Apple sells $7B in debt in first bond offer since $285B cash repatriation [u]

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 90
    gatorguy said:
    tjwolf said:
    gatorguy said:
    tjwolf said:

    gatorguy said:
    red oak said:
    Debt interest is tax deductible for Apple.  That brings the interest cost down to its dividend yield 

    So,  a nearly cost free way for Apple to buy back its own stock.   Makes a ton of sense, especially if Apple thinks the stock will 2 or 3X in the next 8 years 


    Nothing about the stock repurchase program makes any sense to me. Apple doesn't keep it, they burn it, and if there's some proof that the buybacks have increased the stock price above where it would otherwise be it's being keep secret. 
    This goes both ways: there's no proof that "they burn it" - that share buyback have had no impact on stock prices.  But in general, the laws of supply/demand would suggest that buybacks would positively impact stock price.
    There is proof the stock is "burned", zero residual value. But we do both agree there's no hard evidence (that you or I are privy to) that these Apple repurchases have boosted the stock price. 
    Where is the proof there's zero residual value?  You yourself admit in the next sentence that there's no proof that AAPL's share price was affected by the repurchase - there's also no proof that it wasn't.   Even the word "residual" could be wrong - for all we know, *all* of the value of the stock repurchase went into raising the stock price or keeping it from otherwise falling.
    Ah, I see there's a difference in the interpretation of "residual value". I'll put it differently:
    The stock that is repurchased is retired, burned in effect, and has no residual book value. Is that better? On top of that there is not evidence you could offer that the stock repurchases were effective in raising Apple stock price above the level it would have been anyway if the repurchase program did not exist in the form it does. 
    The shares are retired, which means that each outstanding share is worth a larger percentage of the company. That’s the whole point of a repurchase. For a simplified example, imagine that there were 10 outstanding shares, so each represented 10% of the company. If the company bought back five of those shares and retired them, each remaining outstanding share would represent a 20% of the company, or twice as much as previously. Meanwhile, other factors may affect the share price, but a share representing 20% of the company should be worth more than it was worth when it only represented a 10% ownership of the company. It would be worth exactly double, except for the fact that the company’s capitalization has decreased by the price of the buyback, so there is an opportunity cost—is there a better way to invest the money than betting on your own company? There’s a lot of trading based on opinions, guesses, misconceptions, incomplete calculations, etc., so it’s hard to know how much everyone trading the stock factors buybacks into the valuation (or how much they even consider profits and growth, for that matter), but the only way it would have no effect is if absolutely nobody trading the stock understood what a buyback was.   Investors see the earnings per share and price/earnings ratio go up as a direct result of buybacks, and that impacts valuation. 
    edited September 4 PickUrPoison
  • Reply 22 of 90
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,106member
    gmac said:
    gatorguy said:
    tjwolf said:
    gatorguy said:
    tjwolf said:

    gatorguy said:
    red oak said:
    Debt interest is tax deductible for Apple.  That brings the interest cost down to its dividend yield 

    So,  a nearly cost free way for Apple to buy back its own stock.   Makes a ton of sense, especially if Apple thinks the stock will 2 or 3X in the next 8 years 


    Nothing about the stock repurchase program makes any sense to me. Apple doesn't keep it, they burn it, and if there's some proof that the buybacks have increased the stock price above where it would otherwise be it's being keep secret. 
    This goes both ways: there's no proof that "they burn it" - that share buyback have had no impact on stock prices.  But in general, the laws of supply/demand would suggest that buybacks would positively impact stock price.
    There is proof the stock is "burned", zero residual value. But we do both agree there's no hard evidence (that you or I are privy to) that these Apple repurchases have boosted the stock price. 
    Where is the proof there's zero residual value?  You yourself admit in the next sentence that there's no proof that AAPL's share price was affected by the repurchase - there's also no proof that it wasn't.   Even the word "residual" could be wrong - for all we know, *all* of the value of the stock repurchase went into raising the stock price or keeping it from otherwise falling.
    Ah, I see there's a difference in the interpretation of "residual value". I'll put it differently:
    The stock that is repurchased is retired, burned in effect, and has no residual book value. Is that better? On top of that there is not evidence you could offer that the stock repurchases were effective in raising Apple stock price above the level it would have been anyway if the repurchase program did not exist in the form it does. 
    Buying back and retiring the shares reduces the shares outstanding, which increases the EPS and keeping Apple's EPS multiple constant, the share price will go up. 
    You might assume so, but the evidence it happened is lacking. Personally I see zero evidence it had any significant effect on the share price, at least if using comparisons to their tech brethren.
    edited September 4
  • Reply 23 of 90
    dougd said:
    Greedy bastards
    Dougd doesn’t like it!
    StrangeDaysretrogustoAppleExposed
  • Reply 24 of 90
    Apple should stop immediately its outsized buyback program and stop incurring additional debt. There is no sane logic behind it. Cook underwrote a pamphlet some days that there is more to corporate governance than feeding cash to shareholders. There are many more stakeholders including customers and employees. None of these constituents are benefitting from debt funded stock buybacks!  There will come a point in time when debt will exceed cash and there will be another point in time when the iPhone will bring in ever less cash. 
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 25 of 90
    bohler said:
    Apple should stop immediately its outsized buyback program and stop incurring additional debt. There is no sane logic behind it. Cook underwrote a pamphlet some days that there is more to corporate governance than feeding cash to shareholders. There are many more stakeholders including customers and employees. None of these constituents are benefitting from debt funded stock buybacks!  There will come a point in time when debt will exceed cash and there will be another point in time when the iPhone will bring in ever less cash. 
    Watch out, Luca Maestri — we got someone over here angling for your job!
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 26 of 90
    gatorguy said:
    red oak said:
    Debt interest is tax deductible for Apple.  That brings the interest cost down to its dividend yield 

    So,  a nearly cost free way for Apple to buy back its own stock.   Makes a ton of sense, especially if Apple thinks the stock will 2 or 3X in the next 8 years 


    Nothing about the stock repurchase program makes any sense to me. Apple doesn't keep it, they burn it, and if there's some proof that the buybacks have increased the stock price above where it would otherwise be it's being keep secret. 
    It's commonly believed that the buybacks do in fact increase the stock price -- by decreasing the number of shares outstanding as well as by (potentially) buying them for more than the market would otherwise.

    But, that doesn't mean that they contribute anything to well being of the corporation.   Just wall street and the stock holders.   Actually, they decrease the viability of the company by decreasing its ability to absorb shocks and make investments that further the company.
  • Reply 27 of 90
    gatorguy said:
    tjwolf said:
    gatorguy said:
    tjwolf said:

    gatorguy said:
    red oak said:
    Debt interest is tax deductible for Apple.  That brings the interest cost down to its dividend yield 

    So,  a nearly cost free way for Apple to buy back its own stock.   Makes a ton of sense, especially if Apple thinks the stock will 2 or 3X in the next 8 years 


    Nothing about the stock repurchase program makes any sense to me. Apple doesn't keep it, they burn it, and if there's some proof that the buybacks have increased the stock price above where it would otherwise be it's being keep secret. 
    This goes both ways: there's no proof that "they burn it" - that share buyback have had no impact on stock prices.  But in general, the laws of supply/demand would suggest that buybacks would positively impact stock price.
    There is proof the stock is "burned", zero residual value. But we do both agree there's no hard evidence (that you or I are privy to) that these Apple repurchases have boosted the stock price. 
    Where is the proof there's zero residual value?  You yourself admit in the next sentence that there's no proof that AAPL's share price was affected by the repurchase - there's also no proof that it wasn't.   Even the word "residual" could be wrong - for all we know, *all* of the value of the stock repurchase went into raising the stock price or keeping it from otherwise falling.
    Ah, I see there's a difference in the interpretation of "residual value". I'll put it differently:
    The Apple stock that is repurchased is retired, burned in effect, and has no residual book value. Indisputable fact.
    Is that better?

    On top of that there is no evidence you could offer that the stock repurchases have been effective in raising Apple stock price above the level it would have been anyway if the repurchase program did not exist in the form it does. 
    No, there isn't any hard evidence that buybacks affect the price and never will be -- simply because stock prices are ultimately determined by the market which in turn is subject to a wide spectrum of objective and subjective factors -- of which the buyback is only one.

    But, it certainly improves things like earnings per share simply because it creates fewer shares.
    retrogusto
  • Reply 28 of 90
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,106member
    gatorguy said:
    tjwolf said:
    gatorguy said:
    tjwolf said:

    gatorguy said:
    red oak said:
    Debt interest is tax deductible for Apple.  That brings the interest cost down to its dividend yield 

    So,  a nearly cost free way for Apple to buy back its own stock.   Makes a ton of sense, especially if Apple thinks the stock will 2 or 3X in the next 8 years 


    Nothing about the stock repurchase program makes any sense to me. Apple doesn't keep it, they burn it, and if there's some proof that the buybacks have increased the stock price above where it would otherwise be it's being keep secret. 
    This goes both ways: there's no proof that "they burn it" - that share buyback have had no impact on stock prices.  But in general, the laws of supply/demand would suggest that buybacks would positively impact stock price.
    There is proof the stock is "burned", zero residual value. But we do both agree there's no hard evidence (that you or I are privy to) that these Apple repurchases have boosted the stock price. 
    Where is the proof there's zero residual value?  You yourself admit in the next sentence that there's no proof that AAPL's share price was affected by the repurchase - there's also no proof that it wasn't.   Even the word "residual" could be wrong - for all we know, *all* of the value of the stock repurchase went into raising the stock price or keeping it from otherwise falling.
    Ah, I see there's a difference in the interpretation of "residual value". I'll put it differently:
    The Apple stock that is repurchased is retired, burned in effect, and has no residual book value. Indisputable fact.
    Is that better?

    On top of that there is no evidence you could offer that the stock repurchases have been effective in raising Apple stock price above the level it would have been anyway if the repurchase program did not exist in the form it does. 
    No, there isn't any hard evidence that buybacks affect the price and never will be -- simply because stock prices are ultimately determined by the market which in turn is subject to a wide spectrum of objective and subjective factors -- of which the buyback is only one.

    But, it certainly improves things like earnings per share simply because it creates fewer shares.
    I agree with the earnings per share, obviously. 
  • Reply 29 of 90
    Stock buybacks and dividends are a form of corporate liquidation where corporate assets are distributed to the owners of the company.  To do it as a share of current earnings is one thing -- but to have to borrow money to do it is in a whole different ball park.  

    Plus, to do it with borrowed money is a double wammy on the company:   Not only are they liquidating corporate assets but they are paying interest on the monies they are distributing to the owners.

    Any company who borrows money in order to make dividend payments or stock buybacks should be looked on suspiciously by any investor.

    But, over the past decade it has become common corporate practice to borrow money and use it for dividends and stock buybacks and it has greatly inflated stock prices and one can only wonder what will happen to those prices when it ends and the money has to be paid back to the lenders.   It's likely one of the reasons why Wall Street is pressing so hard to get the Fed to keep rates low -- they want to keep the scam going.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 30 of 90
    gatorguy said:
    red oak said:
    Debt interest is tax deductible for Apple.  That brings the interest cost down to its dividend yield 

    So,  a nearly cost free way for Apple to buy back its own stock.   Makes a ton of sense, especially if Apple thinks the stock will 2 or 3X in the next 8 years 


    Nothing about the stock repurchase program makes any sense to me. Apple doesn't keep it, they burn it, and if there's some proof that the buybacks have increased the stock price above where it would otherwise be it's being keep secret. 
    If it doesn't make sense to you, then it's time to educate yourself. Knowing that you actively participate in the forums, raises the question why haven't you learned anything from the explanations in other post about the payback. Some users has explained the financial rational behind the stock repurchase program. I guess you missed their explanations because of your firm believe (and thus bias) that the stock repurchase doesn't make any sence.
    fastasleep
  • Reply 31 of 90
    gatorguy said:
    gmac said:
    gatorguy said:
    tjwolf said:
    gatorguy said:
    tjwolf said:

    gatorguy said:
    red oak said:
    Debt interest is tax deductible for Apple.  That brings the interest cost down to its dividend yield 

    So,  a nearly cost free way for Apple to buy back its own stock.   Makes a ton of sense, especially if Apple thinks the stock will 2 or 3X in the next 8 years 


    Nothing about the stock repurchase program makes any sense to me. Apple doesn't keep it, they burn it, and if there's some proof that the buybacks have increased the stock price above where it would otherwise be it's being keep secret. 
    This goes both ways: there's no proof that "they burn it" - that share buyback have had no impact on stock prices.  But in general, the laws of supply/demand would suggest that buybacks would positively impact stock price.
    There is proof the stock is "burned", zero residual value. But we do both agree there's no hard evidence (that you or I are privy to) that these Apple repurchases have boosted the stock price. 
    Where is the proof there's zero residual value?  You yourself admit in the next sentence that there's no proof that AAPL's share price was affected by the repurchase - there's also no proof that it wasn't.   Even the word "residual" could be wrong - for all we know, *all* of the value of the stock repurchase went into raising the stock price or keeping it from otherwise falling.
    Ah, I see there's a difference in the interpretation of "residual value". I'll put it differently:
    The stock that is repurchased is retired, burned in effect, and has no residual book value. Is that better? On top of that there is not evidence you could offer that the stock repurchases were effective in raising Apple stock price above the level it would have been anyway if the repurchase program did not exist in the form it does. 
    Buying back and retiring the shares reduces the shares outstanding, which increases the EPS and keeping Apple's EPS multiple constant, the share price will go up. 
    You might assume so, but the evidence it happened is lacking. Personally I see zero evidence it had any significant effect on the share price, at least if using comparisons to their tech brethren.
    It's not the assumption. It's how the financial market works.
    You don't see. No wunder. Because you haven't looked for it properly.
    The price variation can be caused by many other factors as well. You need to separate those factors to leave only one - the repurchase program. It is possible to do only if you build a model accounting for those factors.
    If you want to see the evidence for it, you need to read the research papers which analyse this. Or do your own research. Then you will see. Research and you will see. 
    fastasleep
  • Reply 32 of 90
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,106member
    urahara said:
    gatorguy said:
    red oak said:
    Debt interest is tax deductible for Apple.  That brings the interest cost down to its dividend yield 

    So,  a nearly cost free way for Apple to buy back its own stock.   Makes a ton of sense, especially if Apple thinks the stock will 2 or 3X in the next 8 years 


    Nothing about the stock repurchase program makes any sense to me. Apple doesn't keep it, they burn it, and if there's some proof that the buybacks have increased the stock price above where it would otherwise be it's being keep secret. 
    If it doesn't make sense to you, then it's time to educate yourself. Knowing that you actively participate in the forums, raises the question why haven't you learned anything from the explanations in other post about the payback. Some users has explained the financial rational behind the stock repurchase program. I guess you missed their explanations because of your firm believe (and thus bias) that the stock repurchase doesn't make any sence.
    urahara said:
    gatorguy said:
    red oak said:
    Debt interest is tax deductible for Apple.  That brings the interest cost down to its dividend yield 

    So,  a nearly cost free way for Apple to buy back its own stock.   Makes a ton of sense, especially if Apple thinks the stock will 2 or 3X in the next 8 years 


    Nothing about the stock repurchase program makes any sense to me. Apple doesn't keep it, they burn it, and if there's some proof that the buybacks have increased the stock price above where it would otherwise be it's being keep secret. 
    If it doesn't make sense to you, then it's time to educate yourself. Knowing that you actively participate in the forums, raises the question why haven't you learned anything from the explanations in other post about the payback. Some users has explained the financial rational behind the stock repurchase program. I guess you missed their explanations because of your firm believe (and thus bias) that the stock repurchase doesn't make any sence.
    I didn't miss the explanations. I missed the evidence it worked to increase the stock price. You have no evidence it has done so, thus your scolding for something you can't prove either is more than a tad beyond silly.  
    edited September 4 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 33 of 90

    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    tjwolf said:
    gatorguy said:
    tjwolf said:

    gatorguy said:
    red oak said:
    Debt interest is tax deductible for Apple.  That brings the interest cost down to its dividend yield 

    So,  a nearly cost free way for Apple to buy back its own stock.   Makes a ton of sense, especially if Apple thinks the stock will 2 or 3X in the next 8 years 


    Nothing about the stock repurchase program makes any sense to me. Apple doesn't keep it, they burn it, and if there's some proof that the buybacks have increased the stock price above where it would otherwise be it's being keep secret. 
    This goes both ways: there's no proof that "they burn it" - that share buyback have had no impact on stock prices.  But in general, the laws of supply/demand would suggest that buybacks would positively impact stock price.
    There is proof the stock is "burned", zero residual value. But we do both agree there's no hard evidence (that you or I are privy to) that these Apple repurchases have boosted the stock price. 
    Where is the proof there's zero residual value?  You yourself admit in the next sentence that there's no proof that AAPL's share price was affected by the repurchase - there's also no proof that it wasn't.   Even the word "residual" could be wrong - for all we know, *all* of the value of the stock repurchase went into raising the stock price or keeping it from otherwise falling.
    Ah, I see there's a difference in the interpretation of "residual value". I'll put it differently:
    The Apple stock that is repurchased is retired, burned in effect, and has no residual book value. Indisputable fact.
    Is that better?

    On top of that there is no evidence you could offer that the stock repurchases have been effective in raising Apple stock price above the level it would have been anyway if the repurchase program did not exist in the form it does. 
    No, there isn't any hard evidence that buybacks affect the price and never will be -- simply because stock prices are ultimately determined by the market which in turn is subject to a wide spectrum of objective and subjective factors -- of which the buyback is only one.

    But, it certainly improves things like earnings per share simply because it creates fewer shares.
    I agree with the earnings per share, obviously. 
    You are so close to understand.
    Look for 'how earnings per share affect the share price and firm value'.
    Soli
  • Reply 34 of 90
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,106member
    urahara said:

    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    tjwolf said:
    gatorguy said:
    tjwolf said:

    gatorguy said:
    red oak said:
    Debt interest is tax deductible for Apple.  That brings the interest cost down to its dividend yield 

    So,  a nearly cost free way for Apple to buy back its own stock.   Makes a ton of sense, especially if Apple thinks the stock will 2 or 3X in the next 8 years 


    Nothing about the stock repurchase program makes any sense to me. Apple doesn't keep it, they burn it, and if there's some proof that the buybacks have increased the stock price above where it would otherwise be it's being keep secret. 
    This goes both ways: there's no proof that "they burn it" - that share buyback have had no impact on stock prices.  But in general, the laws of supply/demand would suggest that buybacks would positively impact stock price.
    There is proof the stock is "burned", zero residual value. But we do both agree there's no hard evidence (that you or I are privy to) that these Apple repurchases have boosted the stock price. 
    Where is the proof there's zero residual value?  You yourself admit in the next sentence that there's no proof that AAPL's share price was affected by the repurchase - there's also no proof that it wasn't.   Even the word "residual" could be wrong - for all we know, *all* of the value of the stock repurchase went into raising the stock price or keeping it from otherwise falling.
    Ah, I see there's a difference in the interpretation of "residual value". I'll put it differently:
    The Apple stock that is repurchased is retired, burned in effect, and has no residual book value. Indisputable fact.
    Is that better?

    On top of that there is no evidence you could offer that the stock repurchases have been effective in raising Apple stock price above the level it would have been anyway if the repurchase program did not exist in the form it does. 
    No, there isn't any hard evidence that buybacks affect the price and never will be -- simply because stock prices are ultimately determined by the market which in turn is subject to a wide spectrum of objective and subjective factors -- of which the buyback is only one.

    But, it certainly improves things like earnings per share simply because it creates fewer shares.
    I agree with the earnings per share, obviously. 
    You are so close to understand.
    Look for 'how earnings per share affect the share price and firm value'.
    Oh geez...
    Then it should be trivial for you to demonstrate it did so. How much higher is the stock price because of the buybacks? 
    edited September 4 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 35 of 90
    tjwolf said:
    salmonstk said:
    Interest rates for companies like Apple or lets say Berkshire Hathaway are crazy low.  Might I suggest Apple issue a couple hundred billion in debt as does Berhshire and together they take the company Private.  
    Apple's market cap is close to a trillion.  A couple hundred billion here and there aren't going to cut it.
    Apple has 200 B in cash so they borrow another 200 B that gets you 400 of 1000.  Berkshire borrows another 300B they already own 100B (I think) that gets you to 800 if 1000.  Get the institutional investors involved (pension funds, mutual funds etc) I think it may just be doable.

    Better yet get Apple and Berkshire to together achieve 50% (well it would be Berkshire with 50% after Apple buy backs.  Then Berkshire could slowly finish the rest.
  • Reply 36 of 90
    I’m not a fan of Apple’s financial engineering.  It may be the “smart” choice, but it’s smart until it’s not.  I’d rather have Apple debt free.
    Despite the virtue signaling on the credit card topics, most of the commercial world operates on credit, lending, and debt.  
    fastasleep
  • Reply 37 of 90
    gatorguy said:
    red oak said:
    Debt interest is tax deductible for Apple.  That brings the interest cost down to its dividend yield 

    So,  a nearly cost free way for Apple to buy back its own stock.   Makes a ton of sense, especially if Apple thinks the stock will 2 or 3X in the next 8 years 


    Nothing about the stock repurchase program makes any sense to me. Apple doesn't keep it, they burn it, and if there's some proof that the buybacks have increased the stock price above where it would otherwise be it's being keep secret. 
    I don’t like it either. They need to get back to basics.
  • Reply 38 of 90
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,944member
    gatorguy said:
    red oak said:
    Debt interest is tax deductible for Apple.  That brings the interest cost down to its dividend yield 

    So,  a nearly cost free way for Apple to buy back its own stock.   Makes a ton of sense, especially if Apple thinks the stock will 2 or 3X in the next 8 years 


    Nothing about the stock repurchase program makes any sense to me. Apple doesn't keep it, they burn it, and if there's some proof that the buybacks have increased the stock price above where it would otherwise be it's being keep secret. 
    "Makes a ton of sense, especially if Apple thinks the stock will 2 or 3X in the next 8 years"

    What red oak said.

    Your short term thinking correlating disbursements with stock value is the problem. That isn't the primary concern of Apple. Their plan is to disburse it back to the stockholder until they are cash neutral while at the same time, generating buybacks at a rate and timing that makes sense.


    Soli
  • Reply 39 of 90
    gatorguy said:
    tjwolf said:

    gatorguy said:
    red oak said:
    Debt interest is tax deductible for Apple.  That brings the interest cost down to its dividend yield 

    So,  a nearly cost free way for Apple to buy back its own stock.   Makes a ton of sense, especially if Apple thinks the stock will 2 or 3X in the next 8 years 


    Nothing about the stock repurchase program makes any sense to me. Apple doesn't keep it, they burn it, and if there's some proof that the buybacks have increased the stock price above where it would otherwise be it's being keep secret. 
    This goes both ways: there's no proof that "they burn it" - that share buyback have had no impact on stock prices.  But in general, the laws of supply/demand would suggest that buybacks would positively impact stock price.
    There is proof the stock is "burned", zero residual value. But we do both agree there's no hard evidence (that you or I are privy to) that these Apple repurchases have boosted the stock price. 
    That is a ridiculous take.   When they buy back stock, each remaining shareholder owns a larger piece of the company.  Company valuations are (largely) based on earnings (really cash flow) per share 

    It works great if a company is aggressively funding its business (R&D, cap ex) and is still generating massive excess cash that it can’t effectively use and is defensible.   It is not good if a company is not investing in itself (eg IBM, GE) 

    Apple is in the sweet spot.  Every year it is able to buy back 5-8% of itself.  In five years, it will have bought back over 60% of itself vs 2012 levels.

    As a stockholder (a primary constituent), I think this is awesome. 


    fastasleepapplesnorangesMacPro
  • Reply 40 of 90
    gatorguy said:
    urahara said:

    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    tjwolf said:
    gatorguy said:
    tjwolf said:

    gatorguy said:
    red oak said:
    Debt interest is tax deductible for Apple.  That brings the interest cost down to its dividend yield 

    So,  a nearly cost free way for Apple to buy back its own stock.   Makes a ton of sense, especially if Apple thinks the stock will 2 or 3X in the next 8 years 


    Nothing about the stock repurchase program makes any sense to me. Apple doesn't keep it, they burn it, and if there's some proof that the buybacks have increased the stock price above where it would otherwise be it's being keep secret. 
    This goes both ways: there's no proof that "they burn it" - that share buyback have had no impact on stock prices.  But in general, the laws of supply/demand would suggest that buybacks would positively impact stock price.
    There is proof the stock is "burned", zero residual value. But we do both agree there's no hard evidence (that you or I are privy to) that these Apple repurchases have boosted the stock price. 
    Where is the proof there's zero residual value?  You yourself admit in the next sentence that there's no proof that AAPL's share price was affected by the repurchase - there's also no proof that it wasn't.   Even the word "residual" could be wrong - for all we know, *all* of the value of the stock repurchase went into raising the stock price or keeping it from otherwise falling.
    Ah, I see there's a difference in the interpretation of "residual value". I'll put it differently:
    The Apple stock that is repurchased is retired, burned in effect, and has no residual book value. Indisputable fact.
    Is that better?

    On top of that there is no evidence you could offer that the stock repurchases have been effective in raising Apple stock price above the level it would have been anyway if the repurchase program did not exist in the form it does. 
    No, there isn't any hard evidence that buybacks affect the price and never will be -- simply because stock prices are ultimately determined by the market which in turn is subject to a wide spectrum of objective and subjective factors -- of which the buyback is only one.

    But, it certainly improves things like earnings per share simply because it creates fewer shares.
    I agree with the earnings per share, obviously. 
    You are so close to understand.
    Look for 'how earnings per share affect the share price and firm value'.
    Oh geez...
    Then it should be trivial for you to demonstrate it did so. How much higher is the stock price because of the buybacks? 
    The share price reflects the collective opinions of everyone who buys and sells shares in the stock. In the case of Apple, I am one of those people, and the buybacks do affect my AAPL trading decisions. If I were the only person in the world trading Apple who was influenced by the buybacks (and EPS and P/E, which are impacted by buybacks), my influence on the share price reflecting the buyback bias would be infinitesimally small, but I think we all agree that I’m not the only one that cares about buybacks, EPS and P/E. Everyone trading Apple who factors buybacks, EPS and/or P/E into their valuation calculations will add to the collective impact of buybacks on share price. And in the long term, if they keep buying back shares and Apple manages to keep raking in the profits, the effect will become more and more pronounced, especially if they buy back and retire all of the shares except for mine!
Sign In or Register to comment.