While I agree with your snark it makes me wonder how things came to be this way. iOS and Android dominate the mobile operating system market. By all accounts these new Microsoft phones are really nice but it would appear they have little chance of challenging either iOS or Android. Why is that? Microsoft’s mobile OS isn’t all that bad is it? So is it simply momentum by the two top dogs? Has the consumer made their choice and the other mobile OSs will simply struggle along at the bottom? Has Microsoft burned its bridges with the mass market?
Any ideas?
I have no idea how good the Microsoft mobile devices and OS are. But even if they are fantastic Microsoft has been through so many changes over the last few years that it is hard to fully trust that they will remain strong and keep developing their devices and software into a fully formed cohesive set of services that will remain backward compatible. So one issue is 'trust'.
We have so much invested in our chosen platform that to change is a big deal. Even if Apple faltered I would stick with IOS simply because everything I do is based around the Apple ecosystem. I would have to be disgruntled for a very long time before I would even consider going to the trouble of jumping ship.
All to say I think Microsoft will have to keep producing top-notch devices and software for a very long time in order to convince people to move over. If they can gain trust, respect and great reviews consistently, then maybe over time people will shift. For as long as Apple stays strong it will be very hard to compete at the high end, however. And the low end... Well, why even bother?
They need some stability first. How the hell do you release a phone, and then that phone cannot be upgraded to the next OS a year later? How can they expect people to stick with them with moves like that?
"But in the case of most public companies, shares for most investors are not usually held of record but beneficially. In such instances, the shares are held of record by a third party, usually a broker, on behalf of the shareholder. For example, if you buy shares throughCharles Schwab, that discount brokerage firm will serve as the record owner and you will be the beneficial owner. The shares are held this way for administration ease. Otherwise, every share trade would have to be recorded on the company’s books. Instead, there is only one entry on the books of the company for all shares held by Charles Schwab for its clients."
In other words Apple would just have to find a few large brokerages to serve as the record owner and Apple could continue to have millions of beneficially owners even if they go private.
But doesn't that defeat the purpose of what you are trying to achieve?
It's the large hedge funds, brokerages and places like Charles Schwab that you don't want manipulating the stock price.
If you hand them all the Apple eggs in one basket, things would only be worse wouldn't they?
Apple can go private. Going private does not require a few large shareholders to buy the entire $600 billion company. Rather current shareholders can simply convert their public shares to private equity.
1. Current shareholders can keep their shares and convert each public share into a private share with same ownership %
2. Those who want to sell their shares can at a 30% premium. That would be about $140 right now.
3. AAPL is no longer traded in the public exchanges. No longer traded in the options market.
4. Apple will have more than 2,000 shareholders on record so they will still need to report quarterly financials to the SEC. But they won't be traded in a public exchange.
"Finally, it is important to note that even if Facebook is deemed to exceed the 500-shareholder threshold, it would not be required to conduct an initial public offering. Rather, it would merely begin “reporting” to the S.E.C. This would mean it must start filing quarterly and annual reports with the S.E.C. along with other items. These reports would include Facebook’s audited financial information."
5. Apple will then hire an investment bank to allow the shares to be traded once a quarter. Any new shareholders need to hold their shares for at least 12 months.
That would require the approval of more than 50% of voting shares and it would be generous to assume that they would accept only a 30% premium.
But doesn't that defeat the purpose of what you are trying to achieve?
It's the large hedge funds, brokerages and places like Charles Schwab that you don't want manipulating the stock price.
If you hand them all the Apple eggs in one basket, things would only be worse wouldn't they?
Or maybe I am missing something.
Right now if you own Apple shares you are probably not the owner of record. That would usually be Scottrade, Meril Lynch, BOA, ect. They are basically custodians and just hold your shares. You tell them when to buy them or sell them. They hold the stock certificates. But those investment banks have ZERO CONTROL of your shares.
But this is probably not neccessary. If Apple goes private they can have over 2,000 shareholders as long as they keep reporting quarterly financials to the SEC.
Regardless I am still not seeing how this solves the problem, which is Apple stock being manipulated.
Seems like it would only make manipulation that much easier.
Regardless I am still not seeing how this solves the problem, which is Apple stock being manipulated.
Seems like it would only make manipulation that much easier.
That was my thinking anyway.
There would be less manipulation if shareholders agree to trading restrictions as a private company:
1. Any new shareholders need to hold shares for 12 months
That alone will kill off all the daytraders, high frequency trading computers, and short sellers from punishing the stock.
Man, I don't know if that would ever happen.
But lets say something like that does happen, Apple goes private like you describe. What would happen if sales of Apple products start to tank? It would be that much harder for Apple to stay afloat and the company could be crushed much faster than if they are sold on the open market where all the small guys might see a real opportunity in snapping up cheap shares of AAPL. Just a scenario to think about.
Regardless it's fun to kick the ball around though and think about stuff like this.
IMHO, MS is now trying to decide who its customer is. They are awfully late to the party in consumer goods.
That is part of it too. MS is an example where business men (bean counters) ran/run the business and not someone who understands the market they are in and who the customer is and has a belief in their product.
This new guy at MS seems to be more the latter type. Let's hope he is. Apple/MS is better than Apple/Google
Why can't you hold your shares? I don't understand why when a company goes private everyone needs to sell their shares.
Can't your shares just be converted to private shares?
The essence of "going private" is buying back all of the shares. If it was a small group of investors (not regarding Apple in particular) -- then that would be a Fund taking the company private with shares between the individual investors. I suppose they could sell additional shares at some point.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying something like "I'm a good-guy investor and I don't want to have to liquidate my holdings..." -- which I can understand (unlike the Apple investors that seem to take profits over and over again). Unfortunately, Apple couldn't make that good guy/not so good guy investors distinction... and, we all realize that Apple will not be going private. Still -- I would love to be able to "control" the, IMHO, stupid investors that help push the stock Down after history profits reporting. Counterintuitive and distructive to me.
While I agree with your snark it makes me wonder how things came to be this way. iOS and Android dominate the mobile operating system market. By all accounts these new Microsoft phones are really nice but it would appear they have little chance of challenging either iOS or Android. Why is that? Microsoft’s mobile OS isn’t all that bad is it? So is it simply momentum by the two top dogs? Has the consumer made their choice and the other mobile OSs will simply struggle along at the bottom? Has Microsoft burned its bridges with the mass market?
Any ideas?
We watched Microsoft's mobile business crumble before our eyes since 2007. I think it's clear how it happened, but the answer has several complex moving parts.
The short sound bite answer is they failed to achieve critical mass for their mobile platform. Platforms are like nuclear reactors: once the chain reaction starts, it will fuel itself, requiring little or less external energy to sustain. For platforms, there's a customer-demand/product-offering feedback loop that Windows Phone needs to grow beyond its current level in order to sustain itself profitably. But the mobile phone market is more mature now (iOS and Android becoming dominant), so simply being "good enough" or even offering small novelty features isn't enough. You have to radically different, better, or unusual to break into the market. In short, you need another "iPhone moment." Windows Phone isn't that: it's competent and years late to the party.
There was probably a window of opportunity for Windows Phone back in 2008-2009 to break in, before the market matured. Microsoft didn't release their new Metro UI until late 2010, and even then it was sitting on top of the older Windows Mobile (formerly CE) kernel. 2011 was make or break for WP, and nope. Too little too late. The moment had passed.
Abandon your phone business, Samsung. You'll be better off in the long run.
Why would they leave the business when they're the top android OEM. No other company that uses android comes close to their sales. LG was happy a week or two ago when they announced their projected sales of he G4 would reach 12 million in 1 year, the Galaxy S6/edge managed that in a little over a month. Then there's the HTC One M9 which managed to ship only 4.75 million units in its first three months. Looking at those figures, it seems Sammy is wiping their android competition, so they have no reason to leave the business.
Even if they did and I am not sure they could, what happens to those of us hanging in for the long haul with a lot of AAPL?
Why can't you hold your shares? I don't understand why when a company goes private everyone needs to sell their shares.
Can't your shares just be converted to private shares?
No, almost never (at least, not in a single case that I know of).
All the shares reminaing -- i.e., net of leverage in the business, which is often as high as 70% of enterprise value -- are typically owned by the private equity sponsor (e.g., the KKRs and the Bain Capital types) and management/employees.
For Apple to go private, the company would need to borrow something in the region of $400+ billion (on just the current valuation, not including that on the additional premium would have to be paid).
Apple can go private even with millions of owners. The only penalty is Apple would need to file quarterly SEC reports, but they would be taken off of the public exchanges and away from wall street shitheads
Can you provide some examples of major companies doing this? And a link to where you saw this? AFAIK, companies with >500 shareholders have to not only file quarterly reports with the SEC (not a huge deal for Apple), but they also have to register their equity, which can make it subject to secondary market trading by anyone at all.
Also, do you think that Apple will be able to -- and even if they're able to, they should -- borrow $400B-$500B? Seriously?
No large company like Apple has done this before. But Apple is not a normal company. The amount of manipulation Apple receives is unprecedented. Just like how the $120 billion buyback was unprecedented, so will going 'private'.
Apple could get away with having less than 500 shareholders of record. Most of the thousands of shareholders that own Apple are not shareholders of record. Instead they are shareholders beneficiary. Most shareholders of record are large brokerages than have thousands of individuals. For example Charles Schwab may have thousands of individuals that own Apple shares but Charles Schwab is the only shareholder of record. See the quote below:
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);margin-bottom:1em;">"But in the case of most public companies, shares for most investors are not usually held of record but beneficially. In such instances, the shares are held of record by a third party, usually a broker, on behalf of the shareholder. For example, if you buy shares throughCharles Schwab, that discount brokerage firm will serve as the record owner and you will be the beneficial owner. The shares are held this way for administration ease. Otherwise, every share trade would have to be recorded on the company’s books. Instead, there is only one entry on the books of the company for all shares held by Charles Schwab for its clients.</p>
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);margin-bottom:1em;">In fact, most brokers actually use another entity known as Cede & Company, the nominee name of the Depository Trust Company, a large clearing house, for their record ownership of stock, and so there is only one entry for many brokers all of whom have thousands of beneficial owners they hold shares for.</p>
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);margin-bottom:1em;">The consequence is that companies with [SIZE=16px]thousands of shareholders will often have fewer record holders[/SIZE]."</p>
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);margin-bottom:1em;">In other words the limit of 500 shareholders of record will be no problem for Apple. That means they don't need to report quarterly to the SEC and don't need to have their stock/options registered and traded on the open market.</p>
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);margin-bottom:1em;">Apple won't need to secure $400 billion to go private. IMO, most shareholders will simply convert their public shares to private shares because of how undervalued the shares are. Even if shareholders are offered a 50% premium, I think most will hold their shares. At most I think Apple would need to buy back 25% of the shares which would be less than $200 billion. Keep in mind Apple has bought back $90 billion in shares the last 2 years. </p>
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);margin-bottom:1em;">My main point is Apple has to have the THREAT of going private. They need to publicly say they are exploring the possibility or at least leak it out some how. That threat alone would do alot to stop some of the manipulation going on. Everyone on Wall Street knows Apple is undervalued. But they also know their so many forces out their that can easily manipulate the stock and keep the price down. But if there is even the remote possibility that Apple could go private, manipulators would be far less brave to risk their capital betting on Apple's price to stay depressed. </p>
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);margin-bottom:1em;">Lets imagine you are trying to manipulate Apple's price down. And you are betting that Apple will continue to go down in price or stay flat. If you get word that their is a POSSIBILITY of Apple going private, that would freak you out. You know damn well that in an unmanipulated market Apple shares are worth 30-50% more than the stock price. Would you then be willing to continue your bearish bet? I doubt it. </p>
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);margin-bottom:1em;">IMO, the THREAT of going private would support the stock price more than what the $90 billion buyback did. Apple should stop the buyback and begin to hoard cash with the STATED INTENT that they are exploring going private. If they did that I bet the stock immediately goes up 20% in the next week.</p>
The fact that you cannot name a SINGLE example basically says it all. Case closed (to quote you).
The rest is a set of assumptions, predictions, and speculations on your part on a topic over which you seem to know very little. A THREAT is useful only when it's credible. And Apple going private is not credible.
Add: One more thing. Name a SINGLE going private transaction of any reasonable size (say, greater than$1B) where: (1) lots of debt was not used; (2) a sizable premium was not paid; and/or (3) 'millions of shareholders' (to quote you from before) remained after the company went private. I'll wait.
The fact that you cannot name a SINGLE example basically says it all. Case closed (to quote you).
The rest is a set of assumptions, predictions, and speculations on your part on a topic over which you seem to know very little. A THREAT is useful only when it's credible. And Apple going private is not credible.
LOL. Has there ever been a company that has done a $120 billion buyback before Apple. No. So using your reasoning since no one did a $120 billion buyback before than Apple can't either. Case closed. WRONG.
Apple is not a normal company. Just because no company has ever done it before does not mean it can't be done. No one has ever done a $120 billion buyback before. Apple did.
The rest is NOT assumptions. I've pulled the FACTS that it is certainly possible that Apple can have fewer than 500 shareholders of RECORD since most shareholders are not shareholders of RECORD. And further research shows the maximum shareholders of record is now 2000. So even easier for Apple to meet that requirement.
Your problem is you are not thinking outside the box. You think just because no one did it before it can't be done. Apple has proven that type of thinking is flawed.
No other company the size of Apple has done this before because usually companies of this size don't get GROSSLY MANIPULATED like Apple does. Mega-Caps like Google, Walmart, Exxon, ect don't get manipulated to the extreme like Apple so they have no reason to go private. But look at companies like Dell. They went private because of the ridiculousness of Wall Street. Tim Cook and most shareholder view Apple as grossly UNDERVALUED. That's why Apple has spent $90 billion in buying back stock. But that has done very little in increasing shareholder value. The problem is even with a small stake in Apple the manipulators can control Apple's share price by constantly buying and selling shares millions of times a day by running computer algos.
In Sept 2012 Apple was worth $630 billion.
Since then Apple has generated about $120 billion in free cash flows
Apple has increased revenue by $70 billion since 2012
Apple has bought back almost $100 billion in stock.
Yet Apple is worth less than $630 billion today.
How the fuc is that possible or logical. Apple has totally destroyed every single expectation on earnings and revenue and has not gained a CENT of value. No other company has ever been grossly manipulated like this in the past.
I added this just as you were perhaps posting, so to be fair, let me restate. Name a SINGLE going private transaction of any reasonable size (say, greater than$1B) where: (1) lots of debt was not used; (2) a sizable premium was not paid; and/or (3) 'millions of shareholders' (to quote you from before) remained after the company went private. I'll wait.
When it comes to matters of finance, I generally tend to not conflate expectations and hopes. I prefer the former.
Name me another company that did a $120 billion buyback?
Name me another company that posted the most profit in the history of man, yet the stock goes DOWN 20% in a month?
Name me another company that has a 15% unit market share yet has a 98% profit share?
Name me another company that has over $200 billion in cash?
Name me another company that has revenue growth and profit growth 300% higher than the S&P500 yet has a PE 50% lower than the index?
Bottom line is there has never been another company of this size that has been grossly manipulated like Apple. The manipulation is BEYOND ridiculous. We are talking about the most powerful brand in the world, dominating the most profitable sector in the world, with 30% revenue growth and 40% EPS growth. With $200 billion in cash. Yet it gets traded at a PE lower than IBM which has had shrinking revenue for a DECADE? That has a PE of 8 after taking out cash?
My point is Apple needs to get the discussion of going private in the minds of manipulators. Apple makes $50 billion in free cash flows a year. In 2 years they will have over $300 billion in cash. In a 5 year period Apple could easily have enough money for shareholders to buyout the company. And Apple won't even need most of that cash since I'm pretty sure most investors would be fine with converting their public shares to private shares. There are many ways this can be done legally and seemlessly with a brokerage and a fund setup. It is not that complicated. Right now you can buy privately owned shares of a company through a fund. They could easily do the same thing with Apple and make it a closed fund.
Again don't look at the past or other companies for precedent. Apple is unprecedented.
If you want to premise your ideas on fuzzy stuff such as "think outside the box" to discuss the financial issues concerning a large company like Apple, knock yourself out. I don't wish to engage in that. As I said, most of my thinking on that subject is in the realm of reasonable expectations and possibilities, not hopes and inside/outside boxes.
You posts surprise me a bit, since normally, you're a little more fact-based.
One thing I will say: for a guy who posts a ton here about how and why one needs a long term horizon to deal with AAPL, that the company will get to $150 (I stay away from silly predictions like that) and regularly whines about short-term Wall Street 'manipulators', you sure seem panicked about the stock price moves in the past couple of months. If you have trouble with Apple's stock price movements, you should sell, and buy something else, say, like utilities.
Comments
They need some stability first. How the hell do you release a phone, and then that phone cannot be upgraded to the next OS a year later? How can they expect people to stick with them with moves like that?
Originally Posted by sog35
"But in the case of most public companies, shares for most investors are not usually held of record but beneficially. In such instances, the shares are held of record by a third party, usually a broker, on behalf of the shareholder. For example, if you buy shares throughCharles Schwab, that discount brokerage firm will serve as the record owner and you will be the beneficial owner. The shares are held this way for administration ease. Otherwise, every share trade would have to be recorded on the company’s books. Instead, there is only one entry on the books of the company for all shares held by Charles Schwab for its clients."
In other words Apple would just have to find a few large brokerages to serve as the record owner and Apple could continue to have millions of beneficially owners even if they go private.
But doesn't that defeat the purpose of what you are trying to achieve?
It's the large hedge funds, brokerages and places like Charles Schwab that you don't want manipulating the stock price.
If you hand them all the Apple eggs in one basket, things would only be worse wouldn't they?
Or maybe I am missing something.
Apple can go private. Going private does not require a few large shareholders to buy the entire $600 billion company. Rather current shareholders can simply convert their public shares to private equity.
1. Current shareholders can keep their shares and convert each public share into a private share with same ownership %
2. Those who want to sell their shares can at a 30% premium. That would be about $140 right now.
3. AAPL is no longer traded in the public exchanges. No longer traded in the options market.
4. Apple will have more than 2,000 shareholders on record so they will still need to report quarterly financials to the SEC. But they won't be traded in a public exchange.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/facebook-and-the-500-person-threshold/?_r=0
"Finally, it is important to note that even if Facebook is deemed to exceed the 500-shareholder threshold, it would not be required to conduct an initial public offering. Rather, it would merely begin “reporting” to the S.E.C. This would mean it must start filing quarterly and annual reports with the S.E.C. along with other items. These reports would include Facebook’s audited financial information."
5. Apple will then hire an investment bank to allow the shares to be traded once a quarter. Any new shareholders need to hold their shares for at least 12 months.
That would require the approval of more than 50% of voting shares and it would be generous to assume that they would accept only a 30% premium.
But doesn't that defeat the purpose of what you are trying to achieve?
It's the large hedge funds, brokerages and places like Charles Schwab that you don't want manipulating the stock price.
If you hand them all the Apple eggs in one basket, things would only be worse wouldn't they?
Or maybe I am missing something.
Right now if you own Apple shares you are probably not the owner of record. That would usually be Scottrade, Meril Lynch, BOA, ect. They are basically custodians and just hold your shares. You tell them when to buy them or sell them. They hold the stock certificates. But those investment banks have ZERO CONTROL of your shares.
But this is probably not neccessary. If Apple goes private they can have over 2,000 shareholders as long as they keep reporting quarterly financials to the SEC.
Regardless I am still not seeing how this solves the problem, which is Apple stock being manipulated.
Seems like it would only make manipulation that much easier.
That was my thinking anyway.
Regardless I am still not seeing how this solves the problem, which is Apple stock being manipulated.
Seems like it would only make manipulation that much easier.
That was my thinking anyway.
There would be less manipulation if shareholders agree to trading restrictions as a private company:
1. Any new shareholders need to hold shares for 12 months
That alone will kill off all the daytraders, high frequency trading computers, and short sellers from punishing the stock.
Man, I don't know if that would ever happen.
But lets say something like that does happen, Apple goes private like you describe. What would happen if sales of Apple products start to tank? It would be that much harder for Apple to stay afloat and the company could be crushed much faster than if they are sold on the open market where all the small guys might see a real opportunity in snapping up cheap shares of AAPL. Just a scenario to think about.
Regardless it's fun to kick the ball around though and think about stuff like this.
IMHO, MS is now trying to decide who its customer is. They are awfully late to the party in consumer goods.
That is part of it too. MS is an example where business men (bean counters) ran/run the business and not someone who understands the market they are in and who the customer is and has a belief in their product.
This new guy at MS seems to be more the latter type. Let's hope he is. Apple/MS is better than Apple/Google
Oh stop it. Apple was not even close to being the first to start a program like that. It was a natural evolution of all OEMs.
I had only heard of the actual telecoms doing this. What other hardware company is doing this type of program?
Originally Posted by sog35
Why can't you hold your shares? I don't understand why when a company goes private everyone needs to sell their shares.
Can't your shares just be converted to private shares?
The essence of "going private" is buying back all of the shares. If it was a small group of investors (not regarding Apple in particular) -- then that would be a Fund taking the company private with shares between the individual investors. I suppose they could sell additional shares at some point.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying something like "I'm a good-guy investor and I don't want to have to liquidate my holdings..." -- which I can understand (unlike the Apple investors that seem to take profits over and over again). Unfortunately, Apple couldn't make that good guy/not so good guy investors distinction... and, we all realize that Apple will not be going private. Still -- I would love to be able to "control" the, IMHO, stupid investors that help push the stock Down after history profits reporting. Counterintuitive and distructive to me.
So, Samsung mostly recovering profit because of getting part of Apple's A9 order... OK then....
We watched Microsoft's mobile business crumble before our eyes since 2007. I think it's clear how it happened, but the answer has several complex moving parts.
The short sound bite answer is they failed to achieve critical mass for their mobile platform. Platforms are like nuclear reactors: once the chain reaction starts, it will fuel itself, requiring little or less external energy to sustain. For platforms, there's a customer-demand/product-offering feedback loop that Windows Phone needs to grow beyond its current level in order to sustain itself profitably. But the mobile phone market is more mature now (iOS and Android becoming dominant), so simply being "good enough" or even offering small novelty features isn't enough. You have to radically different, better, or unusual to break into the market. In short, you need another "iPhone moment." Windows Phone isn't that: it's competent and years late to the party.
There was probably a window of opportunity for Windows Phone back in 2008-2009 to break in, before the market matured. Microsoft didn't release their new Metro UI until late 2010, and even then it was sitting on top of the older Windows Mobile (formerly CE) kernel. 2011 was make or break for WP, and nope. Too little too late. The moment had passed.
Even more reason for Apple to find alternatives to using Samsung for chip manufacturing.
Especially after Samsung has been caught with Corp Espionage to get Apple's business...lol.
Why would they leave the business when they're the top android OEM. No other company that uses android comes close to their sales. LG was happy a week or two ago when they announced their projected sales of he G4 would reach 12 million in 1 year, the Galaxy S6/edge managed that in a little over a month. Then there's the HTC One M9 which managed to ship only 4.75 million units in its first three months. Looking at those figures, it seems Sammy is wiping their android competition, so they have no reason to leave the business.
Oh stop it. Apple was not even close to being the first to start a program like that. It was a natural evolution of all OEMs.
Within some weeks of each other? Really? When it's a regular pattern of behavior?
Gosh you're funny. But such a little Samsung apologist...
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Even if they did and I am not sure they could, what happens to those of us hanging in for the long haul with a lot of AAPL?
Why can't you hold your shares? I don't understand why when a company goes private everyone needs to sell their shares.
Can't your shares just be converted to private shares?
No, almost never (at least, not in a single case that I know of).
All the shares reminaing -- i.e., net of leverage in the business, which is often as high as 70% of enterprise value -- are typically owned by the private equity sponsor (e.g., the KKRs and the Bain Capital types) and management/employees.
For Apple to go private, the company would need to borrow something in the region of $400+ billion (on just the current valuation, not including that on the additional premium would have to be paid).
Almost surely an unlikely event.
Chinese hackers have already breached LooPay (Samsung's payment system for their phones):
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/technology/chinese-hackers-breached-looppay-a-contributor-to-samsung-pay.html?hpw&rref=technology&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0
Not true.
Apple can go private even with millions of owners. The only penalty is Apple would need to file quarterly SEC reports, but they would be taken off of the public exchanges and away from wall street shitheads
Can you provide some examples of major companies doing this? And a link to where you saw this? AFAIK, companies with >500 shareholders have to not only file quarterly reports with the SEC (not a huge deal for Apple), but they also have to register their equity, which can make it subject to secondary market trading by anyone at all.
Also, do you think that Apple will be able to -- and even if they're able to, they should -- borrow $400B-$500B? Seriously?
The fact that you cannot name a SINGLE example basically says it all. Case closed (to quote you).
The rest is a set of assumptions, predictions, and speculations on your part on a topic over which you seem to know very little. A THREAT is useful only when it's credible. And Apple going private is not credible.
Add: One more thing. Name a SINGLE going private transaction of any reasonable size (say, greater than$1B) where: (1) lots of debt was not used; (2) a sizable premium was not paid; and/or (3) 'millions of shareholders' (to quote you from before) remained after the company went private. I'll wait.
I added this just as you were perhaps posting, so to be fair, let me restate. Name a SINGLE going private transaction of any reasonable size (say, greater than$1B) where: (1) lots of debt was not used; (2) a sizable premium was not paid; and/or (3) 'millions of shareholders' (to quote you from before) remained after the company went private. I'll wait.
When it comes to matters of finance, I generally tend to not conflate expectations and hopes. I prefer the former.
Name me another company that did a $120 billion buyback?
Name me another company that posted the most profit in the history of man, yet the stock goes DOWN 20% in a month?
Name me another company that has a 15% unit market share yet has a 98% profit share?
Name me another company that has over $200 billion in cash?
Name me another company that has revenue growth and profit growth 300% higher than the S&P500 yet has a PE 50% lower than the index?
Bottom line is there has never been another company of this size that has been grossly manipulated like Apple. The manipulation is BEYOND ridiculous. We are talking about the most powerful brand in the world, dominating the most profitable sector in the world, with 30% revenue growth and 40% EPS growth. With $200 billion in cash. Yet it gets traded at a PE lower than IBM which has had shrinking revenue for a DECADE? That has a PE of 8 after taking out cash?
My point is Apple needs to get the discussion of going private in the minds of manipulators. Apple makes $50 billion in free cash flows a year. In 2 years they will have over $300 billion in cash. In a 5 year period Apple could easily have enough money for shareholders to buyout the company. And Apple won't even need most of that cash since I'm pretty sure most investors would be fine with converting their public shares to private shares. There are many ways this can be done legally and seemlessly with a brokerage and a fund setup. It is not that complicated. Right now you can buy privately owned shares of a company through a fund. They could easily do the same thing with Apple and make it a closed fund.
Again don't look at the past or other companies for precedent. Apple is unprecedented.
If you want to premise your ideas on fuzzy stuff such as "think outside the box" to discuss the financial issues concerning a large company like Apple, knock yourself out. I don't wish to engage in that. As I said, most of my thinking on that subject is in the realm of reasonable expectations and possibilities, not hopes and inside/outside boxes.
You posts surprise me a bit, since normally, you're a little more fact-based.
One thing I will say: for a guy who posts a ton here about how and why one needs a long term horizon to deal with AAPL, that the company will get to $150 (I stay away from silly predictions like that) and regularly whines about short-term Wall Street 'manipulators', you sure seem panicked about the stock price moves in the past couple of months. If you have trouble with Apple's stock price movements, you should sell, and buy something else, say, like utilities.