Look at this week. Report that Foxcon is freezing hiring. Stock drops 3%. No response from Apple. All they needed to do is release a two sentence press report and the stock would have never fallen like a rock.
But you can't quantify how much a stock falls based on a story. There's no proof the story caused the collapse.
That's what the PR department is for. Everyone in Wall St knows you can float rumors about Apple because they never defend the stock. That is bad news for shareholders who are open to massive market manipulation.
Look at this week. Report that Foxcon is freezing hiring. Stock drops 3%. No response from Apple. All they needed to do is release a two sentence press report and the stock would have never fallen like a rock.
Apple responding to rumors would only start a vicious cycle of more and more ridiculous rumors. If Apple then missed responding to a rumor some idiot would take a rumor as fact, since Apple didn't debunk it, and then that same idiot would sue Apple because Apple didn't do what it was rumored that they would do. Apple couldn't win trying to kill or control rumors. How would Apple even go about choosing which rumors to respond to? Best bet is to be safe and just ignore all rumors.
6.1 Its pretty self evident. Even at $700 Apple's PE was quite low. The stock has risen 6000% but so has Apples net income.
Examples of Apple's unfriendlyness:
Not debunking hurtful 'reports' and 'rumors' of product demand cuts. If Tim Cook debunked those reports in Dec/Jan the stock would not be as low now. He debunked them in the conference call but it was too late.
Tim Cook saying he does not care about revenue and net income. He just worries about making great products. Seriously. Any shorty can float a rumor and some ridiculous media website will publish it and Apple does NOTHING. No matter how false and unfounded these reports may be. Bottom line is Apple does not defend their stock.
But how is this news? Apple has been run this way ever since Jobs returned. They have had the same attitude towards Wall-Street and have had the same attitude with their cash pile. Actually it was Cook that began with the dividend in the first place. Did investors think that with the success the company has had over the years that they would change that formula? This sounds like Wall-Street was thinking that Cook was going to cower to them after Jobs left and are upset because they didn't get their wish. It is a free country, if you don't like the way the company behaves, sell the stock and buy another one. Problem solved
But how is this news? Apple has been run this way ever since Jobs returned. They have had the same attitude towards Wall-Street and have had the same attitude with their cash pile. Actually it was Cook that began with the dividend in the first place. Did investors think that with the success the company has had over the years that they would change that formula? This sounds like Wall-Street was thinking that Cook was going to cower to them after Jobs left and are upset because they didn't get their wish. It is a free country, if you don't like the way the company behaves, sell the stock and buy another one. Problem solved
This is like saying: If your kid gets bullied in school, just sell your house and move. Problem solved! No f***ing way. It is my money, the management is hired help, so I have a right to tell them how they should run the company. It is a democratic system, so the majority of shares win, but every share has a say. If you don't like it, I hear North Korea is nice...
If you took the trouble to think, you would know: 4% is about 80 bp more than 30 year treasury pays, which is reasonable, since Apple, with all its virtues is probably not quite as reliable as the US government. So, 3.2% would be too little, and all the other numbers would be too much. Maybe 3.7% would be good enough, and maybe 4.2% is the magic number, but the range is not that wide.
Cost of interest should be less than 2% for Aaple, which could be offset by 2.3% dividend saved on the repurchased shares - kind of a wash. Would like to see Aaple borrow $45-50B and take out 10% of shares in a short period of say 3-4 months but announce it as within a year to keep iHorn and his WS cohorts guessing. This should boost stock north of $500.
They won't be paying 6% without borrowing either. That would burn through their cash in 2 years.
Check your math - a 6% dividend would cost $25.4 billion, which is quite a bit less than they make in profits. Even with a 6% dividend they will still grow their pile of cash.
Cost of interest should be less than 2% for Aaple, which could be offset by 2.3% dividend saved on the repurchased shares - kind of a wash. Would like to see Aaple borrow $45-50B and take out 10% of shares in a short period of say 3-4 months but announce it as within a year to keep iHorn and his WS cohorts guessing. This should boost stock north of $500.
Nice first post.
They don't need to borrow though. They could lend to themselves.
Ive said it before - anounce a buy back scheme over a period of years to slowly decrease the shares on market. Will it push price up - uh, I'll put both knackers on it.
Dont need any financial short term chicanery.
Apple doesn't need any bs from Wall St or the media that could possibly affect their ability to deliver great products.
Cost of interest should be less than 2% for Aaple, which could be offset by 2.3% dividend saved on the repurchased shares - kind of a wash. Would like to see Aaple borrow $45-50B and take out 10% of shares in a short period of say 3-4 months but announce it as within a year to keep iHorn and his WS cohorts guessing. This should boost stock north of $500.
I doubt that Apple is viewed as being more creditworthy than the US government, which is borrowing at almost exactly 2% for 10 year debt (which is what we are talking about here, roughly).
I doubt that Apple is viewed as being more creditworthy than the US government, which is borrowing at almost exactly 2% for 10 year debt (which is what we are talking about here, roughly).
Comments
Originally Posted by sog35
Look at this week. Report that Foxcon is freezing hiring. Stock drops 3%. No response from Apple. All they needed to do is release a two sentence press report and the stock would have never fallen like a rock.
But you can't quantify how much a stock falls based on a story. There's no proof the story caused the collapse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
A 4% dividend on preferred shares is all that is needed.
Not 3.2%? 5.7% 4.99%? 72% And you know this how?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
That's what the PR department is for. Everyone in Wall St knows you can float rumors about Apple because they never defend the stock. That is bad news for shareholders who are open to massive market manipulation.
Look at this week. Report that Foxcon is freezing hiring. Stock drops 3%. No response from Apple. All they needed to do is release a two sentence press report and the stock would have never fallen like a rock.
Apple responding to rumors would only start a vicious cycle of more and more ridiculous rumors. If Apple then missed responding to a rumor some idiot would take a rumor as fact, since Apple didn't debunk it, and then that same idiot would sue Apple because Apple didn't do what it was rumored that they would do. Apple couldn't win trying to kill or control rumors. How would Apple even go about choosing which rumors to respond to? Best bet is to be safe and just ignore all rumors.
But how is this news? Apple has been run this way ever since Jobs returned. They have had the same attitude towards Wall-Street and have had the same attitude with their cash pile. Actually it was Cook that began with the dividend in the first place. Did investors think that with the success the company has had over the years that they would change that formula? This sounds like Wall-Street was thinking that Cook was going to cower to them after Jobs left and are upset because they didn't get their wish. It is a free country, if you don't like the way the company behaves, sell the stock and buy another one. Problem solved
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSteelers
But how is this news? Apple has been run this way ever since Jobs returned. They have had the same attitude towards Wall-Street and have had the same attitude with their cash pile. Actually it was Cook that began with the dividend in the first place. Did investors think that with the success the company has had over the years that they would change that formula? This sounds like Wall-Street was thinking that Cook was going to cower to them after Jobs left and are upset because they didn't get their wish. It is a free country, if you don't like the way the company behaves, sell the stock and buy another one. Problem solved
This is like saying: If your kid gets bullied in school, just sell your house and move. Problem solved! No f***ing way. It is my money, the management is hired help, so I have a right to tell them how they should run the company. It is a democratic system, so the majority of shares win, but every share has a say. If you don't like it, I hear North Korea is nice...
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Not 3.2%? 5.7% 4.99%? 72% And you know this how?
If you took the trouble to think, you would know: 4% is about 80 bp more than 30 year treasury pays, which is reasonable, since Apple, with all its virtues is probably not quite as reliable as the US government. So, 3.2% would be too little, and all the other numbers would be too much. Maybe 3.7% would be good enough, and maybe 4.2% is the magic number, but the range is not that wide.
Cost of interest should be less than 2% for Aaple, which could be offset by 2.3% dividend saved on the repurchased shares - kind of a wash. Would like to see Aaple borrow $45-50B and take out 10% of shares in a short period of say 3-4 months but announce it as within a year to keep iHorn and his WS cohorts guessing. This should boost stock north of $500.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvigod
They won't be paying 6% without borrowing either. That would burn through their cash in 2 years.
Check your math - a 6% dividend would cost $25.4 billion, which is quite a bit less than they make in profits. Even with a 6% dividend they will still grow their pile of cash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StPeters1019
Cost of interest should be less than 2% for Aaple, which could be offset by 2.3% dividend saved on the repurchased shares - kind of a wash. Would like to see Aaple borrow $45-50B and take out 10% of shares in a short period of say 3-4 months but announce it as within a year to keep iHorn and his WS cohorts guessing. This should boost stock north of $500.
Nice first post.
They don't need to borrow though. They could lend to themselves.
Ive said it before - anounce a buy back scheme over a period of years to slowly decrease the shares on market. Will it push price up - uh, I'll put both knackers on it.
Dont need any financial short term chicanery.
Apple doesn't need any bs from Wall St or the media that could possibly affect their ability to deliver great products.
Call it a long term exit strategy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StPeters1019
Cost of interest should be less than 2% for Aaple, which could be offset by 2.3% dividend saved on the repurchased shares - kind of a wash. Would like to see Aaple borrow $45-50B and take out 10% of shares in a short period of say 3-4 months but announce it as within a year to keep iHorn and his WS cohorts guessing. This should boost stock north of $500.
I doubt that Apple is viewed as being more creditworthy than the US government, which is borrowing at almost exactly 2% for 10 year debt (which is what we are talking about here, roughly).
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
I doubt that Apple is viewed as being more creditworthy than the US government, which is borrowing at almost exactly 2% for 10 year debt (which is what we are talking about here, roughly).
http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2012-11-08/corporate-bond-yields-below-treasurys
They would probably be the same yield as US treasuries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978
http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2012-11-08/corporate-bond-yields-below-treasurys
They would probably be the same yield as US treasuries.
Interesting...