"I'm not a stock analyst, nor do I own any Apple stock…"
And? It's not ethical for me to do so. The second-half of the sentence you half-quoted spells out why.
No problem with ethics at all. But given the disclaimer, it's wise for the reader to make investment decisions based on other criteria.
"No problem with ethics..." You're hilarious, but not funny. We should be grateful for ethics like that. It should be unremarkable, but it's not, so thanks to Mike Wuerthele for having ethics.
Maybe the reader actually should make investment decisions based on honestly provided information, rather than on the prevailing ethics-optional Wall Street pundits who have hidden agendas and/or are riding in herds of short-sighted lemmings.
No, one should make investment choices based on the gathering of data from multiple sources, one's tolerance for risk, and time horizon, among other things, including 10-K reports, growth and dividend history, earnings multiples, liquidity, market capitalization, insider sales and purchases, workplace culture, geopolitical or government regulation exposure just to name a few. There is nothing inherently unethical about an analyst who owns shares in a corporation providing guidance, provided those holdings, as well as those of his company and family are revealed. Parse all that out, and the average investor is better off investing in index funds or etfs, if he's not willing to put in the countless hours that professionals do in reaching their conclusions. Even then, passive S&P funds outperform over 80% actively managed funds, mostly due to higher expenses, trading costs, and tax implications.
If you find this hilarious, and start trading in meme stocks on Reddit, based on "sticking it to the short sellers," you have my sympathy.
Hasn't every share acquired under the repurchase program been retired? They can, of course, create new shares someday and sell them, but AFAIK every share in Apple's Repurchase Program has been effectively burned, it no longer exists.
In the early days of the buy-back they did some other things with a small portion of the shares they re-acquired. For the last four years, as far as I can tell, every share has been completely retired.
When I say "most of it," that's like conservatively 96% have been retired.
Buybacks do retire shares. But also remember Apple employees have a share option program. Those shares have to be reserved somehow particularly for the bonus programs for executives. I remember reading a while ago that Apple will announce when they carve out a portion of the shares for this. I don’t know if they create new shares or simply buy existing ones on the open market.
Most employees will keep the shares as option so to avoid paying taxes when redeemed. This will not increase total shares.
Nicely written article. It is difficult to know what the reaction will be after earnings. Many other companies are trading at much higher multiples based on future potential, and that should be no different for Apple.
Hasn't every share acquired under the repurchase program been retired? They can, of course, create new shares someday and sell them, but AFAIK every share in Apple's Repurchase Program has been effectively burned, it no longer exists.
In the early days of the buy-back they did some other things with a small portion of the shares they re-acquired. For the last four years, as far as I can tell, every share has been completely retired.
When I say "most of it," that's like conservatively 96% have been retired.
Buybacks do retire shares. But also remember Apple employees have a share option program. Those shares have to be reserved somehow particularly for the bonus programs for executives. I remember reading a while ago that Apple will announce when they carve out a portion of the shares for this. I don’t know if they create new shares or simply buy existing ones on the open market.
Not inherently. A company buying back the shares has to choose to retire them v reallocating them. As Mike previously mentioned and later state in your comment, Apple has taken some of the shares it repurchased to distribute to employees as options.
When did that happen? From every bit of research I've done there's not a single share of Apple stock acquired in the Apple Share Repurchase Program that's been converted to Treasury stock, at least since 2016which is as far back as I've checked. Those shares are 100% retired, ie burned, from everything I'm able to find, and which Above Avalon also states. If you have evidence that indicates otherwise I'd love to see it.
Hasn't every share acquired under the repurchase program been retired? They can, of course, create new shares someday and sell them, but AFAIK every share in Apple's Repurchase Program has been effectively burned, it no longer exists.
In the early days of the buy-back they did some other things with a small portion of the shares they re-acquired. For the last four years, as far as I can tell, every share has been completely retired.
When I say "most of it," that's like conservatively 96% have been retired.
Buybacks do retire shares. But also remember Apple employees have a share option program. Those shares have to be reserved somehow particularly for the bonus programs for executives. I remember reading a while ago that Apple will announce when they carve out a portion of the shares for this. I don’t know if they create new shares or simply buy existing ones on the open market.
Not inherently. A company buying back the shares has to choose to retire them v reallocating them. As Mike previously mentioned and later state in your comment, Apple has taken some of the shares it repurchased to distribute to employees as options.
When did that happen? From every bit of research I've done there's not a single share of Apple stock acquired in the Apple Share Repurchase Program that's been converted to Treasury stock, at least since 2016which is as far back as I've checked. Those shares are 100% retired, ie burned, from everything I'm able to find, and which Above Avalon also states. If you have evidence that indicates otherwise I'd love to see it.
Yes, dating back to the August 2012 ASR (which started this decade plus of Apple share repurchases) Apple has stated in various filings that it retires the shares it receives from both its ASR agreements and from its open market repurchases. A few years back Apple stopped explicitly referring (e.g. in its 10-Ks) to the retirement of shares repurchased in the open market, but there's been no indication that it isn't still retiring all such shares. It doesn't, e.g., report anything regarding treasury stock.
There would be some differences when it comes to accounting, but in Apple's case it's largely inconsequential that repurchased shares are retired. It can reissue shares with the snap of a finger; it already has authorization in place for more than 50 billion outstanding shares. And it does routinely issue new shares - in the ballpark of 100 million annually - for, e.g., vesting RSU awards and its employee stock purchase plan. You are correct in that it doesn't put aside repurchased shares to be distributed for such things, it issues new shares for them.
Hasn't every share acquired under the repurchase program been retired? They can, of course, create new shares someday and sell them, but AFAIK every share in Apple's Repurchase Program has been effectively burned, it no longer exists.
In the early days of the buy-back they did some other things with a small portion of the shares they re-acquired. For the last four years, as far as I can tell, every share has been completely retired.
When I say "most of it," that's like conservatively 96% have been retired.
Buybacks do retire shares. But also remember Apple employees have a share option program. Those shares have to be reserved somehow particularly for the bonus programs for executives. I remember reading a while ago that Apple will announce when they carve out a portion of the shares for this. I don’t know if they create new shares or simply buy existing ones on the open market.
Most employees will keep the shares as option so to avoid paying taxes when redeemed. This will not increase total shares.
Employees receiving shares from vesting RSU awards (Apple doesn't issue stock options anymore) have tax liability (based on their value at the time of vesting) whether they sell those shares or not. It's treated as ordinary income. And those vesting shares (net of tax withholding) do increase the number of Apple shares outstanding. Apple issues new shares (again, net of tax withholding) for them.
Hasn't every share acquired under the repurchase program been retired? They can, of course, create new shares someday and sell them, but AFAIK every share in Apple's Repurchase Program has been effectively burned, it no longer exists.
In the early days of the buy-back they did some other things with a small portion of the shares they re-acquired. For the last four years, as far as I can tell, every share has been completely retired.
When I say "most of it," that's like conservatively 96% have been retired.
Buybacks do retire shares. But also remember Apple employees have a share option program. Those shares have to be reserved somehow particularly for the bonus programs for executives. I remember reading a while ago that Apple will announce when they carve out a portion of the shares for this. I don’t know if they create new shares or simply buy existing ones on the open market.
Not inherently. A company buying back the shares has to choose to retire them v reallocating them. As Mike previously mentioned and later state in your comment, Apple has taken some of the shares it repurchased to distribute to employees as options.
Apple doesn't grant stock options anymore. But for its vesting RSU awards, it issues new shares.
"I'm not a stock analyst, nor do I own any Apple stock…"
And? It's not ethical for me to do so. The second-half of the sentence you half-quoted spells out why.
Kudos to you, Mike.
All journalists, whether self-employed or with big media, should either follow this standard or at least disclose their self-interest in every publication.
Apple's market cap has already, based on yesterday's closing price of $191.17, fallen below $3 trillion because of the updated outstanding share count that we got. That updated count took about $18 billion off of Apple's market cap.
The fall continues, with it now trading at $181.99 only two days after your post.
Apple's market cap has already, based on yesterday's closing price of $191.17, fallen below $3 trillion because of the updated outstanding share count that we got. That updated count took about $18 billion off of Apple's market cap.
The fall continues, with it now trading at $181.99 only two days after your post.
I wanted to see how does that measure up against the stock performance on the 5-7 year timeline financial planners recommend for retail clients when purchasing equities. Quite well, actually. July 29, 2016 Price (split adjusted): $21.60. Friday close: $181.99. That is an 840% increase in seven years (That's 120%/year!) If you followed the advice of a typical financial adviser, you'd have prospered. Selling at this point would be a inadvisable for a long-term investor. The current dividend is 96¢/year. That makes your yield on that $21.60 you paid for it 4.6%.That's on top of the stock's gain. If you had reinvested those dividends in more shares, well do your own math, that's too hard for me, since the dividend changes almost every quarter. You wouldnt have student debt if you bought 100! If you still believe in a stock, why sell it. If you don't, why keep it? I'm a believer.
BTW: Apple's largest shareholder is right now? Hint: Warren Buffett. He knows a thing or two about long term investing.
Apple's market cap has already, based on yesterday's closing price of $191.17, fallen below $3 trillion because of the updated outstanding share count that we got. That updated count took about $18 billion off of Apple's market cap.
The fall continues, with it now trading at $181.99 only two days after your post.
I wanted to see how does that measure up against the stock performance on the 5-7 year timeline financial planners recommend for retail clients when purchasing equities. Quite well, actually. July 29, 2016 Price (split adjusted): $21.60. Friday close: $181.99. That is an 840% increase in seven years (That's 120%/year!) If you followed the advice of a typical financial adviser, you'd have prospered. Selling at this point would be a inadvisable for a long-term investor. The current dividend is 96¢/year. That makes your yield on that $21.60 you paid for it 4.6%.That's on top of the stock's gain. If you had reinvested those dividends in more shares, well do your own math, that's too hard for me, since the dividend changes almost every quarter. You wouldnt have student debt if you bought 100! If you still believe in a stock, why sell it. If you don't, why keep it? I'm a believer.
BTW: Apple's largest shareholder is right now? Hint: Warren Buffett. He knows a thing or two about long term investing.
All excellent points. But there's no need to convince me. My first purchase of AAPL was in 1999, and I've purchased more since then, never having sold a since share to date.
Furthermore, I invested a small amount in BRKB almost exactly 1 year ago today. Despite the current drop in the stock market, my total gain for BRKB stands at 15.12%. No dividend, but the gain is nothing to sneeze at. Made no sense I was going around talking positively about what Warren Buffet was saying and doing, and there I was without any of his Berkshire Hathaway stock. My purchase of the stock changed that. It was a good buy.
With that said, don't overlook the obvious. I first purchased a small amount of McDonald's stock in 2011. As of today, it stands at a 232% gain. The same amount invested in BRKB in 2011 would have yielded a 191% gain. Both are great gains, but MCD comes out ahead. (Even further when you consider MCD pays a dividend.) But no wonder... McDonald's has the Big "Mac"!
Apple's market cap has already, based on yesterday's closing price of $191.17, fallen below $3 trillion because of the updated outstanding share count that we got. That updated count took about $18 billion off of Apple's market cap.
The fall continues, with it now trading at $181.99 only two days after your post.
I wanted to see how does that measure up against the stock performance on the 5-7 year timeline financial planners recommend for retail clients when purchasing equities. Quite well, actually. July 29, 2016 Price (split adjusted): $21.60. Friday close: $181.99. That is an 840% increase in seven years (That's 120%/year!) If you followed the advice of a typical financial adviser, you'd have prospered. Selling at this point would be a inadvisable for a long-term investor. The current dividend is 96¢/year. That makes your yield on that $21.60 you paid for it 4.6%.That's on top of the stock's gain. If you had reinvested those dividends in more shares, well do your own math, that's too hard for me, since the dividend changes almost every quarter. You wouldnt have student debt if you bought 100! If you still believe in a stock, why sell it. If you don't, why keep it? I'm a believer.
BTW: Apple's largest shareholder is right now? Hint: Warren Buffett. He knows a thing or two about long term investing.
All excellent points. But there's no need to convince me. My first purchase of AAPL was in 1999, and I've purchased more since then, never having sold a since share to date.
Furthermore, I invested a small amount in BRKB almost exactly 1 year ago today. Despite the current drop in the stock market, my total gain for BRKB stands at 15.12%. No dividend, but the gain is nothing to sneeze at. Made no sense I was going around talking positively about what Warren Buffet was saying and doing, and there I was without any of his Berkshire Hathaway stock. My purchase of the stock changed that. It was a good buy.
With that said, don't overlook the obvious. I first purchased a small amount of McDonald's stock in 2011. As of today, it stands at a 232% gain. The same amount invested in BRKB in 2011 would have yielded a 191% gain. Both are great gains, but MCD comes out ahead. (Even further when you consider MCD pays a dividend.) But no wonder... McDonald's has the Big "Mac"!
Glad that's worked out so well for you! My wife told me 30 years ago that we should buy BRKA. I asked how much, and she said something like $17,000. I said "no way! He's so old. What happens to that stock if he dies? Well you know that story. It closed at $533,600.00 Friday. She stopped asking me after that. She bought Ulta when she saw a line of customers from age 16-80. That was ten years ago. She bought Lululemon when they had the problem with the see-through tights. Moral of the story, listen to the wife.
Apple's market cap has already, based on yesterday's closing price of $191.17, fallen below $3 trillion because of the updated outstanding share count that we got. That updated count took about $18 billion off of Apple's market cap.
The fall continues, with it now trading at $181.99 only two days after your post.
I wanted to see how does that measure up against the stock performance on the 5-7 year timeline financial planners recommend for retail clients when purchasing equities. Quite well, actually. July 29, 2016 Price (split adjusted): $21.60. Friday close: $181.99. That is an 840% increase in seven years (That's 120%/year!) If you followed the advice of a typical financial adviser, you'd have prospered. Selling at this point would be a inadvisable for a long-term investor. The current dividend is 96¢/year. That makes your yield on that $21.60 you paid for it 4.6%.That's on top of the stock's gain. If you had reinvested those dividends in more shares, well do your own math, that's too hard for me, since the dividend changes almost every quarter. You wouldnt have student debt if you bought 100! If you still believe in a stock, why sell it. If you don't, why keep it? I'm a believer.
BTW: Apple's largest shareholder is right now? Hint: Warren Buffett. He knows a thing or two about long term investing.
All excellent points. But there's no need to convince me. My first purchase of AAPL was in 1999, and I've purchased more since then, never having sold a since share to date.
Furthermore, I invested a small amount in BRKB almost exactly 1 year ago today. Despite the current drop in the stock market, my total gain for BRKB stands at 15.12%. No dividend, but the gain is nothing to sneeze at. Made no sense I was going around talking positively about what Warren Buffet was saying and doing, and there I was without any of his Berkshire Hathaway stock. My purchase of the stock changed that. It was a good buy.
With that said, don't overlook the obvious. I first purchased a small amount of McDonald's stock in 2011. As of today, it stands at a 232% gain. The same amount invested in BRKB in 2011 would have yielded a 191% gain. Both are great gains, but MCD comes out ahead. (Even further when you consider MCD pays a dividend.) But no wonder... McDonald's has the Big "Mac"!
Glad that's worked out so well for you! My wife told me 30 years ago that we should buy BRKA. I asked how much, and she said something like $17,000. I said "no way! He's so old. What happens to that stock if he dies? Well you know that story. It closed at $533,600.00 Friday. She stopped asking me after that. She bought Ulta when she saw a line of customers from age 16-80. That was ten years ago. She bought Lululemon when they had the problem with the see-through tights. Moral of the story, listen to the wife.
LOL Sounds like a good plan. Even I want to listen to your wife.
She seems to invest with the same logic I tell people to invest with when they ask me. Go for companies you love and you see as being extremely popular. I would've invested in Lululemon, too, if I would've seen a huge line of people with such a wide age range. I will also parrot a bit of JDW's comment about MCD. It's not a sexy stock to own, but it's been an excellent one. Overall very stable and with quarterly dividends it's a nice pay day 4x a year.
Apple's market cap has already, based on yesterday's closing price of $191.17, fallen below $3 trillion because of the updated outstanding share count that we got. That updated count took about $18 billion off of Apple's market cap.
The fall continues, with it now trading at $181.99 only two days after your post.
I wanted to see how does that measure up against the stock performance on the 5-7 year timeline financial planners recommend for retail clients when purchasing equities. Quite well, actually. July 29, 2016 Price (split adjusted): $21.60. Friday close: $181.99. That is an 840% increase in seven years (That's 120%/year!) If you followed the advice of a typical financial adviser, you'd have prospered. Selling at this point would be a inadvisable for a long-term investor. The current dividend is 96¢/year. That makes your yield on that $21.60 you paid for it 4.6%.That's on top of the stock's gain. If you had reinvested those dividends in more shares, well do your own math, that's too hard for me, since the dividend changes almost every quarter. You wouldnt have student debt if you bought 100! If you still believe in a stock, why sell it. If you don't, why keep it? I'm a believer.
BTW: Apple's largest shareholder is right now? Hint: Warren Buffett. He knows a thing or two about long term investing.
All excellent points. But there's no need to convince me. My first purchase of AAPL was in 1999, and I've purchased more since then, never having sold a since share to date.
Furthermore, I invested a small amount in BRKB almost exactly 1 year ago today. Despite the current drop in the stock market, my total gain for BRKB stands at 15.12%. No dividend, but the gain is nothing to sneeze at. Made no sense I was going around talking positively about what Warren Buffet was saying and doing, and there I was without any of his Berkshire Hathaway stock. My purchase of the stock changed that. It was a good buy.
With that said, don't overlook the obvious. I first purchased a small amount of McDonald's stock in 2011. As of today, it stands at a 232% gain. The same amount invested in BRKB in 2011 would have yielded a 191% gain. Both are great gains, but MCD comes out ahead. (Even further when you consider MCD pays a dividend.) But no wonder... McDonald's has the Big "Mac"!
Glad that's worked out so well for you! My wife told me 30 years ago that we should buy BRKA. I asked how much, and she said something like $17,000. I said "no way! He's so old. What happens to that stock if he dies? Well you know that story. It closed at $533,600.00 Friday. She stopped asking me after that. She bought Ulta when she saw a line of customers from age 16-80. That was ten years ago. She bought Lululemon when they had the problem with the see-through tights. Moral of the story, listen to the wife.
LOL Sounds like a good plan. Even I want to listen to your wife.
She seems to invest with the same logic I tell people to invest with when they ask me. Go for companies you love and you see as being extremely popular. I would've invested in Lululemon, too, if I would've seen a huge line of people with such a wide age range. I will also parrot a bit of JDW's comment about MCD. It's not a sexy stock to own, but it's been an excellent one. Overall very stable and with quarterly dividends it's a nice pay day 4x a year.
The logic that my wife uses to evaluate consumer stocks is the one she read in "One Up On Wall Street," by the great, great Peter Lynch, manager of the Fidelity Magellan Fund (largest in the world at the time). His performance record beat the S&P index by over 10% or more every year he was in charge. That's net of the 3% load it had at the time! His philosophy was that we all have the means to prosper by investing, and that your teenagers could be your best indicators of what retail companies to buy. That sure proved out with Apple!
What if Apple is buying back stock in order to kill it so that sooner or later it will take itself private?
From what I can see Apple's stock has been manipulated regularly based on rumours and innuendo instead of actual product releases. What if Apple is sick and tired of idiot analysts that are trying to ruin Apple's reputation?
Going private also makes huge sense for Apple. If there is no financial benefit to leaking Apple products before release then Apple can once again "WOW" people rather than have the rug pulled from underneath their feet.
Of course, what if some of those senseless rumours that have been released to drive down Apple's stock is Apple's doing to be able to buy more back for cheaper? Thus allowing their move to private to happen sooner? That one would be dodgy because that's insider trading but if Apple was to go private then would they be beholden to SEC governance?
But I don't know because I'm not a stock guy but Apple could very well be in a position to remove itself from the stock exchange and do whatever the hell it wants without being answerable to anyone.
What if Apple is buying back stock in order to kill it so that sooner or later it will take itself private?
From what I can see Apple's stock has been manipulated regularly based on rumours and innuendo instead of actual product releases. What if Apple is sick and tired of idiot analysts that are trying to ruin Apple's reputation?
Going private also makes huge sense for Apple. If there is no financial benefit to leaking Apple products before release then Apple can once again "WOW" people rather than have the rug pulled from underneath their feet.
Of course, what if some of those senseless rumours that have been released to drive down Apple's stock is Apple's doing to be able to buy more back for cheaper? Thus allowing their move to private to happen sooner? That one would be dodgy because that's insider trading but if Apple was to go private then would they be beholden to SEC governance?
But I don't know because I'm not a stock guy but Apple could very well be in a position to remove itself from the stock exchange and do whatever the hell it wants without being answerable to anyone.
Is it possible?
Is it possible (for Apple to effectively take itself private)? In theory, yes. But in Apple's case it might as well be impossible. At any rate, I think it's safe to say that's not why Apple has been buying back stock for the last decade plus.
What if Apple is buying back stock in order to kill it so that sooner or later it will take itself private?
From what I can see Apple's stock has been manipulated regularly based on rumours and innuendo instead of actual product releases. What if Apple is sick and tired of idiot analysts that are trying to ruin Apple's reputation?
Going private also makes huge sense for Apple. If there is no financial benefit to leaking Apple products before release then Apple can once again "WOW" people rather than have the rug pulled from underneath their feet.
Of course, what if some of those senseless rumours that have been released to drive down Apple's stock is Apple's doing to be able to buy more back for cheaper? Thus allowing their move to private to happen sooner? That one would be dodgy because that's insider trading but if Apple was to go private then would they be beholden to SEC governance?
But I don't know because I'm not a stock guy but Apple could very well be in a position to remove itself from the stock exchange and do whatever the hell it wants without being answerable to anyone.
Is it possible?
A publicly traded company cannot "take itself private." Existing shareholders own the company. A buyback of a few million shares per quarter is one thing. Buying the entire company in this case would require raising just shy of $3 Trillion, and by whom? What investment group, hedge fund or lender group has that capacity? And do you want Apple Inc. to be owned by a trio of JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley? Not me.
What if Apple is buying back stock in order to kill it so that sooner or later it will take itself private?
From what I can see Apple's stock has been manipulated regularly based on rumours and innuendo instead of actual product releases. What if Apple is sick and tired of idiot analysts that are trying to ruin Apple's reputation?
Going private also makes huge sense for Apple. If there is no financial benefit to leaking Apple products before release then Apple can once again "WOW" people rather than have the rug pulled from underneath their feet.
Of course, what if some of those senseless rumours that have been released to drive down Apple's stock is Apple's doing to be able to buy more back for cheaper? Thus allowing their move to private to happen sooner? That one would be dodgy because that's insider trading but if Apple was to go private then would they be beholden to SEC governance?
But I don't know because I'm not a stock guy but Apple could very well be in a position to remove itself from the stock exchange and do whatever the hell it wants without being answerable to anyone.
Is it possible?
A publicly traded company cannot "take itself private." Existing shareholders own the company. A buyback of a few million shares per quarter is one thing. Buying the entire company in this case would require raising just shy of $3 Trillion, and by whom? What investment group, hedge fund or lender group has that capacity? And do you want Apple Inc. to be owned by a trio of JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley? Not me.
It's not going to happen, but I don't think Apple would have to raise that much. They have deep coffers and they could probably borrow a great deal simply based on their earnings and other investments. Those that backed Musk to buy Twitter will never see their money, but those that would be willing to back Apple would be fine. That said, it's not going to happen.
Comments
If you find this hilarious, and start trading in meme stocks on Reddit, based on "sticking it to the short sellers," you have my sympathy.
There would be some differences when it comes to accounting, but in Apple's case it's largely inconsequential that repurchased shares are retired. It can reissue shares with the snap of a finger; it already has authorization in place for more than 50 billion outstanding shares. And it does routinely issue new shares - in the ballpark of 100 million annually - for, e.g., vesting RSU awards and its employee stock purchase plan. You are correct in that it doesn't put aside repurchased shares to be distributed for such things, it issues new shares for them.
BTW: Apple's largest shareholder is right now? Hint: Warren Buffett. He knows a thing or two about long term investing.
Furthermore, I invested a small amount in BRKB almost exactly 1 year ago today. Despite the current drop in the stock market, my total gain for BRKB stands at 15.12%. No dividend, but the gain is nothing to sneeze at. Made no sense I was going around talking positively about what Warren Buffet was saying and doing, and there I was without any of his Berkshire Hathaway stock. My purchase of the stock changed that. It was a good buy.
With that said, don't overlook the obvious. I first purchased a small amount of McDonald's stock in 2011. As of today, it stands at a 232% gain. The same amount invested in BRKB in 2011 would have yielded a 191% gain. Both are great gains, but MCD comes out ahead. (Even further when you consider MCD pays a dividend.) But no wonder... McDonald's has the Big "Mac"!
She seems to invest with the same logic I tell people to invest with when they ask me. Go for companies you love and you see as being extremely popular. I would've invested in Lululemon, too, if I would've seen a huge line of people with such a wide age range. I will also parrot a bit of JDW's comment about MCD. It's not a sexy stock to own, but it's been an excellent one. Overall very stable and with quarterly dividends it's a nice pay day 4x a year.
From what I can see Apple's stock has been manipulated regularly based on rumours and innuendo instead of actual product releases. What if Apple is sick and tired of idiot analysts that are trying to ruin Apple's reputation?
Going private also makes huge sense for Apple. If there is no financial benefit to leaking Apple products before release then Apple can once again "WOW" people rather than have the rug pulled from underneath their feet.
Of course, what if some of those senseless rumours that have been released to drive down Apple's stock is Apple's doing to be able to buy more back for cheaper? Thus allowing their move to private to happen sooner? That one would be dodgy because that's insider trading but if Apple was to go private then would they be beholden to SEC governance?
But I don't know because I'm not a stock guy but Apple could very well be in a position to remove itself from the stock exchange and do whatever the hell it wants without being answerable to anyone.
Is it possible?