Again, the investment market landscape between 2012 and 2014 are vastly different.
Anyhow, if you care about investing and corporate financials, I suggest you find the appropriate sources to learn more about the matter. Anonymous Q&A forums like AppleInsider is not the place to be doling out investment advice or the place to educate the masses on fundamentals.
Especially when the forum participants don't even understand what a 7-to-1 stock split is and start bickering about how six shares given to one owned is not a 7-to-1 split.
Again, I'm pretty certain that Tim Cook would just parrot what was posted to the Apple Investor Relations website. It's a pretty typical corporate statement about a stock split and it is accurate. Feel free to send Tim or Apple Investor Relations an e-mail though.
Oh for fu*k's sake. So now you have decided to insult me? After I was civil to you.
I do know what a fu*king stock split is and if you and the others are going to be so dense as to not realize that 7 for 1 does not equal 6 for 1 then there is nothing I can do for you.
slurpy wrote: »
Wait, I don't understand. So I get 7 FREE Apple shares if I own the stock? How do stock splits work?
(I own around 30 shares)
This topic is covered in the FAQ from the Apple Investor Relations website:
originalg wrote: »
It'll be divided as well (but that was entertaining thought though, haha)
Naw, Slurpy, you'll own 210 shares but they will be worth around $80 each.
excuse me but I believe you don't understand the options market, many people don't buy and sell PUTS because to do so means leaving oneself open to huge potential losses when share prices are > $100. The CBOT is a market for options.
Options are in lots of 100, 1 contract = 100 shares when apple was over 500 one had to have at least 60k buying power in ons account to sell puts, once the share split it will be possible to sell puts with only 8000 buying power, this will greatly increase the number of people trading apple and the price will react accordingly. It will mean smaller investors can trade options whose portfolios are over 50K where before one needed > 250K to do it safely.
It says you will get six more shares. The AI article just isn't as clear as it could be. So after the split you have seven since you had 1 and got 6. So it is 7 to 1.
"... announced a split granting each AAPL stock owner six shares for each share owned..."
Not clear? No. Just wrong.
I see what you are saying. Yes, it could be worded better.
I honestly can't tell you. I've been listening to the analyst's report today but the stream cuts off and I haven't been able to listen to it entirely, yet.
Here's what makes me the most nervous.
Production of the iPhones. They are making 180 Million per year. Now, I know the larger screen model is going to kick ass. I have no doubt in my mind about that. But, I have to look at how many have they sold over the past 12 months in total, look forward 12 months and see if they are going to sell substantially more iPhones than the last 12 months with the current production levels? the 5C's didn't sell as well as even Apple predicted. This is what makes me the most nervous since the iPhone is about 60% of their revenue and this larger screen, to me, is their biggest chance at making some serious dent in taking back market share from Android, but also making a more expensive phone with potentially good profit margin. Also, how is it going to impact the 4 inch model if they plan on refreshing that and replacing the 5C with a cheaper polycarb 5S.
It's not only HITTING $700 (or the new equivelent due to the stock split, which takes place in June), so we have to figure out what that NEW number is that's equivalent to $700. Actually, the new number is $100 after stock split.
What I would LIKE to see that would make me LESS nervous are the following things that would give me less nervousness about it hitting that Magic $700 (equivalent number).
1. Substantial increase in production output of iPhones. Be able to meet demand within the first FULL quarter after the product is announced. Also, I really think Apple needs to kick out this iPhone 6 (~5inch) by June and then the replacement for the 5S and 5C in Sept. I think they will have PLENTY of sales if they did that and that would kick in a LOT more sales during their typically poor summer months. I want to see 45 Million iPhones shipped in their WORST quarter and more like 60 Million in this Christmas, would be nice to hit, but unless they can churn out more phones per day, it's highly unlikely they'll hit 60 Million iPhones in the December quarter.
2. something substantially improved AppleTV box. I would like to see something other than what it currently is. I would like to see something that indicates that it's THE box to have and maybe two different flavors. 1 is the basic and 2 a much more enhanced product with substantially more features.
3. Some kind of release date of an Apple HD SmartTV. I really think they SHOULD be in this market and to figure out how to enter it and stay in it and to make a top notch product people will buy over the Google TVs. The market for this segment is growing FAST and it's getting up there in Worldwide sales and I think the price level is profitable if they do it right and Apple already has a pent up demand for this, whether people want to admit it or not.
4. Wearables would certainly help, but I'm not looking at a HUGE money maker, it's just like a little icing on the cake if you will. I see it as a good stocking stuffer type product line potentially.
5. I would like to see some form of new revenue from these auto deals. Do they make money from it? Or is it just more of our products integrate well, so when you buy these cars, it just means the iPhones work seamlessly. If they actually make money from each car that has this integration from it, that's a new market segment.
6. I do feel good about the future for China, that market is growing, they just need to get more stores opened up as they have been doing well.
7. Keep on cranking out new products and not take too long in refreshing a product. I think they could do better in attracting more Windows users to OS X if they had a few more models and in that between the MacMini and MacPro area, I think PC users, in general don't like AIO units as much.
8. I would like some type of announcement an addition of 24 bit AAC files and integrating 24 bit DACs. I don't think it's a HUGE money maker for the short term, but it will definitely help sell the entire Apple product line as they'll transition people from 16 bit to 24 bit a LOT faster than any other platform and that market IS growing. I think it would be more of helping sell moving to Apple and interject some more fire into iTunes.
I think if all, or at least MOST of these 8 things are done, then it's possible that we could see that $700 price within a year or two. If would certainly give me more warm and fuzzies, but it's also how LONG can they KEEP the stock at that price and that to be the next plateau. That's the issue. It's not only reaching it, but not going below it. If they have anything additional that's not listed, then I hope it's for the positive and it may replace some of the items I have listed.
Remember, whatever revenue Apple USED to make from iWork sales, OS X sales are gone because those are now free, so that is great to attract customers and it's great for Apple users to not have to pay for these, but they do reduce the profit margins as a result. So we have to be aware of this.
These are just MY opinions and they do not reflect reality, unless they come true. So this is all speculation. I just have to make that clear that this is what would make me less nervous about Apple hitting that magic number ($700 pre stock split, $100 post). I think it's a LOT easier for Apple to hit $100 a share after stock split than it is for them to hit $700 before Stock split, if that helps. They are increasing the dividends, which helps attract shareholders and hopefully this KEEPS shareholders so the stock doesn't make huge fluctuations.
I think it's a good move. Apple will be coming out with significant upgrades and new categories after June, and talk would inevitably revolve it breaking $700 again. After the split, the bashers won't be able to talk about that so directly, and it is possible new investors will be attracted by the lower share price. If the share price does appreciate, the bashers will mainly be left beating the "first trillion dollar" company drum again, rather than, "It's nearing $700 again. Remember how it fell off the cliff last time?" which would be a little harder to express in a sound bite given the arithmetic of the split.
I haven't heard the entire analyst call, but I ran into an Apple employee and he said something to the effect of increased dividends as well and that this was all going to start in June. I don't know what changes they are making to the dividends, but I think this is a welcome stock split, I just wish I had a bunch of shares to take advantage of this moving forward. For some reason, the new price is going to be around $76 a share instead of $535, and I think it's going to be a LOT easier for Apple to reach $100 a share and HOPEFULLY not go back down than it is for Apple to reach $700 a share and to have that as the new base line. Time will tell what happens, but I think what happens at WWDC and their announcements is going to make me feel either more or less comfortable.
One thing I must say, when I listened to part of the conference call and listen to some of the "positive" comments they were mentioning, some of them are fluff. I hate it when they make a comment, but there isn't much substance behind it. Having 800 Million iTunes account holders is FLUFF to me, but if they said they are seeing a 30% increase per user of money being spent, that's more substance. Having an account doesn't mean you are spending money. I haven't rented or bought any movies in a while and I"m a little upset they don't have a yearly subscription service. I have one with Amazon (bought it before the price increase) and I use it fairly regularly. For a while I was using it daily for several hours catching up on shows I've never seen before. There service is pretty decent quality and serves up the content pretty good, but I wish Apple had this service without having an AppleTV. Watching on a 27 inch iMac is good enough right now. But I would like to maybe see Apple have some sort of $9.95 a month for unlimited streaming, as long as they have enough decent content (TV and Movies) to watch on my iMac. I might be up for that.
The auto integration, I'm sorry, but I see it only as a way to make people feel more comfortable using an iPhone with a car and I so far don't see how Apple is making money from this. So, I think it would be better if they had some other NEW revenue stream from the auto industry. If they had some deal where cars came with a built in iPad on the dashboard instead of some other system, that might excite me if it was catching on. But I would like to see them have an actual new revenue stream to get hot and bothered about it.
The green stuff is fluff, it's cool they are doing it, but it's not going to effect the stock price, only what Greenpeace THINKS about Apple.
Yeah, the dollar value is the same when they conduct the split from that specific time period, but when it goes up by $1 a share he'll have it go up $210 instead of $30 and he'll probably get more dividends each quarter. If it goes down by $1 it goes down more, but hopefully in the long run you'll be better off as long as Apple doesn't pull a Zune, Surface, Windows 8/8.1 type of mistakes, which I doubt they will.
My understanding is the split doesn't take effect until June 1, it NEVER goes into effect the day they announce the actual split, neither does the buyback. The buyback is just how much money they have EAR MARKED. Whether they spend it, when they spend it, and how much they actually spend it is UNDETERMINED. It just makes everyone aware of the potential plans and it's just a way to help the stock value if/when they see an opportunity to buy back the shares if the stock should reach a low. They have to mention it for SEC rules and regulations kind of thing.
The iTunes "fluff" as you put it is making more money than most of Apple's competitors and is also growing at a faster rate.
Well, I just like to hear numbers that mean something. What Apple's doing compared to the competitors is one thing, but how well Apple is doing compared to themselves is another.When evaluating a company, it's nice to know how the company is doing against their own metrics. More accounts is one thing, but what's the average amount spent per account at the end of previous quarter and after the quarter. How they compare agains the competitors is more for bragging rights and that doesn't really explain the entire picture.
Apple needs to compare themselves to themselves FIRST to see if what they are doing is an improvement or not, if so, how is it quantified.
Which would rather have more customers spending more per customer or more customers spending less per customer, but overall getting more business, but just not as much as they COULD have. How are the competitors bringing revenue and profits? Do they do something that you COULD be doing, but aren't to drive revenues per customer up? If you are getting less revenue per customer, what's changed? Is there something a competitor is doing that you aren't that could be beneficial to the company AND to the customer? Is the company addressing all of the needs of the customer?
A lot of ways to analyze something rather than just looking at superficial numbers.
I don't like just looking at superficial numbers, I like to view at something from every possible angle, that way I can REALLY understand the dynamics of a business.
I can tell one thing, as much as I have personally purchased from Apple iTunes, I've been purchasing more from other sources in the past quarter because Apple doesn't provide what these others are. I'm not the only one either. So from my perspective, they could be doing even better.
Or are you just satisfied with what they're doing vs what they COULD be doing?
Let's just run a simple "what if".
Let's just say that Apple released 24 bit AAC and it was basically just as good as FLAC and AIFF through HD Tracks and others. Then all of Apple's products were 24 bit internal DACs, so EVERYONE could potentially buy 24 bit albums. Obviously only a small percentage would, so let's just say 1% bought an average of $1000 a year of 24 bit content, that's roughly 4 albums a month per person. Some would be buy more than that, a LOT more than that. But let's just go with $1000 a year x 1% of the account holders. That's 8 Million people spending an additional $1000 a year on 24 bit content, even thought there would probably be a LOT more than that. What's 8 Million people (1% of the current account holders) x $1,000 a year in additional revenue? That's $8 BILLION additional Revenue. 30% of that would be gross profits. $2.4 Bil in Gross Profits. How much did iTunes do last year? $10 Billion in gross sales without 24 bit. Hmmmmm..... To me, it sounds like a no brainer to kick these puppies out on the market to start capturing those potential revenue stream. Right now, there aren't 8 million people downloading 24 bit content. I'd say the number now is probably in the 100,000+ at this time. But every day, more USB DACs get sold and every day that number is growing. With Apple kicking out 24 bit internal DACs in all of their products, THEY would jump start this industry to reach astronomic levels without blinking. So until Apple kicks starts it, the industry will just grow steadily, but not astronomically.
How much does Google make out of their entire business?
How much does Apple make out of iTunes alone?
How does iTunes profit taken on it's own compare to the profits of handset makers?
A small part of Apple's business, a side note, yet analysts fail to take it and it's growth into account.
drblank wrote: »
Actually Apple took on some debt last year. If you look at the June 29, 2013 quarter Balance Sheet, they took on about $17 Billion in debt. If I remember correctly, I think they did this to pay dividends instead of bringing cash into the country from Ireland which would have cost them a bunch in taxes, so this way it creates some debt and the interest they pay for the debt is a write down. I'm sure it was the better option if you ran the numbers. Apple is already one of the largest corporate tax payers. I think if you were in the same position as an individual, you'd probably do the same thing.
How do you expect the stock to increase by 30% if Apple has been at a 15% to 20% growth rate for revenues and profits from year to year?
What do you think they need to do to hit a 30% increase?
Just asking. I have my own opinions which I've shared, can you share yours? I'm curious as to what others think Apple should do to be able to achieve a 30% stock increase when they are running at a 15 to 20% year to year increase.
How much Google makes is irrelevant to analyzing Apple's current business model and what they COULD be doing. Apple's been doing iTunes/App Store longer than Google and has a tremendous jump start on getting customers. Why allow more flies in the room when you can shut the screen door? Apple could jump start 24 Bit for the masses and it's no brainer.
How much does Apple make? In terms of Gross Sales or Net Profits? Yearly or Quarterly?Yearly figures are approximately $16 Billion, but it's about $4.8 Billion Gross Profit, I have no idea what they attribute Net Profit to since I've never seen that broken down anywhere. Apple doesn't release Net Profit by product segment, unfortunately. I've read, a LONG time ago, and I have no idea how true the information was, I think it might have been in a Jobs interview, that per $.99 of gross sales for a music download, that they netted only $.05 because a large chunk of the profits went to Akamai for content delivery. So, while the Gross sales seems impressive, the Gross margins seems impressive, if we go by what a friend of mine said a LONG time ago, that the Net Profits aren't. Netting only 5% of Gross Sales as Net Profits, isn't that good for that specific business segment. I"ve heard rumblings that Apple may be getting some type of system in place to circumvent them going to Akamai, which would help (hopefully their costs would be lower) but that so far is pure rumor, speculation and if true, I have no idea when that goes into effect, but it would definitely be more of an overhead savings rather than Gross Revenue increase. It's one way to increase profits, which is a good thing.
How does iTunes profit compare to profits of Hanset makers? I'm trying to find the logic in why that matters?
A small part of Apple's business? Well, if they have the ability to grow that business and refresh products with enhanced abilities as a result to entice more demand for the hardware, then wouldn't you think that the combination would improve BOTH iTunes revenues/profits and h/w revenues and profits? I do.
24 bit is a small niche, but it's growing. Without Apple kicking that market in the ass to jumpstart to become more mainstream and for the masses, then it will just continue to grow at a smaller rate, so others can come out with other products and have sales whereas Apple will lose business opportunities. Apple is in the cat bird seat to jump kick 24 bit in the high gear and take it from tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in business to Billions and eventually tens of billions in business. It's like DTS Master/TrueHD for movies. Right now, we can't rent or buy digital downloads of higher end 24/96 movies for a couple of reasons, 1. the film studios aren't doing it 2. It requires a significant amount of bandwidth because movies are like 1 1/2 hours to as much as 2 to 3 hours in length and the increased amount of the soundtrack would increase the download from several GB to quite a bit more. But an album is a much smaller download due to length and it's just audio of 2 channel rather than HD video AND 5.1 audio.
Personally, I think 24 bit audio is prime for iTunes/Apple to START their market into that this year. I'm really hoping they do it, and they get the Mastered for iTunes portion right so that people with nice systems can't tell the difference between FLAC/AIFF lossless and AAC 24 bit. That's a challenge for them. Can they get that right.