Apple repurchased 85.7 million shares in the open market during the quarter, at a cost of $17.9 billion and an average price of $208.79. That doesn't include 6.9 million shares which were delivered to Apple during the quarter to complete a $12 billion ASR agreement that Apple entered into in February. Apple's outstanding share count dropped by 88.2 million during the quarter.
Over the last 7 years Apple has repurchased 2.420 billion shares at a cost of $306.1 billon and an average price of $126.51.
The new outstanding share count, as of October 18th, is 4,443,265,000. That number actually went up a small amount from the end of the quarter, which suggests that Apple wasn't very active buying back shares during those 3 weeks.
How much of a difference has it made in the share price? Totally honest question.
Could distributing the excess cash in a series of special dividends been a more effective use of the money as well as being more measurable? If the cash had been distributed per outstanding share how much would each share receive? Back of the envelope says around $40 each on top of the regular dividends. Bonus: The share price might still go up as a result, right?
We may have discussed this before, but...
ETC ETC.
Like the argument some folks use to dismiss religion I like to see verifiable evidence that a business plan I've committed to is performing.
If you aren't an investor in Apple, then I don't see why Apple buybacks keep returning as a problem for you.
Apple repurchased 85.7 million shares in the open market during the quarter, at a cost of $17.9 billion and an average price of $208.79. That doesn't include 6.9 million shares which were delivered to Apple during the quarter to complete a $12 billion ASR agreement that Apple entered into in February. Apple's outstanding share count dropped by 88.2 million during the quarter.
Over the last 7 years Apple has repurchased 2.420 billion shares at a cost of $306.1 billon and an average price of $126.51.
The new outstanding share count, as of October 18th, is 4,443,265,000. That number actually went up a small amount from the end of the quarter, which suggests that Apple wasn't very active buying back shares during those 3 weeks.
How much of a difference has it made in the share price? Totally honest question.
Could distributing the excess cash in a series of special dividends been a more effective use of the money as well as being more measurable? If the cash had been distributed per outstanding share how much would each share receive? Back of the envelope says around $40 each on top of the regular dividends. Bonus: The share price might still go up as a result, right?
We may have discussed this before, but...
ETC ETC.
Like the argument some folks use to dismiss religion I like to see verifiable evidence that a business plan I've committed to is performing.
If you aren't an investor in Apple, then I don't see why Apple buybacks keep returning as a problem for you.
As I recall you aren't an investor in Huawei...
Touche!
Sadly I lack 5G as well, but will likely never see it at my location; low population density.
I did enjoy reading your Atlantic link, which was mostly arguing that buybacks were favored/misused by corporate management, so I added another link;
"According to this idea, the changes leading to a new species don't usually occur in the mainstream population of an organism, where changes wouldn't endure because of so much interbreeding among like creatures. Rather, speciation is more likely at the edge of a population, where a small group can easily become separated geographically from the main body and undergo changes that can create a survival advantage and thus produce a new, non-interbreeding species."
Apple repurchased 85.7 million shares in the open market during the quarter, at a cost of $17.9 billion and an average price of $208.79. That doesn't include 6.9 million shares which were delivered to Apple during the quarter to complete a $12 billion ASR agreement that Apple entered into in February. Apple's outstanding share count dropped by 88.2 million during the quarter.
Over the last 7 years Apple has repurchased 2.420 billion shares at a cost of $306.1 billon and an average price of $126.51.
The new outstanding share count, as of October 18th, is 4,443,265,000. That number actually went up a small amount from the end of the quarter, which suggests that Apple wasn't very active buying back shares during those 3 weeks.
How much of a difference has it made in the share price? Totally honest question.
Could distributing the excess cash in a series of special dividends been a more effective use of the money as well as being more measurable? If the cash had been distributed per outstanding share how much would each share receive? Back of the envelope says around $40 each on top of the regular dividends. Bonus: The share price might still go up as a result, right?
We may have discussed this before, but...
ETC ETC.
Like the argument some folks use to dismiss religion I like to see verifiable evidence that a business plan I've committed to is performing.
If you aren't an investor in Apple, then I don't see why Apple buybacks keep returning as a problem for you.
As I recall you aren't an investor in Huawei...
Touche!
Sadly I lack 5G as well, but will likely never see it at my location; low population density.
I did enjoy reading your Atlantic link, which was mostly arguing that buybacks were favored/misused by corporate management, so I added another link;
"According to this idea, the changes leading to a new species don't usually occur in the mainstream population of an organism, where changes wouldn't endure because of so much interbreeding among like creatures. Rather, speciation is more likely at the edge of a population, where a small group can easily become separated geographically from the main body and undergo changes that can create a survival advantage and thus produce a new, non-interbreeding species."
LOL at the PBS link.
Any idea how much Mr Cook has rec'd so far this year in just stock grants? Try $115 Million worth or around $55K an hour which is nearly as much as the median income for a US family for an entire year.
...and then he receives a multi-million salary on top of that. You seriously think he's underpaid or that he does not personally benefit from maintaining a high stock price? He's really little different from a lot of CEO's except for the wealth of the company he runs. Top CEO's have a vested interest in stock prices.
Apple repurchased 85.7 million shares in the open market during the quarter, at a cost of $17.9 billion and an average price of $208.79. That doesn't include 6.9 million shares which were delivered to Apple during the quarter to complete a $12 billion ASR agreement that Apple entered into in February. Apple's outstanding share count dropped by 88.2 million during the quarter.
Over the last 7 years Apple has repurchased 2.420 billion shares at a cost of $306.1 billon and an average price of $126.51.
The new outstanding share count, as of October 18th, is 4,443,265,000. That number actually went up a small amount from the end of the quarter, which suggests that Apple wasn't very active buying back shares during those 3 weeks.
How much of a difference has it made in the share price? Totally honest question.
Could distributing the excess cash in a series of special dividends been a more effective use of the money as well as being more measurable? If the cash had been distributed per outstanding share how much would each share receive? Back of the envelope says around $40 each on top of the regular dividends. Bonus: The share price might still go up as a result, right?
We may have discussed this before, but...
ETC ETC.
Like the argument some folks use to dismiss religion I like to see verifiable evidence that a business plan I've committed to is performing.
If you aren't an investor in Apple, then I don't see why Apple buybacks keep returning as a problem for you.
As I recall you aren't an investor in Huawei...
Touche!
Sadly I lack 5G as well, but will likely never see it at my location; low population density.
I did enjoy reading your Atlantic link, which was mostly arguing that buybacks were favored/misused by corporate management, so I added another link;
"According to this idea, the changes leading to a new species don't usually occur in the mainstream population of an organism, where changes wouldn't endure because of so much interbreeding among like creatures. Rather, speciation is more likely at the edge of a population, where a small group can easily become separated geographically from the main body and undergo changes that can create a survival advantage and thus produce a new, non-interbreeding species."
LOL at the PBS link.
Any idea how much Mr Cook has rec'd so far this year in just stock grants? Try $115Million or around $55K an hour which is nearly as much as the median income for a US family for an entire year.
...and then he receives a multi-million salary on top of that. You seriously think he's underpaid?
Not underpaid, but compensated much less than some less than productive CEO's of other corporations.
Apple repurchased 85.7 million shares in the open market during the quarter, at a cost of $17.9 billion and an average price of $208.79. That doesn't include 6.9 million shares which were delivered to Apple during the quarter to complete a $12 billion ASR agreement that Apple entered into in February. Apple's outstanding share count dropped by 88.2 million during the quarter.
Over the last 7 years Apple has repurchased 2.420 billion shares at a cost of $306.1 billon and an average price of $126.51.
The new outstanding share count, as of October 18th, is 4,443,265,000. That number actually went up a small amount from the end of the quarter, which suggests that Apple wasn't very active buying back shares during those 3 weeks.
How much of a difference has it made in the share price? Totally honest question.
Could distributing the excess cash in a series of special dividends been a more effective use of the money as well as being more measurable? If the cash had been distributed per outstanding share how much would each share receive? Back of the envelope says around $40 each on top of the regular dividends. Bonus: The share price might still go up as a result, right?
No one has a clue. That is the honest answer.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is simply lying or blindly theorizing.
Apple repurchased 85.7 million shares in the open market during the quarter, at a cost of $17.9 billion and an average price of $208.79. That doesn't include 6.9 million shares which were delivered to Apple during the quarter to complete a $12 billion ASR agreement that Apple entered into in February. Apple's outstanding share count dropped by 88.2 million during the quarter.
Over the last 7 years Apple has repurchased 2.420 billion shares at a cost of $306.1 billon and an average price of $126.51.
The new outstanding share count, as of October 18th, is 4,443,265,000. That number actually went up a small amount from the end of the quarter, which suggests that Apple wasn't very active buying back shares during those 3 weeks.
How much of a difference has it made in the share price? Totally honest question.
Could distributing the excess cash in a series of special dividends been a more effective use of the money as well as being more measurable? If the cash had been distributed per outstanding share how much would each share receive? Back of the envelope says around $40 each on top of the regular dividends. Bonus: The share price might still go up as a result, right?
We may have discussed this before, but...
ETC ETC.
Like the argument some folks use to dismiss religion I like to see verifiable evidence that a business plan I've committed to is performing.
If you aren't an investor in Apple, then I don't see why Apple buybacks keep returning as a problem for you.
Apple repurchased 85.7 million shares in the open market during the quarter, at a cost of $17.9 billion and an average price of $208.79. That doesn't include 6.9 million shares which were delivered to Apple during the quarter to complete a $12 billion ASR agreement that Apple entered into in February. Apple's outstanding share count dropped by 88.2 million during the quarter.
Over the last 7 years Apple has repurchased 2.420 billion shares at a cost of $306.1 billon and an average price of $126.51.
The new outstanding share count, as of October 18th, is 4,443,265,000. That number actually went up a small amount from the end of the quarter, which suggests that Apple wasn't very active buying back shares during those 3 weeks.
How much of a difference has it made in the share price? Totally honest question.
Could distributing the excess cash in a series of special dividends been a more effective use of the money as well as being more measurable? If the cash had been distributed per outstanding share how much would each share receive? Back of the envelope says around $40 each on top of the regular dividends. Bonus: The share price might still go up as a result, right?
We may have discussed this before, but...
ETC ETC.
Like the argument some folks use to dismiss religion I like to see verifiable evidence that a business plan I've committed to is performing.
If you aren't an investor in Apple, then I don't see why Apple buybacks keep returning as a problem for you.
As I recall you aren't an investor in Huawei...
Touche!
Sadly I lack 5G as well, but will likely never see it at my location; low population density.
I did enjoy reading your Atlantic link, which was mostly arguing that buybacks were favored/misused by corporate management, so I added another link;
"According to this idea, the changes leading to a new species don't usually occur in the mainstream population of an organism, where changes wouldn't endure because of so much interbreeding among like creatures. Rather, speciation is more likely at the edge of a population, where a small group can easily become separated geographically from the main body and undergo changes that can create a survival advantage and thus produce a new, non-interbreeding species."
LOL at the PBS link.
Any idea how much Mr Cook has rec'd so far this year in just stock grants? Try $115 Million worth or around $55K an hour which is nearly as much as the median income for a US family for an entire year.
...and then he receives a multi-million salary on top of that. You seriously think he's underpaid or that he does not personally benefit from maintaining a high stock price? He's really little different from a lot of CEO's except for the wealth of the company he runs. Top CEO's have a vested interest in stock prices.
Apple repurchased 85.7 million shares in the open market during the quarter, at a cost of $17.9 billion and an average price of $208.79. That doesn't include 6.9 million shares which were delivered to Apple during the quarter to complete a $12 billion ASR agreement that Apple entered into in February. Apple's outstanding share count dropped by 88.2 million during the quarter.
Over the last 7 years Apple has repurchased 2.420 billion shares at a cost of $306.1 billon and an average price of $126.51.
The new outstanding share count, as of October 18th, is 4,443,265,000. That number actually went up a small amount from the end of the quarter, which suggests that Apple wasn't very active buying back shares during those 3 weeks.
How much of a difference has it made in the share price? Totally honest question.
Could distributing the excess cash in a series of special dividends been a more effective use of the money as well as being more measurable? If the cash had been distributed per outstanding share how much would each share receive? Back of the envelope says around $40 each on top of the regular dividends. Bonus: The share price might still go up as a result, right?
We may have discussed this before, but...
We're talking about a counterfactual, so we of course can't prove that the stock price would be lower today if Apple hadn't repurchased the shares that it repurchased over the last 7 years. I can't prove that there'd be no human life on earth today if the sun had gone supernova a year ago. But I can, based on what I know, conclude with a high degree of confidence that that would be the case.
If we want to consider what the share price of AAPL would be today if, other things being equal, it hadn't repurchased the 2.4 billion shares it did over the last 7 years, we can consider how the differences (between the current reality and that counterfactual) might effect the market's valuation of Apple. Apple would have 2.4 billion less outstanding shares and around $300 billion more in net cash on its books. If Apple had the same share price as it does now (I'll use $247.89, which is what it was a moment ago when I checked), but had 2.42 billion more shares outstanding, its market cap would be about $1.7 trillion - about $600 billion higher than it is now. So, the question we might ask is: Would the market value Apple $600 billion more if, other things being equal, Apple had $300 billion more in net cash on its books? I don't think so. I think, at best, the market would value that extra net cash at 1:1 - giving Apple a market cap of around $1.4 trillion. That would mean a share price of around $204 - $44 lower than it is now.
In simplest terms, what share repurchases tend to do is concentrate (or, put an other way, increase) future share price moves. Future increases become greater or future decreases become greater. (The mechanics of why are pretty straight forward, but I can go through them if needed.)
That's a comparison to what might be the case if Apple hadn't bought back shares, but instead continued to retain all those earnings. I don't think it can credibly be argued that the share repurchases haven't helped Apple's stock price. As for comparing the repurchases to something else Apple might have done with that money, that would of course depend on what that something else was. You ask about special dividends. I don't think that would have been as good an option because (1) it forces tax consequences on shareholders rather than leaving them free to decide whether or not to take those tax consequences at a given time and (2) because it wouldn't reward (and thus encourage) long-term ownership of Apple stock. A special dividend would result in an increase in the share price up until the special dividend date, and then the increase would disappear. There'd be no reason to value shares higher going forward based on a special dividend having been paid.
As it is, Apple has effectively been buying Apple on behalf of continuing shareholders - it is, at no cost to them, giving them more of the company and a larger share of its total value going forward. It has thus far been doing that at very attractive prices. If shareholders instead want cash now, they have the option of selling shares and getting that cash. They can sell a portion of their holdings which is equivalent to the concentration they realized from Apple buying back shares and thus end up owning the same portion of Apple which they owned before and receiving the same amount of cash as they would have gotten as a dividend payment if Apple had instead used the money to pay special dividends. Those who choose not to do that get to benefit from share price increases which might happen after the buybacks. In other words, people who think Apple should be paying dividends instead of buying back shares (or people who, for their own reasons, would just prefer that), can sell shares and end up with meaningfully the same result. Those who don't think that can continue to hold their concentrated shares.
Another way to think about it is like this: If for some reason Apple needed that $300 billion which the share buybacks have effectively cost it, it could raise that much and more by issuing new shares and selling them. Even at an average price $50 below where the stock trades today, Apple would be way ahead - it would raise far more money than it spent buying back shares, even while keeping share concentration the same (or greater) than it would have been had Apple not repurchased shares to begin with. Apple is, in effect, way ahead on its share repurchases. Apple, of course, isn't going to do that. That's the point, the money spent on buybacks is money that Apple didn't need - that it wasn't going to use for other purposes. It already spends, on other things, all the money that it thinks makes good business sense. The only real choice is special (or much larger) dividends or share buybacks, and for a number of reasons I think the latter is a much better option.
I disagree, I don’t believe your argument to be credible. It’s no more than conjecture. I have no doubt that shares pop right after a repurchase program is announced. But all evidence shows it to be small, and short lived. I doubt anyone here would agree that if Apple purchased 20% of their shares at once, that the stock would suddenly move to $300. And stay there. It would move a bit, maybe $10, but market forces would wipe it out.
there is simply no way to prove, or even statistically show, that share repurchases move directly in line with stock prices. It’s never been proven. And like so many financial theories lack of evidence doesn’t seem to matter for those who believe in them, unfortunately.
Of course it can't be proven, it's a counterfactual.
But I'd ask... By how much more do you think the market would value Apple today if Apple, with other things being the same, had an additional $300 billion in net cash on its books? That's the most straightforward way to get a fair idea of the overall effect of Apple having repurchased shares rather than it having just continued to hold that money.
No, it’s really not, because the market takes cash into little account when valuing a company. The bigger the company the more they do, but generally no more than a percentage. So let me ask you how the market takes Apple’s $110 billion plus in debt due to repurchases into account?
however, making statements that the stock has a value solely because of EPS is wrong too, but that’s the main argument of repurchase fans. The big problem here is the assumption that a stock price directly relates to EPS, which it obviously doesn’t. So, tell me what a “proper” P/E is. 5, 10, 15, 20 or 1,000? If you can’t give that answer with a definitive number, then it shows that It is just one of many reasons why a stock is sitting where it is. Expectations as to a companies future is a bigger determinate of a price than is EPS. This is a major reason why repurchases are a poor way to raise a stock price.
A much better one is to have a successful company. If sales and profits continue to rise, they will swamp any increase from a repurchase.
Apple repurchased 85.7 million shares in the open market during the quarter, at a cost of $17.9 billion and an average price of $208.79. That doesn't include 6.9 million shares which were delivered to Apple during the quarter to complete a $12 billion ASR agreement that Apple entered into in February. Apple's outstanding share count dropped by 88.2 million during the quarter.
Over the last 7 years Apple has repurchased 2.420 billion shares at a cost of $306.1 billon and an average price of $126.51.
The new outstanding share count, as of October 18th, is 4,443,265,000. That number actually went up a small amount from the end of the quarter, which suggests that Apple wasn't very active buying back shares during those 3 weeks.
How much of a difference has it made in the share price? Totally honest question.
Could distributing the excess cash in a series of special dividends been a more effective use of the money as well as being more measurable? If the cash had been distributed per outstanding share how much would each share receive? Back of the envelope says around $40 each on top of the regular dividends. Bonus: The share price might still go up as a result, right?
We may have discussed this before, but...
ETC ETC.
Like the argument some folks use to dismiss religion I like to see verifiable evidence that a business plan I've committed to is performing.
If you aren't an investor in Apple, then I don't see why Apple buybacks keep returning as a problem for you.
As I recall you aren't an investor in Huawei...
Touche!
Sadly I lack 5G as well, but will likely never see it at my location; low population density.
I did enjoy reading your Atlantic link, which was mostly arguing that buybacks were favored/misused by corporate management, so I added another link;
"According to this idea, the changes leading to a new species don't usually occur in the mainstream population of an organism, where changes wouldn't endure because of so much interbreeding among like creatures. Rather, speciation is more likely at the edge of a population, where a small group can easily become separated geographically from the main body and undergo changes that can create a survival advantage and thus produce a new, non-interbreeding species."
LOL at the PBS link.
Any idea how much Mr Cook has rec'd so far this year in just stock grants? Try $115 Million worth or around $55K an hour which is nearly as much as the median income for a US family for an entire year.
...and then he receives a multi-million salary on top of that. You seriously think he's underpaid or that he does not personally benefit from maintaining a high stock price? He's really little different from a lot of CEO's except for the wealth of the company he runs. Top CEO's have a vested interest in stock prices.
Oh dear, you probably don't want to look at Sundar's previous compensation. In fact, it was so generous that he ended up refusing a large increase in compensation in 2018 due to the optics.
Tim's net worth; about $625M after more than 20 years at Apple
Sundar's net worth; about $500M after eleven years at Google
Apple repurchased 85.7 million shares in the open market during the quarter, at a cost of $17.9 billion and an average price of $208.79. That doesn't include 6.9 million shares which were delivered to Apple during the quarter to complete a $12 billion ASR agreement that Apple entered into in February. Apple's outstanding share count dropped by 88.2 million during the quarter.
Over the last 7 years Apple has repurchased 2.420 billion shares at a cost of $306.1 billon and an average price of $126.51.
The new outstanding share count, as of October 18th, is 4,443,265,000. That number actually went up a small amount from the end of the quarter, which suggests that Apple wasn't very active buying back shares during those 3 weeks.
How much of a difference has it made in the share price? Totally honest question.
Could distributing the excess cash in a series of special dividends been a more effective use of the money as well as being more measurable? If the cash had been distributed per outstanding share how much would each share receive? Back of the envelope says around $40 each on top of the regular dividends. Bonus: The share price might still go up as a result, right?
We may have discussed this before, but...
ETC ETC.
Like the argument some folks use to dismiss religion I like to see verifiable evidence that a business plan I've committed to is performing.
If you aren't an investor in Apple, then I don't see why Apple buybacks keep returning as a problem for you.
As I recall you aren't an investor in Huawei...
Touche!
Sadly I lack 5G as well, but will likely never see it at my location; low population density.
I did enjoy reading your Atlantic link, which was mostly arguing that buybacks were favored/misused by corporate management, so I added another link;
"According to this idea, the changes leading to a new species don't usually occur in the mainstream population of an organism, where changes wouldn't endure because of so much interbreeding among like creatures. Rather, speciation is more likely at the edge of a population, where a small group can easily become separated geographically from the main body and undergo changes that can create a survival advantage and thus produce a new, non-interbreeding species."
LOL at the PBS link.
Any idea how much Mr Cook has rec'd so far this year in just stock grants? Try $115 Million worth or around $55K an hour which is nearly as much as the median income for a US family for an entire year.
...and then he receives a multi-million salary on top of that. You seriously think he's underpaid or that he does not personally benefit from maintaining a high stock price? He's really little different from a lot of CEO's except for the wealth of the company he runs. Top CEO's have a vested interest in stock prices.
For the amount of profit he generates as CEO in comparison to other CEOs he's considerably underpaid.
edit: For fun I went to celebritynetworth.com. Here's a comment from the bottom of each of the respective pages for Sundar and Tim.
Apple repurchased 85.7 million shares in the open market during the quarter, at a cost of $17.9 billion and an average price of $208.79. That doesn't include 6.9 million shares which were delivered to Apple during the quarter to complete a $12 billion ASR agreement that Apple entered into in February. Apple's outstanding share count dropped by 88.2 million during the quarter.
Over the last 7 years Apple has repurchased 2.420 billion shares at a cost of $306.1 billon and an average price of $126.51.
The new outstanding share count, as of October 18th, is 4,443,265,000. That number actually went up a small amount from the end of the quarter, which suggests that Apple wasn't very active buying back shares during those 3 weeks.
How much of a difference has it made in the share price? Totally honest question.
Could distributing the excess cash in a series of special dividends been a more effective use of the money as well as being more measurable? If the cash had been distributed per outstanding share how much would each share receive? Back of the envelope says around $40 each on top of the regular dividends. Bonus: The share price might still go up as a result, right?
We may have discussed this before, but...
ETC ETC.
Like the argument some folks use to dismiss religion I like to see verifiable evidence that a business plan I've committed to is performing.
If you aren't an investor in Apple, then I don't see why Apple buybacks keep returning as a problem for you.
As I recall you aren't an investor in Huawei...
Touche!
Sadly I lack 5G as well, but will likely never see it at my location; low population density.
I did enjoy reading your Atlantic link, which was mostly arguing that buybacks were favored/misused by corporate management, so I added another link;
"According to this idea, the changes leading to a new species don't usually occur in the mainstream population of an organism, where changes wouldn't endure because of so much interbreeding among like creatures. Rather, speciation is more likely at the edge of a population, where a small group can easily become separated geographically from the main body and undergo changes that can create a survival advantage and thus produce a new, non-interbreeding species."
LOL at the PBS link.
Any idea how much Mr Cook has rec'd so far this year in just stock grants? Try $115 Million worth or around $55K an hour which is nearly as much as the median income for a US family for an entire year.
...and then he receives a multi-million salary on top of that. You seriously think he's underpaid or that he does not personally benefit from maintaining a high stock price? He's really little different from a lot of CEO's except for the wealth of the company he runs. Top CEO's have a vested interest in stock prices.
For the amount of profit he generates as CEO in comparison to other CEOs he's considerably underpaid.
You're referring of course to US CEO's. Overcompensating them is a thing...
Apple repurchased 85.7 million shares in the open market during the quarter, at a cost of $17.9 billion and an average price of $208.79. That doesn't include 6.9 million shares which were delivered to Apple during the quarter to complete a $12 billion ASR agreement that Apple entered into in February. Apple's outstanding share count dropped by 88.2 million during the quarter.
Over the last 7 years Apple has repurchased 2.420 billion shares at a cost of $306.1 billon and an average price of $126.51.
The new outstanding share count, as of October 18th, is 4,443,265,000. That number actually went up a small amount from the end of the quarter, which suggests that Apple wasn't very active buying back shares during those 3 weeks.
How much of a difference has it made in the share price? Totally honest question.
Could distributing the excess cash in a series of special dividends been a more effective use of the money as well as being more measurable? If the cash had been distributed per outstanding share how much would each share receive? Back of the envelope says around $40 each on top of the regular dividends. Bonus: The share price might still go up as a result, right?
We may have discussed this before, but...
ETC ETC.
Like the argument some folks use to dismiss religion I like to see verifiable evidence that a business plan I've committed to is performing.
If you aren't an investor in Apple, then I don't see why Apple buybacks keep returning as a problem for you.
As I recall you aren't an investor in Huawei...
Touche!
Sadly I lack 5G as well, but will likely never see it at my location; low population density.
I did enjoy reading your Atlantic link, which was mostly arguing that buybacks were favored/misused by corporate management, so I added another link;
"According to this idea, the changes leading to a new species don't usually occur in the mainstream population of an organism, where changes wouldn't endure because of so much interbreeding among like creatures. Rather, speciation is more likely at the edge of a population, where a small group can easily become separated geographically from the main body and undergo changes that can create a survival advantage and thus produce a new, non-interbreeding species."
LOL at the PBS link.
Any idea how much Mr Cook has rec'd so far this year in just stock grants? Try $115 Million worth or around $55K an hour which is nearly as much as the median income for a US family for an entire year.
...and then he receives a multi-million salary on top of that. You seriously think he's underpaid or that he does not personally benefit from maintaining a high stock price? He's really little different from a lot of CEO's except for the wealth of the company he runs. Top CEO's have a vested interest in stock prices.
For the amount of profit he generates as CEO in comparison to other CEOs he's considerably underpaid.
You're referring of course to US CEO's. Overcompensating them is a thing…
I'm referring to CEOs. I don't know what you define as US since Sundar and Satya Nadella weren't born in th US but are now US citizens. Jack Ma isn't and makes a crazy sum as CEO of Alibaba.
Apple repurchased 85.7 million shares in the open market during the quarter, at a cost of $17.9 billion and an average price of $208.79. That doesn't include 6.9 million shares which were delivered to Apple during the quarter to complete a $12 billion ASR agreement that Apple entered into in February. Apple's outstanding share count dropped by 88.2 million during the quarter.
Over the last 7 years Apple has repurchased 2.420 billion shares at a cost of $306.1 billon and an average price of $126.51.
The new outstanding share count, as of October 18th, is 4,443,265,000. That number actually went up a small amount from the end of the quarter, which suggests that Apple wasn't very active buying back shares during those 3 weeks.
How much of a difference has it made in the share price? Totally honest question.
Could distributing the excess cash in a series of special dividends been a more effective use of the money as well as being more measurable? If the cash had been distributed per outstanding share how much would each share receive? Back of the envelope says around $40 each on top of the regular dividends. Bonus: The share price might still go up as a result, right?
We may have discussed this before, but...
ETC ETC.
Like the argument some folks use to dismiss religion I like to see verifiable evidence that a business plan I've committed to is performing.
If you aren't an investor in Apple, then I don't see why Apple buybacks keep returning as a problem for you.
As I recall you aren't an investor in Huawei...
Touche!
Sadly I lack 5G as well, but will likely never see it at my location; low population density.
I did enjoy reading your Atlantic link, which was mostly arguing that buybacks were favored/misused by corporate management, so I added another link;
"According to this idea, the changes leading to a new species don't usually occur in the mainstream population of an organism, where changes wouldn't endure because of so much interbreeding among like creatures. Rather, speciation is more likely at the edge of a population, where a small group can easily become separated geographically from the main body and undergo changes that can create a survival advantage and thus produce a new, non-interbreeding species."
LOL at the PBS link.
Any idea how much Mr Cook has rec'd so far this year in just stock grants? Try $115 Million worth or around $55K an hour which is nearly as much as the median income for a US family for an entire year.
...and then he receives a multi-million salary on top of that. You seriously think he's underpaid or that he does not personally benefit from maintaining a high stock price? He's really little different from a lot of CEO's except for the wealth of the company he runs. Top CEO's have a vested interest in stock prices.
For the amount of profit he generates as CEO in comparison to other CEOs he's considerably underpaid.
You're referring of course to US CEO's. Overcompensating them is a thing…
I'm referring to CEOs. I don't know what you define as US since Sundar and Satya Nadella weren't born in th US but are now US citizens. Jack Ma isn't and makes a crazy sum as CEO of Alibaba.
In fairness, he was the co-founder, so had a ton of shares
Apple repurchased 85.7 million shares in the open market during the quarter, at a cost of $17.9 billion and an average price of $208.79. That doesn't include 6.9 million shares which were delivered to Apple during the quarter to complete a $12 billion ASR agreement that Apple entered into in February. Apple's outstanding share count dropped by 88.2 million during the quarter.
Over the last 7 years Apple has repurchased 2.420 billion shares at a cost of $306.1 billon and an average price of $126.51.
The new outstanding share count, as of October 18th, is 4,443,265,000. That number actually went up a small amount from the end of the quarter, which suggests that Apple wasn't very active buying back shares during those 3 weeks.
How much of a difference has it made in the share price? Totally honest question.
Could distributing the excess cash in a series of special dividends been a more effective use of the money as well as being more measurable? If the cash had been distributed per outstanding share how much would each share receive? Back of the envelope says around $40 each on top of the regular dividends. Bonus: The share price might still go up as a result, right?
We may have discussed this before, but...
ETC ETC.
Like the argument some folks use to dismiss religion I like to see verifiable evidence that a business plan I've committed to is performing.
If you aren't an investor in Apple, then I don't see why Apple buybacks keep returning as a problem for you.
As I recall you aren't an investor in Huawei...
Touche!
Sadly I lack 5G as well, but will likely never see it at my location; low population density.
I did enjoy reading your Atlantic link, which was mostly arguing that buybacks were favored/misused by corporate management, so I added another link;
"According to this idea, the changes leading to a new species don't usually occur in the mainstream population of an organism, where changes wouldn't endure because of so much interbreeding among like creatures. Rather, speciation is more likely at the edge of a population, where a small group can easily become separated geographically from the main body and undergo changes that can create a survival advantage and thus produce a new, non-interbreeding species."
LOL at the PBS link.
Any idea how much Mr Cook has rec'd so far this year in just stock grants? Try $115 Million worth or around $55K an hour which is nearly as much as the median income for a US family for an entire year.
...and then he receives a multi-million salary on top of that. You seriously think he's underpaid or that he does not personally benefit from maintaining a high stock price? He's really little different from a lot of CEO's except for the wealth of the company he runs. Top CEO's have a vested interest in stock prices.
For the amount of profit he generates as CEO in comparison to other CEOs he's considerably underpaid.
You're referring of course to US CEO's. Overcompensating them is a thing…
I'm referring to CEOs. I don't know what you define as US since Sundar and Satya Nadella weren't born in th US but are now US citizens. Jack Ma isn't and makes a crazy sum as CEO of Alibaba.
Ummm... defined as US CEO's. Obviously those at the top of German or Swedish or Japanese or Australian corporations would not be considered US CEO's. I don't personally know of anyone whose pay is based on their place of birth. I was born German for instance but my pay comes from a US corporation. Therefore I would be a US CEO not a German one.
You might want to save that fine crow for New Year.
iPhone was down nearly 10% YoY.
The blowout quarter is next up and might prove to be a turnaround moment but even then, it will be a hard slog through to the iPhone 12 (and 5G).
I'm guessing China has left a gaping hole in handset revenues.
You don't get it. It was more-than-fully factored in to the company's performance (hence the stock price), and actually outperformed expectations.
In fact, this is actually good news for the 12, because it creates less of a hurdle to leap in 2020 with respect to unit sales. Moreover, anything that makes Apple pivot with merely a moderate financial impact resulting from the iPhone (and even more so, China) being a smaller and smaller portion of their revenue is great news for the company.
Clearly, their game now is in services (which will be far less dependent on China), and that is a far bigger issue for the market.
That's why Apple's 'health' for the last seven or eight years has been 'measured' in iPhone performance and iPhone alone. [...]
My comment in this thread was on that: a nearly 10% drop in iPhone revenue YoY.
There are a few people right here in this thread, who only two or three years ago were claiming none of what has happened over those years would happen. Apple was a premium company with premium products, market share was irrevelant, the competition couldn't touch them, users wanted the 'ecosystem', iPhone was the 'king of the hill'. [...]
Thankfully, it's all here in the forum archives.
Who on this thread, specifically, said growth of iPhone would continue to growth for all of time? Or was the marker of health for the company? No one I know. Profit is king. Profit is the marker of health for a company, because "profit is the air corporations breathe". iPhone has been an amazing phenomenon, the most successful consumer good of all time, as measured by revenue and more importantly (wait for it...) profit. Yet we see even as iPhone goes down, total profit remains. Record 3rd quarter.
As for market share, what people have said remains correct -- market share is not an indicator of health, but profit is. Apple has always been comfortable with its much smaller market share, and boss profit share. Apple does not worship at the Church of Market Share.
So what on earth are you talking about? Yes by all means, show us in the archives.
There you have a prime example of what I was talking about. Watch that rug! ;-)
"Profit is the air corporations breathe' is actually a very empty comment. A bit like saying 'oxygen is the air we breathe'.
Hardly a revelation, is it?
We know. We have known all along.
How about you look beyond that for once?
Who specifically said what? Is that important? The point was that many of those who were so convinced about what they were saying, were actually wrong. Spectacularly wrong and it is good to have those comments in the archives.
Those who, for example, pooh-poohed the very notion of Apple needing to change tack on many fronts. And if the rumoured SE2 materialises at $399, many here will be scurrying for that rug because they are on record as saying a $399 'new' iPhone would be a 'race to the bottom' and Apple 'doesn't do that'.
Being wrong in itself isn't a problem but some people have not only been wrong but actively criticised others for expressing their opinions. People who say things like 'Apple is not going to do this or that, buy a [Android, PC, or whatever]' or 'move on', or 'get over it' only for Apple to actually do what they were so sure they wouldn't.
So, what does 'profit' have to do with strategic decisions, product features, software direction etc? Clearly not a lot. Mistakes and miscalculations happen even at the most profitable companies. Apple included.
All that profit hasn't helped Apple's handset growth very much has it? In a segment where 80% of the market is there for the taking Apple has remained flat.
Why on earth would Apple say it will dedicate much more effort to India when there is still a huge chunk of the developed market ripe for picking? The iPhone 11 series is definitely not what you would call a perfect match for the Indian market, where Apple has performed (I think you may even agree) dismally in recent years (even while selling older hardware a la iPhone 6). It seems very clear that Apple doesn't want to be flat.
You know the one about a mountain and a certain Muhammad?
You might want to save that fine crow for New Year.
iPhone was down nearly 10% YoY.
The blowout quarter is next up and might prove to be a turnaround moment but even then, it will be a hard slog through to the iPhone 12 (and 5G).
I'm guessing China has left a gaping hole in handset revenues.
You don't get it. It was more-than-fully factored in to the company's performance (hence the stock price), and actually outperformed expectations.
In fact, this is actually good news for the 12, because it creates less of a hurdle to leap in 2020 with respect to unit sales. Moreover, anything that makes Apple pivot with merely a moderate financial impact resulting from the iPhone (and even more so, China) being a smaller and smaller portion of their revenue is great news for the company.
Clearly, their game now is in services (which will be far less dependent on China), and that is a far bigger issue for the market.
That's why Apple's 'health' for the last seven or eight years has been 'measured' in iPhone performance and iPhone alone. [...]
My comment in this thread was on that: a nearly 10% drop in iPhone revenue YoY.
There are a few people right here in this thread, who only two or three years ago were claiming none of what has happened over those years would happen. Apple was a premium company with premium products, market share was irrevelant, the competition couldn't touch them, users wanted the 'ecosystem', iPhone was the 'king of the hill'. [...]
Thankfully, it's all here in the forum archives.
Who on this thread, specifically, said growth of iPhone would continue to growth for all of time? Or was the marker of health for the company? No one I know. Profit is king. Profit is the marker of health for a company, because "profit is the air corporations breathe". iPhone has been an amazing phenomenon, the most successful consumer good of all time, as measured by revenue and more importantly (wait for it...) profit. Yet we see even as iPhone goes down, total profit remains. Record 3rd quarter.
As for market share, what people have said remains correct -- market share is not an indicator of health, but profit is. Apple has always been comfortable with its much smaller market share, and boss profit share. Apple does not worship at the Church of Market Share.
So what on earth are you talking about? Yes by all means, show us in the archives.
There you have a prime example of what I was talking about. Watch that rug! ;-)
"Profit is the air corporations breathe' is actually a very empty comment. A bit like saying 'oxygen is the air we breathe'.
Hardly a revelation, is it?
We know. We have known all along.
How about you look beyond that for once?
Who specifically said what? Is that important? The point was that many of those who were so convinced about what they were saying, were actually wrong. Spectacularly wrong and it is good to have those comments in the archives.
Those who, for example, pooh-poohed the very notion of Apple needing to change tack on many fronts. And if the rumoured SE2 materialises at $399, many here will be scurrying for that rug because they are on record as saying a $399 'new' iPhone would be a 'race to the bottom' and Apple 'doesn't do that'.
Being wrong in itself isn't a problem but some people have not only been wrong but actively criticised others for expressing their opinions. People who say things like 'Apple is not going to do this or that, buy a [Android, PC, or whatever]' or 'move on', or 'get over it' only for Apple to actually do what they were so sure they wouldn't.
So, what does 'profit' have to do with strategic decisions, product features, software direction etc? Clearly not a lot. Mistakes and miscalculations happen even at the most profitable companies. Apple included.
All that profit hasn't helped Apple's handset growth very much has it? In a segment where 80% of the market is there for the taking Apple has remained flat.
Why on earth would Apple say it will dedicate much more effort to India when there is still a huge chunk of the developed market ripe for picking? The iPhone 11 series is definitely not what you would call a perfect match for the Indian market, where Apple has performed (I think you may even agree) dismally in recent years (even while selling older hardware a la iPhone 6). It seems very clear that Apple doesn't want to be flat.
You know the one about a mountain and a certain Muhammad?
Careful with the rug!
You work overtime to deny that profitability is a corporate goal; well at least in the West.
China obviously doesn't have the same requirements for "private" companies.
Comments
Sadly I lack 5G as well, but will likely never see it at my location; low population density.
I did enjoy reading your Atlantic link, which was mostly arguing that buybacks were favored/misused by corporate management, so I added another link;
https://observer.com/2018/04/apple-tim-cook-ceo-salary/
I add a final link that is a good biological analog for Apple's business;
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/5/l_035_01.html
"According to this idea, the changes leading to a new species don't usually occur in the mainstream population of an organism, where changes wouldn't endure because of so much interbreeding among like creatures. Rather, speciation is more likely at the edge of a population, where a small group can easily become separated geographically from the main body and undergo changes that can create a survival advantage and thus produce a new, non-interbreeding species."
Any idea how much Mr Cook has rec'd so far this year in just stock grants? Try $115 Million worth or around $55K an hour which is nearly as much as the median income for a US family for an entire year.
...and then he receives a multi-million salary on top of that. You seriously think he's underpaid or that he does not personally benefit from maintaining a high stock price? He's really little different from a lot of CEO's except for the wealth of the company he runs. Top CEO's have a vested interest in stock prices.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is simply lying or blindly theorizing.
Clap clap clap
Nice class-warrior crap.
however, making statements that the stock has a value solely because of EPS is wrong too, but that’s the main argument of repurchase fans. The big problem here is the assumption that a stock price directly relates to EPS, which it obviously doesn’t. So, tell me what a “proper” P/E is. 5, 10, 15, 20 or 1,000? If you can’t give that answer with a definitive number, then it shows that It is just one of many reasons why a stock is sitting where it is. Expectations as to a companies future is a bigger determinate of a price than is EPS. This is a major reason why repurchases are a poor way to raise a stock price.
A much better one is to have a successful company. If sales and profits continue to rise, they will swamp any increase from a repurchase.
Tim's net worth; about $625M after more than 20 years at Apple
Sundar's net worth; about $500M after eleven years at Google
edit: For fun I went to celebritynetworth.com. Here's a comment from the bottom of each of the respective pages for Sundar and Tim.
Obviously those at the top of German or Swedish or Japanese or Australian corporations would not be considered US CEO's. I don't personally know of anyone whose pay is based on their place of birth. I was born German for instance but my pay comes from a US corporation. Therefore I would be a US CEO not a German one.
"Profit is the air corporations breathe' is actually a very empty comment. A bit like saying 'oxygen is the air we breathe'.
Hardly a revelation, is it?
We know. We have known all along.
How about you look beyond that for once?
Who specifically said what? Is that important? The point was that many of those who were so convinced about what they were saying, were actually wrong. Spectacularly wrong and it is good to have those comments in the archives.
Those who, for example, pooh-poohed the very notion of Apple needing to change tack on many fronts. And if the rumoured SE2 materialises at $399, many here will be scurrying for that rug because they are on record as saying a $399 'new' iPhone would be a 'race to the bottom' and Apple 'doesn't do that'.
Being wrong in itself isn't a problem but some people have not only been wrong but actively criticised others for expressing their opinions. People who say things like 'Apple is not going to do this or that, buy a [Android, PC, or whatever]' or 'move on', or 'get over it'
only for Apple to actually do what they were so sure they wouldn't.
So, what does 'profit' have to do with strategic decisions, product features, software direction etc? Clearly not a lot. Mistakes and miscalculations happen even at the most profitable companies. Apple included.
All that profit hasn't helped Apple's
handset growth very much has it? In a segment where 80% of the market is there for the taking Apple has remained flat.
Why on earth would Apple say it will dedicate much more effort to India when there is still a huge chunk of the developed market ripe for picking? The iPhone 11 series is definitely not what you would call a perfect match for the Indian market, where Apple has performed (I think you may even agree) dismally in recent years (even while selling older hardware a la iPhone 6). It seems very clear that Apple doesn't want to be flat.
You know the one about a mountain and a certain Muhammad?
Careful with the rug!
China obviously doesn't have the same requirements for "private" companies.