?? I don't see where sog35 made that assumption at all.
Apologies. I should have worded it differently. The statement of Apple being more aggressive with it's buy back can be construed that Apple wouldn't have been more aggressive without Icahn being a part of the conversation. My opinion is that Apple is more aggressive when it sees fit. They increased the initial buy back to the $60b without Icahn being in the conversation. Even Icahn said that the release by ISS influenced his decision to pull back.
I would argue that he actually did. The board has been pretty slow and I really believe it was the spotlight that Icahn brought to the problem that got the company to be more aggressive. He put pressure on Apple where there was none. Apple is now being more aggressive. Glad to see he is backing off now that Apple is taking the issue more seriously. I expect him to stay in the stock long term as there is no reason to get out.
You're flat out incorrect. Apple stated long before Icahn, they planned to buy back $60B in stock. This latest chunk timing coincides with their financials and market fluctuations. He's had no effect on Apple's share buyback. Both of Carl's suggestions were ridiculous, including the original and modified figures.
His open letter claiming 'victory' is a face saving PR tactic, after months of clamoring on Twitter like a stupid clown. He needs to keep up appearances for his investor associates, and for them to forget his latest failure to manipulate the market thru press hype. Wall St. media is typically very susceptible to this kind of chicanery, and its a very good thing Apple is not.
You're flat out incorrect. Apple stated long before Icahn, they planned to buy back $60B in stock. This latest chunk timing coincides with their financials and market fluctuations. He's had no effect on Apple's share buyback. Both of Carl's suggestions were ridiculous, including the original and modified figures.
His open letter claiming 'victory' is a face saving PR tactic, after months of clamoring on Twitter like a stupid clown. He needs to keep up appearances for his investor associates, and for them to forget his latest failure to manipulate the market thru press hype. Wall St. media is typically very susceptible to this kind of chicanery, and its a very good thing Apple is not.
He does need to keep up any kind of appearances, since he has made a boatload of money with his Apple stake, which is all his "investor associates" care about (correctly). Any suggestion that Icahn's activism made no difference to Apple's behavior is absurd (and in any case, counter-factual statements are notoriously hard to verify).
Thanks for your overall support, but not exactly. The $14B buyback wasn't about testosterone, and it wasn't about giving the finger to anybody. It was an opportunity. Imagine how we would feel if the company had dropped $14B two weeks earlier and the market price subsequently dropped as it did. Again, let's take the emotion out of it. When good judgement indicates that the market has erred in underpricing the stock, that's the time to buy.
Yep. Also the fact that it's Q1 in a new year, rather than part of last year's purchases.
He's full of it. Apple has already clearly stated their intentions. It's like advising Apple to release a new iPhone this year, then when they do, declaring victory and claiming you influenced their management.
He does need to keep up any kind of appearances, since he has made a boatload of money with his Apple stake, which is all his "investor associates" care about (correctly). Any suggestion that Icahn's activism made no difference to Apple's behavior is absurd (and in any case, counter-factual statements are notoriously hard to verify)
Apple already said they were buying back 60 billion over time. This 14 is part of that. Exactly how did Carl influence anything? His 100 billion number was insanely stupid for them to consider, as is his amended 50 billion for this year alone.
Carl's activism abilities has served him well to manipulate the short term fragile, reactionary nature of Wall St... in the past. With Yahoo and now Apple, that ability seems to have diminish
Throw around 'absurd' all you want, but it's clear my kung-fu is stronger.
My best advice for you, take a few days to reflect and think this through some more.
Ichan never wanted Apple to repratriate funds or take on 'insane debt'.
All Ichan was asking for was $50B buyback for 2014. Mr Cook has already spend $14B in the first month. To spend an additional $36B would not require Apple to repratriate funds or take on insane debt. They generate $45B in free cash flows a year and could easily pay out the $36B by floating another $16B bond like they did last year.
That would make total long-term debt at $32B which is not insane.
The interest paid on the bonds would be about 2% which is actually lower than the dividend yield.
So Apple would actually make money issuing more bonds.
Apple has $20B remaining for the buyback of $60B.
I'm almost certain they will increase the $60B total to $80B or even $100B in March or April.
I should have been more clear. I don't think Apple is of the mindset of taking on more debt unless absolutely necessary, especially long term debt. Sure the interest paid would be less than the dividend yield and they would actually make money, it's still debt though. The markets that Apple competes in are volatile and while Apple's free cash flow is high right now, you never know how the world market is going to react; the iPhone 5c comes to mind. As confident as Apple can be in their product pipeline, you never know what is going to happen. Apple's stock price is irrational and there's no way of knowing how doubling their debt in less than 12 months would impact the stock. That is why ISS is backing Apple and not Icahn, as are two other large institutional investors...they think that Apple is tentatively on the right path.
I still stand by my original thought. All the showboating by Icahn makes it seems as though Apple didn't intend on taking the exact same steps that he is pushing for. Prior to Icahn investing, Apple increased its buy back and like you, I'm fairly confident in assuming they would increase it even beyond the original $60b they are at right now.
Thanks for your overall support, but not exactly. The $14B buyback wasn't about testosterone, and it wasn't about giving the finger to anybody. It was an opportunity. Imagine how we would feel if the company had dropped $14B two weeks earlier and the market price subsequently dropped as it did. Again, let's take the emotion out of it. When good judgement indicates that the market has erred in underpricing the stock, that's the time to buy.
I agree. It was the right time to expedite the existing plan and take advantage on the lower price.
Ichan never wanted Apple to repratriate funds or take on 'insane debt'.
All Ichan was asking for was $50B buyback for 2014. Mr Cook has already spend $14B in the first month. To spend an additional $36B would not require Apple to repratriate funds or take on insane debt. They generate $45B in free cash flows a year and could easily pay out the $36B by floating another $16B bond like they did last year.
That would make total long-term debt at $32B which is not insane.
The interest paid on the bonds would be about 2% which is actually lower than the dividend yield.
So Apple would actually make money issuing more bonds.
Apple has $20B remaining for the buyback of $60B.
I'm almost certain they will increase the $60B total to $80B or even $100B in March or April.
Much mental gymnastic folding, yet this logic still doesn't quite fit into the box.
Apple's past words and actions mean more than your speculation of future events.
I've go massive crystal balls, and they say Apple won't be taking on any debt to buy back stocks, because that's a stupid idea and their management has been very smart about handling their money.
I guess you like Carl, great... but he's the one offering the 'peace treaty' not the other way around. I'm not sure there's enough energy in the physical universe to muster this into a win for him. No need for tears, I'm sure he can afford to buy a nice hanky for the egg on his face.
Apple has bought back $40B from May2013 to Jan2014. That's an average of $4.4B a month which is actually MORE THAN ICHAN REQUESTED for 2014. LOL.
So are you calling Apple insanely stupid for buying back $40B in 9 months?
How is that less stupid than Ichan wanted $50B in 12 months?
LOL!
It's roughly 1/3 of their cash. Spending a third of your savings on dumb stuff is always 'insanely stupid'. They don't need the stock, and that cash is much more valuable for other options.
Apple already said they were buying back 60 billion over time. This 14 is part of that. Exactly how did Carl influence anything? His 100 billion number was insanely stupid for them to consider, as is his amended 50 billion for this year alone.
Carl's activism abilities has served him well to manipulate the short term fragile, reactionary nature of Wall St... in the past. With Yahoo and now Apple, that ability seems to have diminish
Throw around 'absurd' all you want, but it's clear my kung-fu is stronger.
My best advice for you, take a few days to reflect and think this through some more.
Ooh, condescending to your betters -- a great way to win an argument. Your post above is nonsense. There is nothing insane about $100BN buyback (I am not necessarily saying Apple should have done it, but it is not unreasonable), and Carl's activism made him close to $1BN in well under half a year (on a $3BN investment). Not what I would describe as failure. Why don't you take your own condescending advice?
Apple went from $0 debt to $16B and no one in Wall Street blinked an eye. An additional $16B debt won't matter because they will have over $200B in cash by the end of the year. The key is the debt is extremely cheap and it doesn't take a genius to see that Apple could pay off all the debt even if their free cash flows is CUT IN HALF.
Once a Republican president gets into the White House we will probably see a tax holiday. Then Apple can bring back all their cash and pay off all their debt.
In your last paragraph, what you probably mean is "Once a SANE president...". The current situation is completely absurd.
It's roughly 1/3 of their cash. Spending a third of your savings on dumb stuff is always 'insanely stupid'. They don't need the stock, and that cash is much more valuable for other options.
So you are saying that Apple stock is "dumb stuff"? If Apple thinks that AAPL is undervalued (and they would know better than anyone else), buying it seems like a wonderful idea, and in any case, cash earns nothing, or close to nothing, Apple stock pays a dividend (and grows, albeit slowly these days), so it is clearly a better investment than cash.
So you are saying that Apple stock is "dumb stuff"? If Apple thinks that AAPL is undervalued (and they would know better than anyone else), buying it seems like a wonderful idea, and in any case, cash earns nothing, or close to nothing, Apple stock pays a dividend (and grows, albeit slowly these days), so it is clearly a better investment than cash.
What does Apple need more?
-More AAPL stock
-Anything else in the entire world that 1/3 of their savings could afford
One burrito for lunch is not dumb, but buying 1000 burritos you don't really need is completely stupid.
Also remember, it's exponentially easier to spend money than to save it.
Cash earns nothing? Since it's used in this context as a short hand term for savings, I'm pretty sure Apple's got it all in various accounts (which can earn interest), rather than in stacks of $20's tucked under Tim Cook's mattress.
Ultimately, my point of view is that nobody knows Apple's business as well as Apple does. I can also see that Apple is extremely conscious of their growing cash holdings. They have constantly said that they are working on returning money to shareholders. I don't think that Apple is just sitting on the cash out of spite or out of fear. Sure, they are more conservative than most of their competitors but I just don't think that Apple's long term vision and Icahn's long term vision is the same. Apple is thinking about all their investors as a whole while Icahn is thinking more about Icahn. That is his precedent.
Comments
HUH?
He got EXACTLY what he wanted. An aggresive buyback by Apple with their $14B last two weeks.
But that means that you're assuming that Apple wouldn't have done it regardless of Icahn, which I don't think is a fair assumption.
But that means that you're assuming that Apple wouldn't have done it regardless of Icahn, which I don't think is a fair assumption.
?? I don't see where sog35 made that assumption at all.
Apologies. I should have worded it differently. The statement of Apple being more aggressive with it's buy back can be construed that Apple wouldn't have been more aggressive without Icahn being a part of the conversation. My opinion is that Apple is more aggressive when it sees fit. They increased the initial buy back to the $60b without Icahn being in the conversation. Even Icahn said that the release by ISS influenced his decision to pull back.
I would argue that he actually did. The board has been pretty slow and I really believe it was the spotlight that Icahn brought to the problem that got the company to be more aggressive. He put pressure on Apple where there was none. Apple is now being more aggressive. Glad to see he is backing off now that Apple is taking the issue more seriously. I expect him to stay in the stock long term as there is no reason to get out.
You're flat out incorrect. Apple stated long before Icahn, they planned to buy back $60B in stock. This latest chunk timing coincides with their financials and market fluctuations. He's had no effect on Apple's share buyback. Both of Carl's suggestions were ridiculous, including the original and modified figures.
His open letter claiming 'victory' is a face saving PR tactic, after months of clamoring on Twitter like a stupid clown. He needs to keep up appearances for his investor associates, and for them to forget his latest failure to manipulate the market thru press hype. Wall St. media is typically very susceptible to this kind of chicanery, and its a very good thing Apple is not.
You're flat out incorrect. Apple stated long before Icahn, they planned to buy back $60B in stock. This latest chunk timing coincides with their financials and market fluctuations. He's had no effect on Apple's share buyback. Both of Carl's suggestions were ridiculous, including the original and modified figures.
His open letter claiming 'victory' is a face saving PR tactic, after months of clamoring on Twitter like a stupid clown. He needs to keep up appearances for his investor associates, and for them to forget his latest failure to manipulate the market thru press hype. Wall St. media is typically very susceptible to this kind of chicanery, and its a very good thing Apple is not.
He does need to keep up any kind of appearances, since he has made a boatload of money with his Apple stake, which is all his "investor associates" care about (correctly). Any suggestion that Icahn's activism made no difference to Apple's behavior is absurd (and in any case, counter-factual statements are notoriously hard to verify).
Thanks for your overall support, but not exactly. The $14B buyback wasn't about testosterone, and it wasn't about giving the finger to anybody. It was an opportunity. Imagine how we would feel if the company had dropped $14B two weeks earlier and the market price subsequently dropped as it did. Again, let's take the emotion out of it. When good judgement indicates that the market has erred in underpricing the stock, that's the time to buy.
Yep. Also the fact that it's Q1 in a new year, rather than part of last year's purchases.
He's full of it. Apple has already clearly stated their intentions. It's like advising Apple to release a new iPhone this year, then when they do, declaring victory and claiming you influenced their management.
Leon Trotsky, is that you?
No Son, this is your Father speaking and you know I never like to be interrupted. Go back to your room now.
No Son, this is your Father speaking and you know I never like to be interrupted. Go back to your room now.
There must be some mistake, since my father was not an imbecile (unlike yourself).
He does need to keep up any kind of appearances, since he has made a boatload of money with his Apple stake, which is all his "investor associates" care about (correctly). Any suggestion that Icahn's activism made no difference to Apple's behavior is absurd (and in any case, counter-factual statements are notoriously hard to verify)
Apple already said they were buying back 60 billion over time. This 14 is part of that. Exactly how did Carl influence anything? His 100 billion number was insanely stupid for them to consider, as is his amended 50 billion for this year alone.
Carl's activism abilities has served him well to manipulate the short term fragile, reactionary nature of Wall St... in the past. With Yahoo and now Apple, that ability seems to have diminish
Throw around 'absurd' all you want, but it's clear my kung-fu is stronger.
My best advice for you, take a few days to reflect and think this through some more.
Ichan never wanted Apple to repratriate funds or take on 'insane debt'.
All Ichan was asking for was $50B buyback for 2014. Mr Cook has already spend $14B in the first month. To spend an additional $36B would not require Apple to repratriate funds or take on insane debt. They generate $45B in free cash flows a year and could easily pay out the $36B by floating another $16B bond like they did last year.
That would make total long-term debt at $32B which is not insane.
The interest paid on the bonds would be about 2% which is actually lower than the dividend yield.
So Apple would actually make money issuing more bonds.
Apple has $20B remaining for the buyback of $60B.
I'm almost certain they will increase the $60B total to $80B or even $100B in March or April.
I should have been more clear. I don't think Apple is of the mindset of taking on more debt unless absolutely necessary, especially long term debt. Sure the interest paid would be less than the dividend yield and they would actually make money, it's still debt though. The markets that Apple competes in are volatile and while Apple's free cash flow is high right now, you never know how the world market is going to react; the iPhone 5c comes to mind. As confident as Apple can be in their product pipeline, you never know what is going to happen. Apple's stock price is irrational and there's no way of knowing how doubling their debt in less than 12 months would impact the stock. That is why ISS is backing Apple and not Icahn, as are two other large institutional investors...they think that Apple is tentatively on the right path.
I still stand by my original thought. All the showboating by Icahn makes it seems as though Apple didn't intend on taking the exact same steps that he is pushing for. Prior to Icahn investing, Apple increased its buy back and like you, I'm fairly confident in assuming they would increase it even beyond the original $60b they are at right now.
Thanks for your overall support, but not exactly. The $14B buyback wasn't about testosterone, and it wasn't about giving the finger to anybody. It was an opportunity. Imagine how we would feel if the company had dropped $14B two weeks earlier and the market price subsequently dropped as it did. Again, let's take the emotion out of it. When good judgement indicates that the market has erred in underpricing the stock, that's the time to buy.
I agree. It was the right time to expedite the existing plan and take advantage on the lower price.
Ichan never wanted Apple to repratriate funds or take on 'insane debt'.
All Ichan was asking for was $50B buyback for 2014. Mr Cook has already spend $14B in the first month. To spend an additional $36B would not require Apple to repratriate funds or take on insane debt. They generate $45B in free cash flows a year and could easily pay out the $36B by floating another $16B bond like they did last year.
That would make total long-term debt at $32B which is not insane.
The interest paid on the bonds would be about 2% which is actually lower than the dividend yield.
So Apple would actually make money issuing more bonds.
Apple has $20B remaining for the buyback of $60B.
I'm almost certain they will increase the $60B total to $80B or even $100B in March or April.
Much mental gymnastic folding, yet this logic still doesn't quite fit into the box.
Apple's past words and actions mean more than your speculation of future events.
I've go massive crystal balls, and they say Apple won't be taking on any debt to buy back stocks, because that's a stupid idea and their management has been very smart about handling their money.
I guess you like Carl, great... but he's the one offering the 'peace treaty' not the other way around. I'm not sure there's enough energy in the physical universe to muster this into a win for him. No need for tears, I'm sure he can afford to buy a nice hanky for the egg on his face.
How is Ichan's $50B request insanely stupid??????
Apple has bought back $40B from May2013 to Jan2014. That's an average of $4.4B a month which is actually MORE THAN ICHAN REQUESTED for 2014. LOL.
So are you calling Apple insanely stupid for buying back $40B in 9 months?
How is that less stupid than Ichan wanted $50B in 12 months?
LOL!
It's roughly 1/3 of their cash. Spending a third of your savings on dumb stuff is always 'insanely stupid'. They don't need the stock, and that cash is much more valuable for other options.
Apple already said they were buying back 60 billion over time. This 14 is part of that. Exactly how did Carl influence anything? His 100 billion number was insanely stupid for them to consider, as is his amended 50 billion for this year alone.
Carl's activism abilities has served him well to manipulate the short term fragile, reactionary nature of Wall St... in the past. With Yahoo and now Apple, that ability seems to have diminish
Throw around 'absurd' all you want, but it's clear my kung-fu is stronger.
My best advice for you, take a few days to reflect and think this through some more.
Ooh, condescending to your betters -- a great way to win an argument. Your post above is nonsense. There is nothing insane about $100BN buyback (I am not necessarily saying Apple should have done it, but it is not unreasonable), and Carl's activism made him close to $1BN in well under half a year (on a $3BN investment). Not what I would describe as failure. Why don't you take your own condescending advice?
Apple went from $0 debt to $16B and no one in Wall Street blinked an eye. An additional $16B debt won't matter because they will have over $200B in cash by the end of the year. The key is the debt is extremely cheap and it doesn't take a genius to see that Apple could pay off all the debt even if their free cash flows is CUT IN HALF.
Once a Republican president gets into the White House we will probably see a tax holiday. Then Apple can bring back all their cash and pay off all their debt.
In your last paragraph, what you probably mean is "Once a SANE president...". The current situation is completely absurd.
It's roughly 1/3 of their cash. Spending a third of your savings on dumb stuff is always 'insanely stupid'. They don't need the stock, and that cash is much more valuable for other options.
So you are saying that Apple stock is "dumb stuff"? If Apple thinks that AAPL is undervalued (and they would know better than anyone else), buying it seems like a wonderful idea, and in any case, cash earns nothing, or close to nothing, Apple stock pays a dividend (and grows, albeit slowly these days), so it is clearly a better investment than cash.
So was Apple 'insanely stupid' for buying back $40B the last 9 months?
Yes or No.
Save your questions for later, because your 9 months encompass two different tax years,
and that distinction is a upper division subject.
Let's go back over the basics:
Apple has not spent any more than their original stated 60 billion on stock buyback.
So far... in this universe, Carl's influence has yielded zero results.
If that changes sometime in the future, get back to me. Run along and happy trails.
So you are saying that Apple stock is "dumb stuff"? If Apple thinks that AAPL is undervalued (and they would know better than anyone else), buying it seems like a wonderful idea, and in any case, cash earns nothing, or close to nothing, Apple stock pays a dividend (and grows, albeit slowly these days), so it is clearly a better investment than cash.
What does Apple need more?
-More AAPL stock
-Anything else in the entire world that 1/3 of their savings could afford
One burrito for lunch is not dumb, but buying 1000 burritos you don't really need is completely stupid.
Also remember, it's exponentially easier to spend money than to save it.
Cash earns nothing? Since it's used in this context as a short hand term for savings, I'm pretty sure Apple's got it all in various accounts (which can earn interest), rather than in stacks of $20's tucked under Tim Cook's mattress.
Ultimately, my point of view is that nobody knows Apple's business as well as Apple does. I can also see that Apple is extremely conscious of their growing cash holdings. They have constantly said that they are working on returning money to shareholders. I don't think that Apple is just sitting on the cash out of spite or out of fear. Sure, they are more conservative than most of their competitors but I just don't think that Apple's long term vision and Icahn's long term vision is the same. Apple is thinking about all their investors as a whole while Icahn is thinking more about Icahn. That is his precedent.
So was it bad that Apple took on $16B in debt last year?
Yes or No
Maybe. It's almost a certainty that it would be a bad idea to take on the debt for Carl's suggestions, which is what we are talking about.
Apple's plan still hasn't changed, Carl's is now vaporware.
Nice try on a semantic niggle.
Maybe its a Valentine thing for Carl, but there's still no way to spin all this into win for him.
Got anything else or new?