How much $AAPL has Apple eaten with its $44 billion buyback appetite?

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 57
    Apple is actively one of the most profitable companies around that has to buy back its own shares because no big investors will touch the stock. Apple is one of the worst performing stocks on Wall Street in 2013. Companies like Google and Amazon don't even offer dividends and they're certainly not buying their stock back and yet those companies' share prices continue to climb. Meanwhile, Tim Cook sits around scratching his head wondering why he can't put an ounce of shareholder value back into Apple. Apple bought $16 billion worth of shares back and yet the share price still looks like crap. Tim Cook can't even get the stock out of the red for 2013 while the rest of the market is up 20%. What's wrong with this picture.

    Tim Cook is no longer running Apple. So-called analysts like Misek and Munster are running Apple. What Munster says carries more weight on Wall Street than what Tim Cook says. Munster appears on TV and basically called Tim Cook a liar about iPhone sales and Tim Cook had nothing to say. That doesn't boost shareholder confidence at all. Tim can't let some two-bit, charlatan analyst bad-mouth him like that and get away with it. Munster acts like he knows more about Apple's sales than Tim Cook. It's no wonder investors are treating Apple like some plague. Jeff Bezos would never put up with that sort of crap. Analysts are taking all sorts of FUD-spewing liberties with Apple.

    Don't be an ass. Tim Cook is doing an amazing job, just like he did when he the stock reached it's all time high and and jut like he did when he took over for Jobs temporarily when the Stock had reached a huge low under Jobs.
  • Reply 22 of 57
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,719member
    interdyne wrote: »
    Apple would own itself. It would become self aware on August 29th 2017 at 02:14 am Eastern Time. Apple would then launch its nuclear missiles at Russia to incite a counterattack against the humans who, in a panic, tried to short it.

    Siri = skynet.
    maestro64 wrote: »
    You know your right, today no CEO runs it company, wall street does. Another person ask if Apple has to legal talk to analysis and the answer is no, they are only required to make full public disclosures of its action and provide the financials. The only reason CEO have to talk to analysis is to promote their company and stock. However, Cook is doing no different than Steve, saying very little and not responding to the FUD unless the buying consumer who really pays apples bills would be ultimately affect or would change then buy habits if they did not respond.

    The only different now is when Steve was there people believed in him since the numbers spoke for themselves and there were plenty of analysis who said they would fail but Mutual fund manager and such could not ignore apple since if price kept rising in spite of what any analysis said. I know some very large government pension plans were complaining to the Mutual fund manager why they were not investing heavily in Apple when that happen the stock began raising faster. Today the Analysis took back control and they are basically blackballing Apple unless they do what they want. This tactic did not work on Steve, but Cook has already gone down the slippery slop when he announced the buy back and dividend. We all know Steve would never had agreed.  He is now in the hand of the analysis and they will squeeze like crazy.

    Another "Steve would never..." post.
  • Reply 23 of 57
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,453member
    It's all good, the stock price will drop soon, thanks to iOS 7 giving users Vertigo and motion sockness. So Tim Cook can buy up all the stock he wants. LOL


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/26/ios-7-design-motion-sickness_n_3995898.html
  • Reply 24 of 57
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post



     



    Tim Cook is no longer running Apple. So-called analysts like Misek and Munster are running Apple.  

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

     

     

    You know your right, today no CEO runs it company, wall street does. 


    Respectfully,  not sure this is accurate-  Misek and Munster in part. run the media circus.   Along with the likes of CNBC and WSJ,  FOX etc who churn out the un-reality show.    They do not RUN Apple.  

    We can and should chose to turn this noise off.    Suggesting that TC should respond is purposeless and if he did, only validates the circus.   However,   I suspect he is quitly responding in another ways;   capably guiding the company with well positioned products  and superior services,    taking advantage of the value in Apple shares with a significant buyback ....   A year from now he will likely be regarded as a brilliant strategist by skillfully navigating this media madness.    As for the Media Wonks,  no such fate awaits.   

  • Reply 25 of 57
    jakebjakeb Posts: 557member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jonshf View Post

     

     

    Aren't you misunderstanding the concept of a company going private? It doesn't go private by buying its own shares. That would be kind of bizarre because then no one would own the company.

     

    A company goes private when a small group of people buy all the shares and take it off the public stock exchange. They are the ones that would have to raise $400B+. Who has the ability to do that?


     

    It's not typical, but it's entirely possible for a company to own itself and be governed by a board of directors. They could choose to issue privately held shares, but it wouldn't be a legal requirement. 

  • Reply 26 of 57
    jungmark wrote: »
    Another "Steve would never..." post.

    I expect someone to honestly post "Steve Job would never have wanted Tim Cook as Apple's CEO" at some point.
  • Reply 27 of 57
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,719member
    mac_128 wrote: »
    It's all good, the stock price will drop soon, thanks to iOS 7 giving users Vertigo and motion sockness. So Tim Cook can buy up all the stock he wants. LOL


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/26/ios-7-design-motion-sickness_n_3995898.html

    It's affected me but Android would make me sicker.
  • Reply 28 of 57
    I agree, Tim is doing a great job! After so much negativity about Apple's lack of innovation, Tim kept Apple focused on its strategy and that ficus is starting to win the race for Apple.

    Careful, I hear Samsung has a filodendron that could put them on top.
  • Reply 30 of 57
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,453member
    jungmark wrote: »
    It's affected me but Android would make me sicker.
    I'm surprised we haven't seen an article about it here yet. Every major news outl and tech blog has picked up this story. It's going to be the next antenna gate. People are already threatening class action lawsuits if Apple doesn't get on this "problem".
  • Reply 31 of 57
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by theCore View Post

     

     

    Respectfully,  not sure this is accurate-  Misek and Munster in part. run the media circus.   Along with the likes of CNBC and WSJ,  FOX etc who churn out the un-reality show.    They do not RUN Apple.  

    We can and should chose to turn this noise off.    Suggesting that TC should respond is purposeless and if he did, only validates the circus.   However,   I suspect he is quitly responding in another ways;   capably guiding the company with well positioned products  and superior services,    taking advantage of the value in Apple shares with a significant buyback ....   A year from now he will likely be regarded as a brilliant strategist by skillfully navigating this media madness.    As for the Media Wonks,  no such fate awaits.   


     

    Actually those guys are analyst who happen to have a media outlet, but their analysis which they product and large mutual fund manager buy and other large institutional investors buy which helps make buy and sell decisions. We only hearing what these guys publicly state you are not seeing their full analysis of a company like Apple. You have to ask yourself if this the public view what does the private view look like. They have to be the same since their customers are not going to like if they are making different public statements verse their analysis.

     

    I work for a fast growing Start up in the 90's and it was doing very well, however, not well enough for the analysis who followed the company. Since we were small, information flowed pretty freely internally to the company as one would expect. One day there was new direction for the company, most of those new directions center around these so call top performer metrics which all the analysis talk about. Forget the fact the the company was making money and we were meeting our customer expectations. The analysis felt our metrics were not where they needed to be. So big initiatives in the company to improve the metrics. As it was communicated to the entire management team everyone need to focus on these metrics, otherwise, the analysis would to be recommending the company's stock to large institutional investors. Why was this important to management and the employees, we were all stock holders, the founders and the employees own 50% of the companies stock since it did not use VC money to get started and the employees were well rewarded.

     

    Needless to say we ran around trying to improve our metrics so the analysis would be happy and they would recommend the stock in the end it hurt the company, since we no longer did was was important for the customer but was was good for the metrics. Everyone quarter the analysis would come back and say okay that metric is okay but now this metric is important. At one point they came back and told the company to issue more share (which diluted it value) and this was done since they did not like how much ownership the employees had, they was all us to be diluted out the business. So basically our CEO stop running the company and let the market analysis run the company.

     

    Luck for us this was during the Dotcom buying frenzy and the company was bought out by a very large company for all cash and it was the larges $ buy out of a start company of its time during the 90's so we all got cashed out and it created a large number of Millionaire. and created a number of spin off companies. But the analysis rush back in and mess with the new owners to the point of putting it out of business since they spend more time trying to fix metrics verse selling and meeting customer expectation.

     

    When company start managing their business by the metric of wall street it is doom to be irrelevant. Apple is the most classic example of this, they doing well, but the analysis hate them since the wall street metrics are not being met.

  • Reply 32 of 57
    Hmm, maybe Apple are spreading FUD about themselves through paid analysts to drive the price down so they can buy shares back at a lower price before recovering the price and selling them on for a massive profit.
  • Reply 33 of 57
    ipenipen Posts: 410member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post



    Apple is actively one of the most profitable companies around that has to buy back its own shares because no big investors will touch the stock. Apple is one of the worst performing stocks on Wall Street in 2013. Companies like Google and Amazon don't even offer dividends and they're certainly not buying their stock back and yet those companies' share prices continue to climb. Meanwhile, Tim Cook sits around scratching his head wondering why he can't put an ounce of shareholder value back into Apple. Apple bought $16 billion worth of shares back and yet the share price still looks like crap. Tim Cook can't even get the stock out of the red for 2013 while the rest of the market is up 20%. What's wrong with this picture.



    Tim Cook is no longer running Apple. So-called analysts like Misek and Munster are running Apple. What Munster says carries more weight on Wall Street than what Tim Cook says. Munster appears on TV and basically called Tim Cook a liar about iPhone sales and Tim Cook had nothing to say. That doesn't boost shareholder confidence at all. Tim can't let some two-bit, charlatan analyst bad-mouth him like that and get away with it. Munster acts like he knows more about Apple's sales than Tim Cook. It's no wonder investors are treating Apple like some plague. Jeff Bezos would never put up with that sort of crap. Analysts are taking all sorts of FUD-spewing liberties with Apple.

     

    Well said.  Without the buyback program, the stock price will be even lower than what it is now.  Apple needs more shareholder relation experts' help.

  • Reply 34 of 57
    leavingthebig said:

    "Is Apple legally required to speak to analysts each quarter? If not, the company could make this quarter it's last. Even better would be for the company to announce last quarter was the last time."

    I think one problem here is that Apple an extremely large capitalization and the economy is moving slowly. Without really large inflows of capital it is very hard to move the stock price upward in any meaningful manner. Cutting off Wall Street's access to the managements expectations about the business will not help here. The difficulty of raising the price is compounded by how many stock owners have earned extremely large profits over the last 7 or 8 years. The actually percentage of stock that trades each day and sets the price for the company is a very small slice of the overall company. Average volume is just over 20 million shares, or 2% of the stock outstanding. Given the rise in algorithmic trading, the actual number of trades that are held over the long term is more like 1% (a quick google link said 3 different numbers with 50% being the lowest guess). So all it takes is slightly more than one percent of the stock owners to want to sell the business on any given day to drop the price. To keep it rising you would need an inflow of cash of $4.82 billion at current prices to keep the price the same. That works out to $1.2 trillion per year assuming none of those shares are traded multiple times a year. I would guess that again at least half of the remaining transactions are short term. Still $600 Billion is no small amount of cash necessary to keep a business's stock price high, especially when the economy is not flush with extra cash.
  • Reply 35 of 57

    Appreciate this insight,    the curtain is drawn back just a little further-

  • Reply 36 of 57
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by theCore View Post

     

    Appreciate this insight,    the curtain is drawn back just a little further-  


         addressed to  Maestro64

  • Reply 37 of 57

    Why do you not proof read your posts? :no:

  • Reply 38 of 57
    nceencee Posts: 837member
    Wouldn't a stock split be a good thing?
  • Reply 39 of 57
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GTR View Post



    I would absolutely LOVE for Apple to go private at some point in the future.



    Absolutely LOVE.

     

    Why would you? Why do you think that would be good?

     

    And on a different note, I make the friendly suggestion that you lay off the crack. Apple could never "go private" as you fantasize. They aren't exactly a tiny "Dell" fallen on hard times that can be snapped up for a pittance.

  • Reply 40 of 57
    jonshf> "Aren't you misunderstanding the concept of a company going private? It doesn't go private by buying its own shares. That would be kind of bizarre because then no one would own the company."

    I'm sure you're a nice person, jonshf. It's not your fault you think this. It's our lousy educational system. You are innocent. I still like you.
Sign In or Register to comment.