Apple buybacks to resume on Friday, gobbling up stock priced near the lowest of 2016

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 58
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,648member
    Compare it to this: borrow 500 billion dollars and buy 450 billion euros with it, then ... burn the euros and hope the value will go up to profit with the euros you just burned.
    No sane person can support this scheme.
    edited April 2016
  • Reply 42 of 58
    bobschlobbobschlob Posts: 1,074member
    sog35 said:
    Are the prices they pay for buybacks visible anywhere?
    you can look at SEC filings

    http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/DisplayFiling.aspx?TabIndex=2&dcn=0001193125-16-559625&nav=1&src=Yahoo


    For 2014-2016 they spent about $96 billion on buybacks and bought 1 billion shares.
    Average cost was $96 per share.

    I did not look up 2013 buybacks. Those should be much cheaper on $18 billion.

    So they are probably close to break even at this point on the buyback.
    Gotta love the clown who just "Dislike" clicks any comment made by sog, no matter what it is. Total a55clown.
  • Reply 43 of 58
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,474member
    jonl said:
    Such a waste of money. The stock is lower than it was in 2012. Guess that's not long enough to be an article. lol
    It peaked at about $100/share in September of that year but for most of the year it was below the about $93/share it is as of this posting.  It only spent about 1 month above today's price as of posting this.  In fact, from that peak it slid to its lowest since 2012 in April 2013 at about $56/share.

    Research before you speak with such "authority."
  • Reply 44 of 58
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,474member
    sog35 said:

    Huh? And how exactly do you know when it stops dropping? No one can call bottoms on a consistent basis.  If you could you would literally be worth a TRILLION dollar.
    ... Carriers aren't subsidizing new phones anymore ...

    Uh, the cost is just not automatically in the cost we pay the carrier, it is now just a separate line item.  Also, no more money up front (except sales tax) and spread the cost out over a period of time.  Still about the same coming out of your pocket for the most part.

    I would say this would entice more people to get a new phone since you do not have the larger upfront cost to contend with.
  • Reply 45 of 58
    Most people here own some Apple stock. Having stocks means you believe in the rules of the marketplace. If Apple stock becomes scarcer through their buy back program at a certain point the price will go up. It will and we benefit. 
  • Reply 46 of 58
    sog35 said:


    I just don't think there is a balance where Apple can do what it does well with hardware and also do what google does to maximize profitability on its services without one negatively impacting the other. In the end you will have premium services that appeal to a subset of Apple hardware customers that generate about all the subscription revenue available in the market but still only attract a small subset of users while the rest of the world is happy to exchange personal data for likes and tolerate ads for content using Google or Facebook. And both camps will exist side by side using iPhones. 
    This would make sense if iOS users did not use Google or Facebook. 

    But 90% of iOS users do use Google and Facebook.
    http://www.mobidia.com/data-highlights/percentage-of-users-who-use-facebook-and-google-apps

    So how would an Apple based Ad engine hurt iOS users?  They already use Google and Facebook already!


    It would require Apple to collect personal data from sources that it has already declared off limits. Google and Facebook do well because they are platform ubiquitous which is something Apple has shown little interest in doing beyond iTunes on Windows and Apple Music on Android. If Apple were to go after Google it would be through search first and it would not be ad supported much as they did with maps. It would be a premium experience you got by owning an Apple device. Probably called Siri and would have both voice and text interfaces. 
  • Reply 47 of 58
    sog35 said:
    sacto joe said:
    Well, well, well! Isn't THAT interesting! For all your badmouthing of Tim Cook, here you are investing in AAPL.

    Ironic is hardly the word....

    Strangely, you've timed it pretty much perfectly. Not sure if you know why, though....

    Here's a clue:

    http://ped30.com/2016/04/29/apple-iphone-yo2y-compare/
    Tim Cook is getting paid $100 million. I expect him to be an elite level CEO.

    Frankly he has not been that the last 3 years. 

    But I still believe in Apple as a company and as a platform. They are succeding DESPITE having a weak CEO.
    I think Tim Cook has to go to, but not for the reasons Sog gives. I think that every time people see Cook they think of Jobs. Apple may be a different company than it was five years ago, but in the minds eye it still is the runner up with the brightest ideas and the one that is trying to beat behemoth Microsoft. And since Microsoft isn't in the phone business, small bright Apple is fighting there against an other behemoth, Samsung. Jobs was David, and we know where the sympathy lies.

    In that thinking it is hard to believe Apple has turned into the most valuable company ever. We still like the idea of Apple being small and bright. Every time people see Cook their loyalty to what Jobs meant gets a little boost. And all the time Apple silently grows, builds its ecosystem locking in more and more people. 

    The moment Cook goes people wake up from their pretty dream, see Apple for what it is, and a lot of the loyal feeling connected to Jobs and what he stood for will fly out of the window. And the stock will surge. Yes.

    So tmo Cook should stay on as long as it is necessary to tap this undercurrent of loyalty so Apple can grow relatively unopposed.
  • Reply 48 of 58
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    bobschlob said:
    sog35 said:
    Are the prices they pay for buybacks visible anywhere?
    you can look at SEC filings

    http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/DisplayFiling.aspx?TabIndex=2&dcn=0001193125-16-559625&nav=1&src=Yahoo


    For 2014-2016 they spent about $96 billion on buybacks and bought 1 billion shares.
    Average cost was $96 per share.

    I did not look up 2013 buybacks. Those should be much cheaper on $18 billion.

    So they are probably close to break even at this point on the buyback.
    Gotta love the clown who just "Dislike" clicks any comment made by sog, no matter what it is. Total a55clown.
    ?? I'm not seeing it. Only one of the nine on this page got one if I counted right. There's a few on this page alone with neither likes nor dislikes so not  "every one of them" gets downvoted.  But I wouldn't be surprised to see quite a few recently with a thumbs-down considering the subject matter. 
    edited April 2016
  • Reply 49 of 58
    tkell31tkell31 Posts: 216member
    sog35 said:

    tkell31 said:
    Hope they are hungry.  Lot of gobbling to do. 

    Smart money would be to wait until it stops dropping like a rock to buy back shares.  Let it find a support level then buy.  You can only manipulate the price for so long after that the market always tells the tale. 
    Huh? And how exactly do you know when it stops dropping? No one can call bottoms on a consistent basis.  If you could you would literally be worth a TRILLION dollar.

    My basic question: Is Apple going to be worth significantly more in 10 years? Will Apple out perform the market in the next 10 years?

    IMO, at $93 and even at $100 the answer would be yes.  But if you are just trying to time the market you can easily lose out when the stock quickly moves to $110 before you had a chance for it to reach your bottom.


    First, we're going into May which doesnt have a saying "Sell in May and go away" for nothing.  So we have a lagging stock entering what is normally a bad period for the market (May to start of Oct).  So given those circumstances where would you expect the price to go?  Second, the quarter wasnt good and guidance isn't good so it's safe to say the stock is going to continue to drop.  Third, there's no catalyst on the horizon.  You think a leather watch band or a thinner phone is going to get people back out and upgrading again?  Fourth, I'm not saying they have to buy at the exact bottom, I am saying stay on the sideline and wait for the market to tell you when there is enough demand to support a price (i.e. at least wait until it has some up days prior to buying) You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out Apple is going to continue to drop unless they throw money at it in the form of buybacks.

    Buying at other times is just a waste of money in a futile effort to prop up the share price.   If you think this stock is moving "quickly" upwards any time soon you are out of your mind.
  • Reply 50 of 58
    ac1234 said:

    NY1822 said:
    sometimes I wonder if people actually realize what buying back shares does for Apple:
    It retires the dividend payment, now, and as it grows in the future:

    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/12/20/how-apple-incs-debt-powered-repurchase-strategy-ac.aspx

    If shares are trading around $110, for example, and Apple is paying 1.3% in interest to repurchase those shares, it is effectively paying $1.43 per share to retire those shares. But right now Apple pays a total of $2.08 per share in dividends, so it realizes a net savings of $0.65 per share, in this example. Paying $1.43 to save $2.08 already sounds like a pretty good deal, but it actually gets even better from there. Interest expense is tax deductible, whereas dividend expenses are not, so Apple's after-tax savings are even greater.

    Over the past fiscal year alone, Apple has retired 289 million shares outstanding, so you can see how quickly all those dividend savings add up, even if Apple does incur interest expense in order to do so. You can also see these savings manifest in the cash flow statement. Apple boosted its dividend payout by 8% in 2014 and another 11% in 2015 (these increases take effect halfway through the fiscal year), but total dividend expense increased by merely 4% in fiscal 2015 to $11.6 billion.

    You need to take a class in investing finance.  Go calculate the $$$ shareholders would have in their pockets if the $120,000,000,000 had been given to the shareholders as a dividend.  I'd gladly pay the taxes on new money in my pocket as opposed to having a pathetic 2% dividend.

    $120,000,000,000 / 5,500,000,000 shares outstanding = $21 / share x your number of shares.  compare that to the $2/share/year they have dribbled out under the current scheme.
    First, there wouldn't be 120B available without the buyback. Second, there would be 6.63B outstanding shares.  Your math is way off.
  • Reply 51 of 58
    sog35 said:
    Just bought 200 shares at $92.80

    added 500 total shares this week at an average of $96.52

    hope we see a bump in late Summer when we get leaks of the iPhone 7

    My 12 month target is $150 (making no guarantees here)
    My 5 year target is $300
    I hope you are correct but your 5 year target will never happen unless we are at about 2.5B shares outstanding.  And you want to suspend the buybacks.


  • Reply 52 of 58

    Rayz2016 said:
    ac1234 said:
    More money WASTED by Cook - the buybacks have done nothing for shareholders or Apple - use that money to give us far larger dividends - not the pathetic 2% a year as it is now.
     
    To my mind, Cook is trying to correct a serious error in judgement he made several year ago: paying dividends at all. I thought it was a bad idea at the time because it made Apple a target for whiners and institutional raiders. 

    What he's trying to do now is get rid of the whiners and raiders. Cook will not say anything to boost the stock price and he won't increase the dividend by more than a few paltry percentage points (if at all). What he will do is to continue to 'waste' money buying Apple shares at a knockdown price.

    Icahn has dumped his shares. This is Cook's first major success in his strategy. As the share price sinks he'll buy more and more of the whiners and raiders will dump their shares driving the price down further. The shareholders left will be those who see the stock as a long-term growth proposition and not a quick profit day trade.

    So to my mind, Cook is not wasting the money – he's getting rid of investors who think like you, which is much better for the company long term.

    Nice post.  Some people can't see the forest through the trees.  If they could they would realize that their shares could be worth 5-10X as much in 10 years with the buyback.  But they just want the quick money of dividends.
  • Reply 53 of 58
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,648member
    Most people here own some Apple stock. Having stocks means you believe in the rules of the marketplace. If Apple stock becomes scarcer through their buy back program at a certain point the price will go up. It will and we benefit. 
    Insane comment if the year: we believe, so it is.
    Are you religious by any chance?
  • Reply 54 of 58
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,648member
    Rayz2016 said:
    ac1234 said:
    More money WASTED by Cook - the buybacks have done nothing for shareholders or Apple - use that money to give us far larger dividends - not the pathetic 2% a year as it is now.
     
    To my mind, Cook is trying to correct a serious error in judgement he made several year ago: paying dividends at all. I thought it was a bad idea at the time because it made Apple a target for whiners and institutional raiders. 

    What he's trying to do now is get rid of the whiners and raiders. Cook will not say anything to boost the stock price and he won't increase the dividend by more than a few paltry percentage points (if at all). What he will do is to continue to 'waste' money buying Apple shares at a knockdown price.

    Icahn has dumped his shares. This is Cook's first major success in his strategy. As the share price sinks he'll buy more and more of the whiners and raiders will dump their shares driving the price down further. The shareholders left will be those who see the stock as a long-term growth proposition and not a quick profit day trade.

    So to my mind, Cook is not wasting the money – he's getting rid of investors who think like you, which is much better for the company long term.

    Nice theory, I don't think it's true entirely (I think they try several things at the same time) but it does seem that Apple tries to go private if they can afford it.
    And that's the only sense in burning $500 billion or so.
  • Reply 55 of 58
    I'm still more concerned that for every $1 Apple has in a US-based bank, it has $20 in US cash-equivalents overseas.

    There are a few problems with this disclosure.
    1. Overseas money isn't called US Dollars.  They should be disclosed in Euros or whatever the bank that has the account counts its currency in.   I firmly believe the US Dollar sign is reserved for dollars that can be spent in the US.  Repatriation of those funds (and paying appropriate repatriation taxes) is a requisite requirement to counting those as spendable US dollars unless your in the illegal drug trade...  Just sayin'.   Subtract ~35% from anything held overseas.  Call it "Timmy Dollars" or something adorable and cute; but it just isn't US Dollars. 
    2. There's also no date on this page which indicates when Apple used the cash-conversion table from the Wallstreet Journal. 
    Overseas money can be US dollars. Especially money in China. In Europe it may mostly be Euros but some of it may also be held in dollar accounts. One of the reasons nobody in congress is doing anything about repatriating foreign holdings of US companies is that doing so will kill the market for US treasury bonds and devalue the dollar. When a foreign bank like one in China offers dollar accounts they have to insure the accounts with real dollars (they can't just invent them out of thin air) To do this they buy US treasury bonds. When everybody talks about our debt to China, this is the form it mostly takes. 
  • Reply 56 of 58
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    I'm still more concerned that for every $1 Apple has in a US-based bank, it has $20 in US cash-equivalents overseas.

    There are a few problems with this disclosure.
    1. Overseas money isn't called US Dollars.  They should be disclosed in Euros or whatever the bank that has the account counts its currency in.   I firmly believe the US Dollar sign is reserved for dollars that can be spent in the US.  Repatriation of those funds (and paying appropriate repatriation taxes) is a requisite requirement to counting those as spendable US dollars unless your in the illegal drug trade...  Just sayin'.   Subtract ~35% from anything held overseas.  Call it "Timmy Dollars" or something adorable and cute; but it just isn't US Dollars. 
    2. There's also no date on this page which indicates when Apple used the cash-conversion table from the Wallstreet Journal. 
    In general the "overseas" money isn't actually factually "overseas" anyway, Even tho we're often told Apple keeps most of it's cash outside the US it's in name only. For the most part that cash is right here safely in the US, most often New York banks, with just the owner of those accounts being one of Apple's foreign subsidiaries.

    The money is here in the US. The technical owners of it aren't so it's considered foreign holdings. 
    edited April 2016
  • Reply 57 of 58
    knowitall said:
    Most people here own some Apple stock. Having stocks means you believe in the rules of the marketplace. If Apple stock becomes scarcer through their buy back program at a certain point the price will go up. It will and we benefit. 
    Insane comment if the year: we believe, so it is.
    Are you religious by any chance?
    Well Knowitall, lets see how it goes. I think that scarcity means higher prices is a universal rule. If that means that I'm religious so be it.
Sign In or Register to comment.