wrong. Apple can reissue new shares. Which would be the same as doing a reverse buyback.
Techically they are not the same shares but they would increase outstanding shares.
Look at Google. The last 5 years they issued about 50,000,000 new shares. Apple can do the same and to a much larger degree because they bought back over 12% of total shares the last 3 years. They could reissue new shares to employees or use it to buy companies.
I'm not wrong. That $100 billion they spent on the buyback is gone forever. It doesn't matter that they can issue more shares later. Companies often do that to have shares for employees. It's one reason why share counts go up in the first place.
And new shares are not reissued shares. They are new shares.
Hey I wish they would have taken the 3B spent on Beats and spent it on Waze instead. Or buy up smaller app companies to help improve native apps.
I would have preferred they did both. Beats is, by far, the world's biggest headphone manufacturer, with profit that on the same order as Apple, in percent. They sold $1.3 billion in headphones last year. That alone was worth the $3 billion they paid. But they got much more.
I would have preferred they did both. Beats is, by far, the world's biggest headphone manufacturer, with profit that on the same order as Apple, in percent. They sold $1.3 billion in headphones last year. That alone was worth the $3 billion they paid. But they got much more.
Why did Apple need Beats? I think they easily could have stood up a good streaming music service without spending $3B on Jimmy Iovine.
Despite what fans of sharebuybacks think, there is no evidence that they result in lasting share price accrual. Short temporary lifts occur, but market forces and company performance swamps that over time. It's just throwing money into a black hole.
Well, market for here is certainly not the "real world" market were real money is spent, more the sucker market that is the stock market for most people who don't understand how the game is played there.
There is no real world reason for the valuations a lot of tech company have, and all the books in the world that have tried to find reason in there have basically failed. The stock market is a heavily distortedwith a massive assymetry in information and ability to deal of big players vs smaller players.
Profits are up 300% yet the stock in only up double.
It must be kinda vexing that the stock market doesn't follow your cute rules of thumb, eh?
Value (stock price) is a function of two things: profits (EPS) and P/E. The latter, in turn, is function of the market's perception of Apple's growth opportunities. So, even if profits go up, but for whatever reason, the market's perception of Apple's ability to create value from future growth dims, value will not go up to the same extent that profit does.
I personally think that companies such as Google, Amazon, and Tesla do a really good job of managing market perceptions, and that Apple could be doing a better job (spare me the brickbats: yes, I mean you @Slurpy). That has to start with managing information flows better. There is no other way around it. It's more than a call to Jim Cramer about China (which, btw, was a wonderful and important thing to do).
The latter seems like a 'fair use' interpretation (but I am no lawyer, so I am not 100% sure). Why should educational institutions be different from personal use, if that's the case?
(Maybe @thrang can volunteer to be the test subject for case law! )
The latter seems like a 'fair use' interpretation (but I am no lawyer, so I am not 100% sure). Why should educational institutions be different from personal use, if that's the case?
(Maybe @thrang can volunteer to be the test subject for case law! )
because copyright law has a special fair use clause explicitly granted to educational institutions.
Almost any piece of legislation fits that description.
thats fine. thats what their branch of the government does -- pass laws. those laws are the law of the land until theyre changed or a court finds them invalid. thus it's law until it isnt.
(in other words, it doesnt make sense to ask me/us for a court ruling uploading the law...thats the exception to the rule, which is legal by default)
I agree. It took a $100 billion dollar Apple buyback to convince me.
Sept 2012 - Apple is worth $657 billion
Oct 2015 - after over $100 billion in buybacks - Apple is worth $660 billion
Apple threw $100 billion in buybacks, made over $130 billion in profits and the market cap is worth the same as 3 years ago.
soon these motherfckers in WS will learn....after a few buy backs, Apple all the suddenly announce to go private. I believe that's what Apple is heading: slowly buying back outstanding shares and boom: go private...let's say in 3 years after $300-400B shares purchased?
Comments
I'm not wrong. That $100 billion they spent on the buyback is gone forever. It doesn't matter that they can issue more shares later. Companies often do that to have shares for employees. It's one reason why share counts go up in the first place.
And new shares are not reissued shares. They are new shares.
I would have preferred they did both. Beats is, by far, the world's biggest headphone manufacturer, with profit that on the same order as Apple, in percent. They sold $1.3 billion in headphones last year. That alone was worth the $3 billion they paid. But they got much more.
CDs and DVDs dont operate under the same laws in the US, thanks to the DCMA.
What's there to say about it other than its available for sale? There are no reviews to discuss,
How many times you going to mention this in one thread? No one cares.
Buy one and review it yourself later this week.
You're allowed to rip CDs because they came out before DRM was used. DVDs have DRM, and aren't supposed to be ripped.
Why not? Surely Apple has been working with hand picked developers to have some apps available at launch, no?
Apple hasn't enabled the store yet. (From a developer who has one).
Despite what fans of sharebuybacks think, there is no evidence that they result in lasting share price accrual. Short temporary lifts occur, but market forces and company performance swamps that over time. It's just throwing money into a black hole.
Well, market for here is certainly not the "real world" market were real money is spent, more the sucker market that is the stock market for most people who don't understand how the game is played there.
There is no real world reason for the valuations a lot of tech company have, and all the books in the world that have tried to find reason in there have basically failed. The stock market is a heavily distortedwith a massive assymetry in information and ability to deal of big players vs smaller players.
CDs and DVDs dont operate under the same laws in the US, thanks to the DCMA.
Is this settled law? I'd love to see a case cited.
In 2010 Apple made $13 billion in profit.
This year they will make $52 billion.
Profits are up 300% yet the stock in only up double.
It must be kinda vexing that the stock market doesn't follow your cute rules of thumb, eh?
Value (stock price) is a function of two things: profits (EPS) and P/E. The latter, in turn, is function of the market's perception of Apple's growth opportunities. So, even if profits go up, but for whatever reason, the market's perception of Apple's ability to create value from future growth dims, value will not go up to the same extent that profit does.
I personally think that companies such as Google, Amazon, and Tesla do a really good job of managing market perceptions, and that Apple could be doing a better job (spare me the brickbats: yes, I mean you @Slurpy). That has to start with managing information flows better. There is no other way around it. It's more than a call to Jim Cramer about China (which, btw, was a wonderful and important thing to do).
Apple hasn't enabled the store yet. (From a developer who has one).
Ah. Good and useful information for this thread. *Thank you sincerely* for sharing!
yes, and the DCMA is the act which codified this. attempting to circumvent encryption or DRM is not legal.
You're allowed to rip CDs because they came out before DRM was used. DVDs have DRM, and aren't supposed to be ripped.
yes, and the DCMA is the act which codified this. attempting to circumvent encryption or DRM is now a crime.
I keep asking, and no one seems to know... is there a case that settles this? If so, can you provide a link?
dunno, but its the law that says you cant. there was a famous case in 1999 dealing w/ the guy who wrote "DeCSS" for Linux that had him raided.
http://www.howtogeek.com/138969/why-watching-dvds-on-linux-is-illegal-in-the-usa/
heres a case where the ripping/streaming was dismissed, but it appears due to the defendant being an education institution:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/10/judge-suggests-dmca-allows-dvd-ripping-if-you-own-the-dvd/
doesnt need to be. the legislature passedit. the courts can respond to a case on it, but until then it's law of the land until it isn't
dunno, but its the law that says you cant. there was a famous case in 1999 dealing w/ the guy who wrote "DeCSS" for Linux that had him raided.
http://www.howtogeek.com/138969/why-watching-dvds-on-linux-is-illegal-in-the-usa/
heres a case where the ripping/streaming was dismissed, but it appears due to the defendant being an education institution:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/10/judge-suggests-dmca-allows-dvd-ripping-if-you-own-the-dvd/
The latter seems like a 'fair use' interpretation (but I am no lawyer, so I am not 100% sure). Why should educational institutions be different from personal use, if that's the case?
(Maybe @thrang can volunteer to be the test subject for case law!
)
doesnt need to be. the legislature passedit. the courts can respond to a case on it, but until then it's law of the land until it isn't
Almost any piece of legislation fits that description.
because copyright law has a special fair use clause explicitly granted to educational institutions.
thats fine. thats what their branch of the government does -- pass laws. those laws are the law of the land until theyre changed or a court finds them invalid. thus it's law until it isnt.
(in other words, it doesnt make sense to ask me/us for a court ruling uploading the law...thats the exception to the rule, which is legal by default)