Well - I'd say they both matter. Many long term shareholders are quite frustrated that our 3 year+ returns have been so poor. The 2% dividend is a joke given the mountain of cash that Apple is sitting on and less than 2% capital appreciation - a disaster given the $100,000,000,000+ that Apple has wasted on totally ineffective buybacks.
That is the source of much (though not all by any means) of the biting commentary on Cook.
Dumb comments. For Apple to use the money they have "in the bank" to increase dividends, they'd have to repatriate it. The US government is way too greedy and would take wayyyyy too big a cut of Apple were to bring it home. As a part-owner of Apple, I don't think the US government deserves the cut they are asking for and I don't want them to have it. So until something changes in that regard, the money is fine where it is. Perhaps they'll use it to build more factories overseas or invest in acquisitions. The US government is extremely greedy and short sighted regarding this money. If they would allow the money to be repatriated at a reasonable rate, that money would enter the US economy and start changing hands again and again - with the government taking out their cuts for capital gains, sales tax, etc...
And as for the buyback - you have no way of knowing if it was effective or ineffective. Perhaps it has helped to prop up the share price and keep it over $100. Without the share repurchase program we could be looking at significantly lower stock prices than we see now. One thing that is certain though is that with every share Apple repurchases, I own a Slightly larger chunk of the company!
Enough with the FUD. You are fear mongering. Things could certainly be better - but they aren't nearly bad enough to warrant the extreme descriptions you've chosen to use: ("TOTALLY ineffective", "DISASTER", "JOKE")
Misleading and inaccurate posts like yours aren't doing anything to help. Were they intended to damage perceptions further? Troll much?
Great response.
Given time and a low P/E, Apple may end up buying back a significant proportion of its own stock, and at a very beneficial discount. Why would Tim even attempt to change that? Maybe the solution for these unhappy investors is to gather and storm the gates and attempt to get Tim Ousted; Meg Whitman or Marissa Meyers might suddenly become available as Tim's replacement. I guarantee that there will be an exodus of Apple employees if Tim is removed, and the consequence will be the end of Apple as we know it.
Actually I feel the opposite. I think their hardware outweighs their software and services. The only places hardware wise where I think Apple needs to up its game is the camera. The 6S camera is good but I don't think it blows away the competition. In fact I think Samsung's Galaxy line has just as good if not better camera than iPhone.
According to Andy Ihnatko, he has other phones with "better" or "faster" cameras, but the iPhone integrates everything so well it continues to remain his camera of choice. That's Apple where they're at their best...integration.
I doubt very much there is a faster camera than the Iphone; that's its major strenght, Apple's humongo custom SOC is busting with DSP's.
Picture quality on a tripod, Samsung is better no question, but that's not how people take shots (but that's how those tests are generally made), but the OIS is worse and Video is worse and shot to shot time is worse and ability to focus fast is worse... Flash is also worse.
Well you get the drift.
In low light, on tripod, Samsung its mostly a wash.
Funny that Sept 2012 was a stock peak for AAPL, right before a major contraction, which AAPL then recovered from, doubling it's stock price between May 2013 and Aug 2015. It's almost like you're cherrypicking data, since Tim Cook formally took over as CEO in Aug 2011.
You can reinforce just about any bias if you're willing to be disingenuous with your metrics.
I'd say that's deserving of a self-ban, but you're already on one, right?
I think the problem with Apple is they have overused the "premium" concept to the consumers. I have a 6s and it's a nice device, but there are other phones in the market that hardware wise are equally as nice, but they just don't run iOS. I honestly think that's the only thing iPhone has going for it, is the operating system. To some extent I would extend that same reason is why Macs are doing well.
I think the reason why people are hesitant in investing in Apple is because it would seem like a company that has as much resources as Apple would be trying to take risks vs a small company like Tesla or Space X. Apple just seems like the miser grandpa that gives you a dollar for Christmas when he's a millionaire.
How did they "overuse" it when those "other phones" are not being bought! What is being bought from the competition is low to mid end phones from the competition.
You do realize that Apple probably has 80-90% of the high end.
I found your premise absurd.
First of all, what makes a phone high end? Is it that it has the best components currently on the market? Or that performance wise it's unmatched in it's class?
If that's the criteria, then anything below the iPhone 6s/6s Plus should be considered mid to low-range, because it's no longer best in it's class. So there goes your 80-90% number (that you seem to have made up)
If it's based on price then it's also nowhere near 80-90%
But if high-end really means iOS devices (because Android is obviously for lowlife scum) then I can see where you get your estimate, and definitely coincides with my original point that iOS is really the only thing iPhone has going for it.
I think the problem with Apple is they have overused the "premium" concept to the consumers. I have a 6s and it's a nice device, but there are other phones in the market that hardware wise are equally as nice, but they just don't run iOS. I honestly think that's the only thing iPhone has going for it, is the operating system. To some extent I would extend that same reason is why Macs are doing well.
I think the reason why people are hesitant in investing in Apple is because it would seem like a company that has as much resources as Apple would be trying to take risks vs a small company like Tesla or Space X. Apple just seems like the miser grandpa that gives you a dollar for Christmas when he's a millionaire.
Actually I feel the opposite. I think their hardware outweighs their software and services. The only places hardware wise where I think Apple needs to up its game is the camera. The 6S camera is good but I don't think it blows away the competition. In fact I think Samsung's Galaxy line has just as good if not better camera than iPhone.
I guess what I mean is if you erased iOS and put Android on an iPhone, it would be significantly less interesting. The way the software merges with the hardware is what makes it a great product. Using Touch ID is just so simple, and it's just a consistent experience throughout the OS.
Hardware wise though, the screen is pretty underwhelming. The battery is definitely underwhelming. No OIS (on non-plus model). These are features that other phones have all in one package, except they're missing iOS, and true hardware and software merger.
Ultimately I think the iPhone is great, but I wouldn't call their hardware "premium". It's a nice, functional device, but if it didn't have iOS, it's just not premium feeling.
Look at what other companies have done since Sept 2012:
Google - stock up 110% Facebook - up 225% Netflix - up 1285% Microsoft - up 78% Yahoo - up 111% HP - up 47% Amazon - up 160% Home Depot - up 120% Costco - up 58% Nike - up 160% McDonalds - up 26% Ford - up 25% Apple - FUCKING 2%
So pathetic that horrible companies like Microsoft, Yahoo, and HP are returning 10x to 50x more than Apple. Even the Dow, Nasdaq, and S&P500 have all returned 30-50% returns the since Sept 2012.
The main reason is because Tim Cook refuses to defend the stock and allows Wall Street BULLSHITERS to have free reign to spread lies without any retaliation. Tim Cook has allowed total BULLSHIT supply chain checks from China to tank the stock from $130 to $102 today. Because Cook refused to dispute these lies, Apple shareholders and Apple employees have lost over $150 billion in equity. Yet Cook has time to talk about gay rights, kid's learning coding, and loopholes for taxes. FUCKING PATHETIC. Cook needs to be replaced ASAP.
It's just that everyone roots for the number one guy to fail.
Dumb comments. For Apple to use the money they have "in the bank" to increase dividends, they'd have to repatriate it. The US government is way too greedy and would take wayyyyy too big a cut of Apple were to bring it home. As a part-owner of Apple, I don't think the US government deserves the cut they are asking for and I don't want them to have it. So until something changes in that regard, the money is fine where it is. Perhaps they'll use it to build more factories overseas or invest in acquisitions. The US government is extremely greedy and short sighted regarding this money. If they would allow the money to be repatriated at a reasonable rate, that money would enter the US economy and start changing hands again and again - with the government taking out their cuts for capital gains, sales tax, etc...
And as for the buyback - you have no way of knowing if it was effective or ineffective. Perhaps it has helped to prop up the share price and keep it over $100. Without the share repurchase program we could be looking at significantly lower stock prices than we see now. One thing that is certain though is that with every share Apple repurchases, I own a Slightly larger chunk of the company!
Enough with the FUD. You are fear mongering. Things could certainly be better - but they aren't nearly bad enough to warrant the extreme descriptions you've chosen to use: ("TOTALLY ineffective", "DISASTER", "JOKE")
Misleading and inaccurate posts like yours aren't doing anything to help. Were they intended to damage perceptions further? Troll much?
Great response.
Given time and a low P/E, Apple may end up buying back a significant proportion of its own stock, and at a very beneficial discount. Why would Tim even attempt to change that? Maybe the solution for these unhappy investors is to gather and storm the gates and attempt to get Tim Ousted; Meg Whitman or Marissa Meyers might suddenly become available as Tim's replacement. I guarantee that there will be an exodus of Apple employees if Tim is removed, and the consequence will be the end of Apple as we know it.
If you think the buybacks are helping the stock then it looks like without the buybacks the stock would have collapsed, which means Cook is more culpable about getting the message across.
Personally I don't think that buybacks or dividends help a company like Apple. You are signalling an end to explosive growth, and therefore the stock is immediately treated differently. You can still have the growth but the P/E ration will reflect that growth not the anticipation of it.
Funny that Sept 2012 was a stock peak for AAPL, right before a major contraction, which AAPL then recovered from, doubling it's stock price between May 2013 and Aug 2015. It's almost like you're cherrypicking data, since Tim Cook formally took over as CEO in Aug 2011.
You can reinforce just about any bias if you're willing to be disingenuous with your metrics.
I picked Sept 2012 because that was the last time Apple had a PE Ratio that was the same as the S&P500 at about 18.
When Jobs was the CEO Apple's PE ratio was always about 17-20, except during broad market finanical crisis like 2000 and 2008.
Ever since Cook has taken over the PE ration has sucked and has frequently been in the the 10-12 level.
But go ahead and run the numbers from Jan2013 to now. The numbers will still look like crap for Apple compared to mediocre companies like Microsoft and HP.
as I said in the previous post I think thats actually caused by the dividends and the buybacks. Stock prices are much more an anticipation of future growth than a multiple of revenues for most tech companies. Paying dividends signals that you are maturing, which means that the anticipation of future growth also stalls.
I mean the market is pricing no growth in revenue for Apple with that low PE ratio, and astonishingly hasn't priced revenue growth since Cook arrived, even though Apple has grown significantly. Every year the collective wisdom of the Market thinks "Apple is not a growth company" even if Apple continues to prove them wrong every year. Its very odd.
as I said in the previous post I think thats actually caused by the dividends and the buybacks. Stock prices are much more an anticipation of future growth than a multiple of revenues for most tech companies. Paying dividends signals that you are maturing, which means that the anticipation of future growth also stalls.
I mean the market is pricing no growth in revenue for Apple with that low PE ratio, and astonishingly hasn't priced revenue growth since Cook arrived, even though Apple has grown significantly. Every year the collective wisdom of the Market thinks "Apple is not a growth company" even if Apple continues to prove them wrong every year. Its very odd.
And yet Microsoft is paying dividends and returning 10x more stock gains than Apple since Sept2012.
Yes it's not just the dividends. I agree with you on cook needing to promote more bullishness on the stock.
Look at what other companies have done since Sept 2012:
Google - stock up 110% Facebook - up 225% Netflix - up 1285% Microsoft - up 78% Yahoo - up 111% HP - up 47% Amazon - up 160% Home Depot - up 120% Costco - up 58% Nike - up 160% McDonalds - up 26% Ford - up 25% Apple - FUCKING 2%
So pathetic that horrible companies like Microsoft, Yahoo, and HP are returning 10x to 50x more than Apple. Even the Dow, Nasdaq, and S&P500 have all returned 30-50% returns the since Sept 2012.
The main reason is because Tim Cook refuses to defend the stock and allows Wall Street BULLSHITERS to have free reign to spread lies without any retaliation. Tim Cook has allowed total BULLSHIT supply chain checks from China to tank the stock from $130 to $102 today. Because Cook refused to dispute these lies, Apple shareholders and Apple employees have lost over $150 billion in equity. Yet Cook has time to talk about gay rights, kid's learning coding, and loopholes for taxes. FUCKING PATHETIC. Cook needs to be replaced ASAP.
Do you have any evidence of wall street being bullshitters, or is this conjecture?
I had a post all set to go the other day about this but it seems like signs have already started to show. FANG had a big run-up this past year while AAPL sat it out. I have this feeling that that run is over and the money will flow into proven stocks like AAPL. Just today we've got the media setting up the story and bringing AAPL into comparisons with FANG. I'm not going to throw down a price target but I would love to see a proven winner that has good fundamentals go higher and be respected.
Apple needs a completely new IR team, and a radically different messaging strategy when it comes to major market moves.
Right now, both are frustratingly disappointing, especially given the remarkable fundamentals of the business.
Agree 100%
Either Tim Cook needs to hire some new people who can articulate Apples vision and counter Wall street FUD or he needs to resign.
2015 was the most profitable year for any company in the history of man. Yet the stock is down 5% for the year. The main reason is because Cook failed to control the message of the company. The entire investing community views Apple as a one trick pony with a trick that has peaked. This is so far from the truth. Apple has so many current and future revenue streams to easily double revenue from this point. But Cook has failed at convincing Wall Street that iPad, Watch, AppleTV, ApplePay, Apple Car, Beats, Apple Music, ect have a bright future and can add hundreds of billions in future revenue.
Amazon CEO was able to convince Wall Street that Cloud services would be huge. But Amazon cloud generates less than $1 billion in profit. Apple Watch profits dwarf Amazon cloud. But Cook refuses to release Watch figures so Wall street gives Watch zero credit.
Something is wrong with Apple's investor relations. I can't even speak to a live person. I call the number and all you can do is leave a message. I left 3 messages and no one called back. I mean what the fuck. I have tens of thousands invested and they can't even return a fucking phone call?
Wall Street totally disrespects Tim Cook and pisses on his face. Various analysist have flatout called Tim Cook a liar and a cheat. Other said he was breaking SEC rules and manipulating numbers. WTF. You never hear this kind of shit directed at Google/Amazon/Microsoft CEO. Only Cook. Whatever he is doing, he is doing it wrong.
"Various analysist have flatout called Tim Cook a liar and a cheat."
I think the evidence is that it has been a great real-world example of how to waste $100,000,000,000+. They very craftily call it an return of capital - very different than the ROI that long term investors are deserving and expecting.
No way has it been wasted. When Google bought that phone part of Motorola, that was a waste of billions. When Microsoft bought Nokia, that was another waste of billions. I see both of those large mistakes as acts of desperation in response to Apple's success. I advocate patience. Lets talk about this when the Watch is five years old.
"Lets talk about this when the Watch is five years old."
Here's something I think Apple could do that would have a positive impact on the stock:
Right now Wall Street is obsessed with the Cloud and companies like Amazon, Google and Microsoft have been rewarded for it. Wall Street is also looking for more recurring revenue streams outside of hardware. Cook should poach a top notch cloud expert and make them an SVP running Apple's cloud business, maps and Siri. I think it's pretty clear the cloud is not Eddy Cue's forte. Brining someone in from the outside and making it an executive level position would signal that Apple is serious about the cloud, machine learning and improving all of Apple's cloud services. This would free up Eddy Cue to focus all of his efforts on Apple's content businesses and expanding Apple Pay. This would show everyone that Apple TV, Apple Music and Apple Pay aren't hobbies but serious platforms Apple wants to expand and better monetize.
Second I think Apple has to become better at controlling the narrative and presenting their vision. On John Gruber's latest podcast he said this years WWDC was the worst Apple keynote ever mostly because of the Apple Music section and that it ran over 2 hours. The first question is, why was Apple Music even part of that keynote? It's first and foremost a developer conference. And when they did a run through why didn't anybody tell Eddy the Apple Music piece was a bit of a mess and it should have been tightened up (and shortened)? The 60 Minutes piece took us inside Jony's lab but we didn't really see anything. Why not use it as an iPad Pro/Apple Pencil marketing opportunity and show us the development of those products? And why let CBS even bring up taxes and China manufacturing? In theory this is supposed to be a puff piece, but all the media focus ended up being about Tim's comments on taxes. Then just after Tim gets done saying Apple pays every tax dollar it owes we find out about this $300M+ settlement with the Italian government over taxes. Wut?!? Maybe Steve Dowling is in over his head and Apple needs to bring in a stronger PR chief.
excellent points.
I think Apple should buy Box and get a step ahead in cloud.
Comments
Great response.
Given time and a low P/E, Apple may end up buying back a significant proportion of its own stock, and at a very beneficial discount. Why would Tim even attempt to change that? Maybe the solution for these unhappy investors is to gather and storm the gates and attempt to get Tim Ousted; Meg Whitman or Marissa Meyers might suddenly become available as Tim's replacement. I guarantee that there will be an exodus of Apple employees if Tim is removed, and the consequence will be the end of Apple as we know it.
Picture quality on a tripod, Samsung is better no question, but that's not how people take shots (but that's how those tests are generally made),
but the OIS is worse and Video is worse and shot to shot time is worse and ability to focus fast is worse...
Flash is also worse.
Well you get the drift.
In low light, on tripod, Samsung its mostly a wash.
There's more to a camera than a sensor.
Funny that Sept 2012 was a stock peak for AAPL, right before a major contraction, which AAPL then recovered from, doubling it's stock price between May 2013 and Aug 2015. It's almost like you're cherrypicking data, since Tim Cook formally took over as CEO in Aug 2011.
You can reinforce just about any bias if you're willing to be disingenuous with your metrics.
I'd say that's deserving of a self-ban, but you're already on one, right?
First of all, what makes a phone high end? Is it that it has the best components currently on the market? Or that performance wise it's unmatched in it's class?
If that's the criteria, then anything below the iPhone 6s/6s Plus should be considered mid to low-range, because it's no longer best in it's class. So there goes your 80-90% number (that you seem to have made up)
If it's based on price then it's also nowhere near 80-90%
But if high-end really means iOS devices (because Android is obviously for lowlife scum) then I can see where you get your estimate, and definitely coincides with my original point that iOS is really the only thing iPhone has going for it.
I guess what I mean is if you erased iOS and put Android on an iPhone, it would be significantly less interesting. The way the software merges with the hardware is what makes it a great product. Using Touch ID is just so simple, and it's just a consistent experience throughout the OS.
Hardware wise though, the screen is pretty underwhelming. The battery is definitely underwhelming. No OIS (on non-plus model). These are features that other phones have all in one package, except they're missing iOS, and true hardware and software merger.
Ultimately I think the iPhone is great, but I wouldn't call their hardware "premium". It's a nice, functional device, but if it didn't have iOS, it's just not premium feeling.
It's just that everyone roots for the number one guy to fail.
Personally I don't think that buybacks or dividends help a company like Apple. You are signalling an end to explosive growth, and therefore the stock is immediately treated differently. You can still have the growth but the P/E ration will reflect that growth not the anticipation of it.
as I said in the previous post I think thats actually caused by the dividends and the buybacks. Stock prices are much more an anticipation of future growth than a multiple of revenues for most tech companies. Paying dividends signals that you are maturing, which means that the anticipation of future growth also stalls.
I mean the market is pricing no growth in revenue for Apple with that low PE ratio, and astonishingly hasn't priced revenue growth since Cook arrived, even though Apple has grown significantly. Every year the collective wisdom of the Market thinks "Apple is not a growth company" even if Apple continues to prove them wrong every year. Its very odd.
Do you have any evidence of wall street being bullshitters, or is this conjecture?
When and by whom was this?
By that time the Apple Car will be out.
https://www.upthere.com/
of which none other than Bertrand Serlet is part founder. And in return Apple can make Serlet SVP of Cloud Infrastructure (iCloud, Siri, Maps)