be true:
1. You think Apple is a good investment. If so, losing the ability to invest would not be a good thing.
2. You think Apple is NOT a good investment. If so, you simply don't invest.
Wishing for it to go private is illogical.
Nonsense. Dividends go on only as long as the company wants them to go on. A stock buyback has a permanent effect of reducing the number of shares. No matter what the earnings, they are divided by a smaller number of shares.
While dividends could get income funds interested, buying back shares gets the value funds interested. It's a wash.
I agree. Apple needs long term investors. I think their current institutional ownership is far too high. Individuals are generally not going to trade a stock as frequently or as quickly as institutions, nor are they as likely to play year-end games. A 10:1 stock split would go a long way toward solving this problem.
All the bad news are related to the stock/ways to manipulate it and how APPL has been working. that's why i wish that.
It still makes no sense. If you don't want to pay attention to stock manipulation, you simply don't buy the stock. No need for it to be taken private - and going private would do you absolutely no good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
What is your logic for why Apple needs to "bring the income funds"? I submit it's unnecessary, a complete waste of time, and your post is Exhibit A. (The "income" people just want more and more; it's precisely the types I am suggesting Apple does not want or need as an investor clientele).
What is your evidence -- based on actual, reported fundamentals, not self-referential and circular arguments like its P/E ratio, which could be the effect as much as the cause -- that Apple's growth has slowed? Relative to what/whom?
1. Apple is shiftting from growth ownership to value ownership. This makes hedge funds dump Apple in favor of something else. Apple has a huge market cap, which make it reach a point where everyone who can own it already does, which in turn stall the stock price. A yield allow more "funds" to be able to hold some Apple.
Reference: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-21/hedge-funds-boost-stock-bets-to-07-high-goldman-says.html
2. If you cant see apple yoy growth decelation to a complete halt I dont know what to tell you. Look at the YoY EPS numbers and reduce margins. The reduction in margins is eating up the increase in revenu so the net results is zero EPS growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
1. Apple is shiftting from growth ownership to value ownership. This makes hedge funds dump Apple in favor of something else. Apple has a huge market cap, which make it reach a point where everyone who can own it already does, which in turn stall the stock price. A yield allow more "funds" to be able to hold some Apple.
Reference: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-21/hedge-funds-boost-stock-bets-to-07-high-goldman-says.html
2. If you cant see apple yoy growth decelation to a complete halt I dont know what to tell you. Look at the YoY EPS numbers and reduce margins. The reduction in margins is eating up the increase in revenu so the net results is zero EPS growth.
That only happens when they introduce new products, like the ton of products they introduced.
Margins will grow, like they always do. But even if growth was negative, the stock price still is too low based on any reasonable metric.
Did you enjoy the $270 rise before the fall based on miscommunications from the same Wall Street analysts?