According to CNBC stock is down $4 pre-market. So I'll say again, a lot of good this $100B in goodies did for Apple. Because the bad keeps getting moved. Wall Street was screaming for increased dividend and buy backs, which they got, now they're wringing their hands over possibly no new product in the summer. Even though Apple never made any comments or promises on when new stuff would be coming. This morning on CNBC they had a guest on who just started following the stock in November. He said Apple needs a low cost phone for emerging markets AND needs to keep up their high margins.
I thought maybe the goodies Apple decided to hand back would maybe stabilize the stock, or we'd even see a bit of an uptick. And maybe we will over the coming weeks. But I also wouldn't be surprised if we see the stock fall closer to $300 because Wall Street just plain hates the company right now.
Funny, just as I was reading that, the NPR "Marketplace" headline was,"Apple tries to please Wall Street."
They ended the story with Tim Cook's hinted Autumn surprise; the stock is now up $2.
We need an essay by somebody we can trust on the benefit of Apple's stock buyback. I'm going to start with Warren Buffet's recent advice.
I wonder if part of the logic is to reduce the percentage of speculative infestors. Oops, I meant investors. We have a few of those around here, or at least they claim to be.
I was talking about buying it all in one day. Otherwise, the buyback is a good thing, though not as good as Einhorn's proposal.
Einhorn's proposal was absurd.
Preferred stock makes no sense. There's no real advantage to the company to having two classes of shares - it's simply a mechanism for Wall Street insiders to profit at the expense of individual investors.
Returning huge chunks of money via dividends is also greatly inferior to share buybacks. It simply creates tax problems for investors. For that reason, I didn't favor the previous dividend schemes and certainly not the increase in dividends. Apple is caving in to greedy Wall Street insiders who are simply trying to enrich themselves without any concern for what's right for the company.
And borrowing money so they can give it to investors is totally absurd. If you have cash and want to distribute it, that's one thing. But borrowing money to distribute it is an incredibly risky strategy which is not in the company's interest (nor that of long term investors).
Preferred stock makes no sense. There's no real advantage to the company to having two classes of shares - it's simply a mechanism for Wall Street insiders to profit at the expense of individual investors.
Returning huge chunks of money via dividends is also greatly inferior to share buybacks. It simply creates tax problems for investors. For that reason, I didn't favor the previous dividend schemes and certainly not the increase in dividends. Apple is caving in to greedy Wall Street insiders who are simply trying to enrich themselves without any concern for what's right for the company.
And borrowing money so they can give it to investors is totally absurd. If you have cash and want to distribute it, that's one thing. But borrowing money to distribute it is an incredibly risky strategy which is not in the company's interest (nor that of long term investors).
I never understood why one would care what tax rate they'd pay on free money. I'd rather have some of the free cash than none.
Preferred stock makes no sense. There's no real advantage to the company to having two classes of shares - it's simply a mechanism for Wall Street insiders to profit at the expense of individual investors.
Returning huge chunks of money via dividends is also greatly inferior to share buybacks. It simply creates tax problems for investors. For that reason, I didn't favor the previous dividend schemes and certainly not the increase in dividends. Apple is caving in to greedy Wall Street insiders who are simply trying to enrich themselves without any concern for what's right for the company.
And borrowing money so they can give it to investors is totally absurd. If you have cash and want to distribute it, that's one thing. But borrowing money to distribute it is an incredibly risky strategy which is not in the company's interest (nor that of long term investors).
I am sorry, you don't have ANY idea what you are talking about.
And borrowing money so they can give it to investors is totally absurd. If you have cash and want to distribute it, that's one thing. But borrowing money to distribute it is an incredibly risky strategy which is not in the company's interest (nor that of long term investors).
You'd better hurry up and tell Tim Cook, because that's exactly what he said they're going to do.
Most of Apple's cash is overseas.
It's a lot cheaper to borrow money at today's US rates, than to pay the taxes to bring that cash into the US.
Analysts say that basically, Apple is betting that there'll be a tax amnesty sometime in the future, and it'll all work out.
I am sorry, you don't have ANY idea what you are talking about.
I am sorry, you don't have ANY creds in hand to actually make that statement (to anyone else but yourself).
You, who characterized Apple's "cash hoard" as a bunch of money sitting in a pile gathering dust and losing value (proving beyond ALL doubt that Tim Cook and Peter Oppenheimer are financial incompetents).
Yeah… right. That...
So now we're supposed to believe you are qualified to make the above judgement…? Bwaaa ha ha.
I am sorry, you don't have ANY creds in hand to actually make that statement (to anyone else but yourself).
You, who characterized Apple's "cash hoard" as a bunch of money sitting in a pile gathering dust and losing value (proving beyond ALL doubt that Tim Cook and Peter Oppenheimer are financial incompetents).
Yeah… right. That...
So now we're supposed to believe you are qualified to make the above judgement…? Bwaaa ha ha.
And what WAS the pile of cash doing? Please enlighten me, since you know so much more about it.
I personally would rather have the $60 billion given out as dividends over a 21/2 year period. If I had 100 shares of AAPL and received such a dividend, I would receive $865 each quarter ($2.65 reg dividend plus my cut of the $60 . I would happily pay the income tax. Then I could use what's left to either buy more Aapl stock or some other company. In contrast, with the share buy back program, when its all over, I'll have a 100/850,000,000 share of the company rather than a 100/1,000,000,000 share. That doesn't excite me as much as getting a check for $865 each quarter. And given the reaction to the company's announcement yesterday, I'd say I'm in the majority.
I personally would rather have the $60 billion given out as dividends over a 21/2 year period. If I had 100 shares of AAPL and received such a dividend, I would receive $865 each quarter ($2.65 reg dividend plus my cut of the $60 . I would happily pay the income tax. Then I could use what's left to either buy more Aapl stock or some other company. In contrast, with the share buy back program, when its all over, I'll have a 100/850,000,000 share of the company rather than a 100/1,000,000,000 share. That doesn't excite me as much as getting a check for $865 each quarter. And given the reaction to the company's announcement yesterday, I'd say I'm in the majority.
You're not looking at this the right way then. Buyback is much better on the long term.
That 2.65 dividend, instead of being split 1,000,000,000 ways, its being split 850,000,000 ways. So each share is worth more. At 100 shares, your check will be $312, an increase of $47.
It's important to note that this increase is permanent (as long as aapl pays a dividend). So, in 13 quarters, you would have made more than a one time 600 dollar payout.
What is particularly amusing is that Apple did not even get the highest credit rating. Talk about loss of confidence...
While that does seem a bit odd at first glance, there are only four (I believe) AAA rated companies in the U.S. right now: ADP, Exxon, J&J and (wait for it!)... Microsoft. I haven't yet dug through the interwebs to determine the logic behind Microsoft's debt being rated AAA and Apple's being AA+.
You're not looking at this the right way then. Buyback is much better on the long term.
That 2.65 dividend, instead of being split 1,000,000,000 ways, its being split 850,000,000 ways. So each share is worth more. At 100 shares, your check will be $312, an increase of $47.
It's important to note that this increase is permanent (as long as aapl pays a dividend). So, in 13 quarters, you would have made more than a one time 600 dollar payout.
I'm not sure that I would look at any dividend increase (or decrease) as being "permanent". Each quarter the board determines and declares a dividend. It could be higher, lower or the same as previous quarters. What I would say is that APPL's dividend at this payout level is relatively safe.
As a shareholder, I'm not that unhappy right now. I'd be happier at $650/share, but that's water under the bridge for right now. From a financial standpoint, I believe the stock has probably established a floor of sorts around $400 and there shouldn't be much more downside... unless the guy in the big chair begins impersonating Steve Ballmer on a daily basis. But ration and reason aside, as an Apple fan, I am jonesing for more cool, new, whiz-bang products and software, just like every other Apple fan. And to be honest, products that recapture the public's attention should also support the stock. But the most important thing right now is to not do anything (else) that results in any more apologies or egg on the face. Cook does need to get a handle on that situation... for PR reasons, if for no other reason.
What is particularly amusing is that Apple did not even get the highest credit rating. Talk about loss of confidence...
"Loss" of confidence? Did they DROP from a previous triple A rating? Only Nations and a very VERY few corporations have enjoyed a full AAA rating… please...
The fact that they have an AA+ rating flies in the face of your comment. That alone shows huge confidence in the strength of the company. Why are you so constantly and cynically and negatively chipping away here?
And what WAS the pile of cash doing? Please enlighten me, since you know so much more about it.
I'm not likely to "enlighten" you, but I can explain my opinion…
There isn't a 'past tense' there. Their "Cash Reserves" ARE held in Marketable Securities, et al…? Those earn interest and other returns. Typically those earnings more than offset any 'losses' due to inflation, etc. That's the most competent way to manage Cash Reserves. And it's that simple, really.
It's the opposite of how you characterized it, which was something like "...sitting there losing value… blah blah… financial incompetence…" Um, no?
I'm not saying they aren't keeping a somewhat excess reserve. But really, how much is too much? That's certainly open to valid debate (all assumptions aside). As I said, I like their plan for a larger dividend and capital return of $100 billion over the next 30 months. Unlike you, I'm also fine with the size of their reserve being as large as it is, and that it might even grow during the next 30 months. Whatever. That isn't what I'm going to judge their overall performance and position on.
Again it's probably about perception. You see it as a "cash pile", which is actually a gross misrepresentation. I probably see it more as Apple does. As a Cash Reserve.
Cash Reserves should be treated as exactly that. You know, as Reserves? So when a cash reserve "sits", it's doing exactly what it should. Remaining safely on hand for a time when it's needed. But it isn't losing value in the meantime, as you implied, due to those securities earning over time.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic
2 billion this month starting according to Oppenhiemer. But I agree it would be a great big MIDDLE FINGER to wall street.
It's a great way to piss away money. Sort of like hitting yourself on the head, just to show "them".
It's not pissing it away it's reinvesting it. With that many stocks off the market it increases the value of the ones available.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
It's not pissing it away it's reinvesting it. With that many stocks off the market it increases the value of the ones available.
I was talking about buying it all in one day. Otherwise, the buyback is a good thing, though not as good as Einhorn's proposal.
Funny, just as I was reading that, the NPR "Marketplace" headline was,"Apple tries to please Wall Street."
They ended the story with Tim Cook's hinted Autumn surprise; the stock is now up $2.
We need an essay by somebody we can trust on the benefit of Apple's stock buyback. I'm going to start with Warren Buffet's recent advice.
I wonder if part of the logic is to reduce the percentage of speculative infestors. Oops, I meant investors. We have a few of those around here, or at least they claim to be.
They're not doing it all in one day. They're spreading it out over 2 1/2 years.
Einhorn's proposal was absurd.
Preferred stock makes no sense. There's no real advantage to the company to having two classes of shares - it's simply a mechanism for Wall Street insiders to profit at the expense of individual investors.
Returning huge chunks of money via dividends is also greatly inferior to share buybacks. It simply creates tax problems for investors. For that reason, I didn't favor the previous dividend schemes and certainly not the increase in dividends. Apple is caving in to greedy Wall Street insiders who are simply trying to enrich themselves without any concern for what's right for the company.
And borrowing money so they can give it to investors is totally absurd. If you have cash and want to distribute it, that's one thing. But borrowing money to distribute it is an incredibly risky strategy which is not in the company's interest (nor that of long term investors).
I never understood why one would care what tax rate they'd pay on free money. I'd rather have some of the free cash than none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
They're not doing it all in one day. They're spreading it out over 2 1/2 years.
Sigh. There was a previous post suggesting Apple do it in a day as an FU gesture, and my post was a response to that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Einhorn's proposal was absurd.
Preferred stock makes no sense. There's no real advantage to the company to having two classes of shares - it's simply a mechanism for Wall Street insiders to profit at the expense of individual investors.
Returning huge chunks of money via dividends is also greatly inferior to share buybacks. It simply creates tax problems for investors. For that reason, I didn't favor the previous dividend schemes and certainly not the increase in dividends. Apple is caving in to greedy Wall Street insiders who are simply trying to enrich themselves without any concern for what's right for the company.
And borrowing money so they can give it to investors is totally absurd. If you have cash and want to distribute it, that's one thing. But borrowing money to distribute it is an incredibly risky strategy which is not in the company's interest (nor that of long term investors).
I am sorry, you don't have ANY idea what you are talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
And borrowing money so they can give it to investors is totally absurd. If you have cash and want to distribute it, that's one thing. But borrowing money to distribute it is an incredibly risky strategy which is not in the company's interest (nor that of long term investors).
You'd better hurry up and tell Tim Cook, because that's exactly what he said they're going to do.
Most of Apple's cash is overseas.
It's a lot cheaper to borrow money at today's US rates, than to pay the taxes to bring that cash into the US.
Analysts say that basically, Apple is betting that there'll be a tax amnesty sometime in the future, and it'll all work out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
I am sorry, you don't have ANY idea what you are talking about.
I am sorry, you don't have ANY creds in hand to actually make that statement (to anyone else but yourself).
You, who characterized Apple's "cash hoard" as a bunch of money sitting in a pile gathering dust and losing value (proving beyond ALL doubt that Tim Cook and Peter Oppenheimer are financial incompetents).
Yeah… right. That...
So now we're supposed to believe you are qualified to make the above judgement…? Bwaaa ha ha.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
You'd better hurry up and tell Tim Cook, because that's exactly what he said they're going to do.
Most of Apple's cash is overseas.
It's a lot cheaper to borrow money at today's US rates, than to pay the taxes to bring that cash into the US.
Analysts say that basically, Apple is betting that there'll be a tax amnesty sometime in the future, and it'll all work out.
What is particularly amusing is that Apple did not even get the highest credit rating. Talk about loss of confidence...
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical
I am sorry, you don't have ANY creds in hand to actually make that statement (to anyone else but yourself).
You, who characterized Apple's "cash hoard" as a bunch of money sitting in a pile gathering dust and losing value (proving beyond ALL doubt that Tim Cook and Peter Oppenheimer are financial incompetents).
Yeah… right. That...
So now we're supposed to believe you are qualified to make the above judgement…? Bwaaa ha ha.
And what WAS the pile of cash doing? Please enlighten me, since you know so much more about it.
You're not looking at this the right way then. Buyback is much better on the long term.
That 2.65 dividend, instead of being split 1,000,000,000 ways, its being split 850,000,000 ways. So each share is worth more. At 100 shares, your check will be $312, an increase of $47.
It's important to note that this increase is permanent (as long as aapl pays a dividend). So, in 13 quarters, you would have made more than a one time 600 dollar payout.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
What is particularly amusing is that Apple did not even get the highest credit rating. Talk about loss of confidence...
While that does seem a bit odd at first glance, there are only four (I believe) AAA rated companies in the U.S. right now: ADP, Exxon, J&J and (wait for it!)... Microsoft. I haven't yet dug through the interwebs to determine the logic behind Microsoft's debt being rated AAA and Apple's being AA+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
You're not looking at this the right way then. Buyback is much better on the long term.
That 2.65 dividend, instead of being split 1,000,000,000 ways, its being split 850,000,000 ways. So each share is worth more. At 100 shares, your check will be $312, an increase of $47.
It's important to note that this increase is permanent (as long as aapl pays a dividend). So, in 13 quarters, you would have made more than a one time 600 dollar payout.
I'm not sure that I would look at any dividend increase (or decrease) as being "permanent". Each quarter the board determines and declares a dividend. It could be higher, lower or the same as previous quarters. What I would say is that APPL's dividend at this payout level is relatively safe.
As a shareholder, I'm not that unhappy right now. I'd be happier at $650/share, but that's water under the bridge for right now. From a financial standpoint, I believe the stock has probably established a floor of sorts around $400 and there shouldn't be much more downside... unless the guy in the big chair begins impersonating Steve Ballmer on a daily basis. But ration and reason aside, as an Apple fan, I am jonesing for more cool, new, whiz-bang products and software, just like every other Apple fan. And to be honest, products that recapture the public's attention should also support the stock. But the most important thing right now is to not do anything (else) that results in any more apologies or egg on the face. Cook does need to get a handle on that situation... for PR reasons, if for no other reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
What is particularly amusing is that Apple did not even get the highest credit rating. Talk about loss of confidence...
"Loss" of confidence? Did they DROP from a previous triple A rating? Only Nations and a very VERY few corporations have enjoyed a full AAA rating… please...
The fact that they have an AA+ rating flies in the face of your comment. That alone shows huge confidence in the strength of the company. Why are you so constantly and cynically and negatively chipping away here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
And what WAS the pile of cash doing? Please enlighten me, since you know so much more about it.
I'm not likely to "enlighten" you, but I can explain my opinion…
There isn't a 'past tense' there. Their "Cash Reserves" ARE held in Marketable Securities, et al…? Those earn interest and other returns. Typically those earnings more than offset any 'losses' due to inflation, etc. That's the most competent way to manage Cash Reserves. And it's that simple, really.
It's the opposite of how you characterized it, which was something like "...sitting there losing value… blah blah… financial incompetence…" Um, no?
I'm not saying they aren't keeping a somewhat excess reserve. But really, how much is too much? That's certainly open to valid debate (all assumptions aside). As I said, I like their plan for a larger dividend and capital return of $100 billion over the next 30 months. Unlike you, I'm also fine with the size of their reserve being as large as it is, and that it might even grow during the next 30 months. Whatever. That isn't what I'm going to judge their overall performance and position on.
Again it's probably about perception. You see it as a "cash pile", which is actually a gross misrepresentation. I probably see it more as Apple does. As a Cash Reserve.
Cash Reserves should be treated as exactly that. You know, as Reserves? So when a cash reserve "sits", it's doing exactly what it should. Remaining safely on hand for a time when it's needed. But it isn't losing value in the meantime, as you implied, due to those securities earning over time.
Clear enough for you?