Apple plans $5 billion bond offering to fund share buybacks, dividends [u]

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 36
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    The QE all went to the banking buddies of this administration.



    Or the last. 

     

    Actually no it didn't. Even if QE is formally ended this kind of thing, using cheap interest to buy back shares ( and I say this as a shareholder) is not really going to kickstart an economy in any way. 

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 36
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    WRONG. Obama wants 14% on on cash overseas.  But no more tax on top of that.


    There's more, but not much more.  Up to 19% total I believe.

     

    Although most importantly it's a proposal that's going to be negotiated over and thus watered down.  Biggest winners, even if it passes as it is currently, are companies like Philip Morris International that already repatriates all its foreign earnings (pretty much all its earnings).

     

    They will be strongly on Obama's side.  LOL.  So the industry groups will be split on wanting it vs not wanting it, but all will want a lower rate than proposed.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 36
    sog35 wrote: »
    19% is the tax on foreign profits going FORWARD, not past profits.

    The Republicans want the 14% to be 6.5%.  I think we will probably be at 10% for past profits when all is said and done.

    I don't think the 19% tax on ALL FOREIGN profits will ever pass.  No other civilized country has such a punitive tax on profits made in another country.  If it ever passes you will see a mass exodus of companies moving their HQ to Canada and out of the US.  Apple may become a Canadian company lol.  The US loses jobs and tens of billions in Apple taxes.

    A correction: The 6.5% is bi-partisan, not Republican.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 24 of 36
    pfisherpfisher Posts: 758member

    Cheaper to borrow money than repatriate taxable funds sitting in overseas accounts. Well, money for corporate bonds is borrow is cheap, anyway.

     

    It's said that the companies/corporations have been doing a lot of buy-backs to boost their stock prices. That accounts for the market being higher.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    WRONG. Obama wants 14% on on cash overseas.  But no more tax on top of that.




    Sounds pretty reasonable. Not too high, not too low (not shockingly high or low). This money has already been taxed - that's the theory.

     

    Although, wasn't Apple and other corporations going through Ireland to avoid paying any taxes in Europe?

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 25 of 36
    bravadu wrote: »
    There's more, but not much more.  Up to 19% total I believe.

    Yep, my understanding is: 19% on future foreign profits for all companies, and 14% one-time tax on all existing foreign cash (estimated about 2 trillion dollar).
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 26 of 36
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    sog35 wrote: »
    19% is the tax on foreign profits going FORWARD, not past profits.

    The Republicans want the 14% to be 6.5%.  I think we will probably be at 10% for past profits when all is said and done.

    I don't think the 19% tax on ALL FOREIGN profits will ever pass.  No other civilized country has such a punitive tax on profits made in another country.  If it ever passes you will see a mass exodus of companies moving their HQ to Canada and out of the US.  Apple may become a Canadian company lol.  The US loses jobs and tens of billions in Apple taxes.

    Nothing stopping them saying their HQ is in ireland is there?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 27 of 36
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    pfisher wrote: »
    Cheaper to borrow money than repatriate taxable funds sitting in overseas accounts. Well, money for corporate bonds is borrow is cheap, anyway.

    It's said that the companies/corporations have been doing a lot of buy-backs to boost their stock prices. That accounts for the market being higher.


    Sounds pretty reasonable. Not too high, not too low (not shockingly high or low). This money has already been taxed - that's the theory.

    Although, wasn't Apple and other corporations going through Ireland to avoid paying any taxes in Europe?

    Presume it's 14% minus tax already paid which isn't 0%
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 28 of 36

    US Tax Laws mean that even if Apple move their domicile to say Canada then the US will still demand its share of their Worldwide profits. This is how BP's fines for Deepwater Horizon are levied on their Worldwide Profits and not just their US business.

     

    There are a growing number of americans that have dual nationality who are giving up their ties to the Motherland simply due to the US IRS demanding its take on every cent they make anywhere in the world.

     

    Sad really. The punitive demands they make on profits abroad are hitting the US Economy. This is blindingly obvious if you look at the huge amount even this 'reduced' tax rate would bring in.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 29 of 36
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    US Tax Laws mean that even if Apple move their domicile to say Canada then the US will still demand its share of their Worldwide profits. This is how BP's fines for Deepwater Horizon are levied on their Worldwide Profits and not just their US business.

    There are a growing number of americans that have dual nationality who are giving up their ties to the Motherland simply due to the US IRS demanding its take on every cent they make anywhere in the world.

    Sad really. The punitive demands they make on profits abroad are hitting the US Economy. This is blindingly obvious if you look at the huge amount even this 'reduced' tax rate would bring in.

    How can this be squared with any WTO etc? If a company moves it's HQ it's gone. Companies don't have citizenship.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 30 of 36
    MacPromacpro Posts: 19,873member
    asdasd wrote: »
    How can this be squared with any WTO etc? If a company moves it's HQ it's gone. Companies don't have citizenship.

    Wait ... I thought corporations were people? :D
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 31 of 36
    MacPromacpro Posts: 19,873member
    A correction: The 6.5% is bi-partisan, not Republican.

    Right and my 2 cents is I hope they can push though something close, perhaps around 10% or so. It would be great for the US if Apple could bring a massive chunk of that money back here and invest even more here at home than they do now.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 32 of 36
    asdasd wrote: »
    US Tax Laws mean that even if Apple move their domicile to say Canada then the US will still demand its share of their Worldwide profits. This is how BP's fines for Deepwater Horizon are levied on their Worldwide Profits and not just their US business.

    There are a growing number of americans that have dual nationality who are giving up their ties to the Motherland simply due to the US IRS demanding its take on every cent they make anywhere in the world.

    Sad really. The punitive demands they make on profits abroad are hitting the US Economy. This is blindingly obvious if you look at the huge amount even this 'reduced' tax rate would bring in.

    How can this be squared with any WTO etc? If a company moves it's HQ it's gone. Companies don't have citizenship.

    Companies most certainly have a domicile, and some benefits of citizenship (thankfully, not yet the right to vote or to bear arms).
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 33 of 36
    I understand this will be a floating rate bond, which is why the percentage rates are blank.

    Percentages are often left blank in the first SEC filing regardless of wheth it's fixed or floating, until the IB can gauge demand.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 34 of 36
    slprescott wrote: »
    I'm glad to have Apple's capital reinvestment program.

    Question: If Apple has $178 B in cash, why do they need to borrow via bonds? Isn't Apple using the cash-on-hand to fund this reinvestment program? (I'm sure there's an answer, so this is just for my education.)

    Basically in order to buy shares or pay dividends, they can only use money from their cash which is either already in the US and taxes were paid on, or if the money was from a foreign source, it would have to be brought back to the US and taxed. Therefore, Apple has been issuing bonds to acquire the money without repatriating foreign earnings and paying tax on them. Since interest rates are so low, this is a viable solution at least for the time being. Additionally, every share they buy back is a share they don't have to pay dividends on so that helps as well.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 35 of 36
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    maccentric wrote: »
    Basically in order to buy shares or pay dividends, they can only use money from their cash which is either already in the US and taxes were paid on, or if the money was from a foreign source, it would have to be brought back to the US and taxed. Therefore, Apple has been issuing bonds to acquire the money without repatriating foreign earnings and paying tax on them. Since interest rates are so low, this is a viable solution at least for the time being. Additionally, every share they buy back is a share they don't have to pay dividends on so that helps as well.

    They don't have to pay any dividends or a certain amount per stock.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.