Apple announces first sterling-denominated bond valued at $2B US

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 27
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,223member

    You need to get off your high horse, man. I work on Wall st. for a career so I know a little about this. The only reason they're issuing foreign currency-denominated debt is because that debt is generally "priced" (the interest rate is derermined) using the currency's central bank's interest rate—which in the causes of European countries and Japan is currently rock bottom, even lower than in the United States. Debt is tied to the riskiness of a currency/country as well as the company itself. Simply allows Apple to borrow at a lower cost. Doesn't prevent it from using that money on returning capital.

    For a guy who says he works on Wall Street, you surely should know about the link between exchange rates and interest rates, right?

    And, read the whole thread, man.
  • Reply 22 of 27
    pjapkpjapk Posts: 23member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post





    Most of the cash in 'foreign' accounts are actually in the USA. Which is legal as long as Apple does not use the cash for domestic purposes (dividends and buybacks)



    The biggest impact of a tax holiday is that Apple will be able to write off nearly $20 billion in tax liabilty that is currently on Apples books.



    Also eventually Apple would not be able to borrow money at the best rates if there debt gets to large. Plus there are legal and professional fees when floating a bond and eventually Apple will need domestic cash to pay out those bonds at maturity.



    Ah, interesting, thanks for taking the time to explain.

  • Reply 23 of 27

    The execs in Applemake a mint from this because buying back shares drives up the price of shares which they have tons of.  Share buybacks generally have come into vogue in the last fifteen years or so because ... ... oh yes execs have been increasingly rewarded in shares.  

  • Reply 24 of 27
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by fallenjt View Post

     

    Keep doing this until you take your company to private, Tim. Sick of WS anal...yst.


     

    Why is it that one of you always posts this nonsense? They could issue ten buybacks of similar size, and they would not be any closer to private ownership. The value of the company would just be distributed among fewer shares. Even if they didn't retire the ones that are bought back, they could not legally vote them.

  • Reply 25 of 27
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,931member
    ^ It doesn't, since no one who knows anything would take such a rumour seriously.
  • Reply 26 of 27
    I ate no-name mac n' cheese on my couch/bed last night.
Sign In or Register to comment.