gatorguy

About

Username
gatorguy
Joined
Visits
370
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
12,919
Badges
2
Posts
23,021
  • Apple issues $6.5B bond to fund buyback, acquisitions

    B-Mc-C said:
    Xed said:
    gatorguy said:
    Xed said:
    gatorguy said:
    Xed said:
    gatorguy said:
    IMO actually distributing it to the stockholders in a special dividend would be more direct, assurance of truly getting something tangible instead of simply having faith it made your investment more valuable, but I guess they don't want to get hopes up of an ongoing thing. 
    Buying back the stock is a clear indicator that Apple thinks the stock price is low and/or that they expect something to move the stock higher in the future to make the buyback a lucrative endeavor.
    How would it be a "lucrative endeavor"? That would imply Apple could profit from a higher price later, which they won't. 


    1. No one understands the health of the company better than its senior managers. No one is in a better position to judge what will happen to the future performance of the company. So if a company decides to buy back stock (i.e., decides to invest in its own stock), these managers must believe that the stock price is undervalued and will rise (or so most observers would believe).
    Apple is not investing in its own stock tho. There is no retained value, the stock gets burned in effect. 

    As far as these repurchases driving up the value of the remaining stock I perfectly understand the theory. The proof is lacking, therefore it's somewhat a leap of faith that you will benefit more from an increased share price later on directly due to a buyback this quarter compared to an identifiable and tangible check distributing those funds directly to you.
    Sure they are. Retiring outstanding shares increases the value per share and increases EPS. Although, they never retire all the shares since they use some of these shares to issue to employees.

    The real question for you and George is: Why do you think that the world's most valuable company and inarguably an incredibly successful, profitable, and savvy company does this if the net effect ranges from having no positive effect to harming the company? Could it be that those many thousands of brilliant people working in finance understand something you don't?


    And yes @Xed you are also correct that AAPL does not retire all of the repurchased shares, saving some for issuance to employees. Those that do not believe this can review the quarterly SEC filings and/or listen to the conference calls.
    Here's a better idea. Show us the link and statements that say the shares are not 100% retired after the Apple buyback. Hint: You won't find one. Xed is not correct and neither are you.

    My suggestion is the same I gave @Xed : Before chastising someone else claiming they "don't get it" make sure you actually DO get it. In this case I don't think you do, so here's a helpful link to an informative article authored by a very reliable and trusted source explaining why it's NOT meant to increase Apple's stock price despite you being convinced otherwise. To some degree it might... or might not... but that's not the reason for the buybacks anyway if the source is to be believed.

    Oh and by the way, Neil Cybart confirms my statement that every single Apple share repurchased is "burned" and no longer exists. 
    https://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2021/1/13/apple-won-the-share-buyback-debate
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Apple issues $6.5B bond to fund buyback, acquisitions

    Xed said:
    gatorguy said:
    Xed said:
    gatorguy said:
    Xed said:
    gatorguy said:
    IMO actually distributing it to the stockholders in a special dividend would be more direct, assurance of truly getting something tangible instead of simply having faith it made your investment more valuable, but I guess they don't want to get hopes up of an ongoing thing. 
    Buying back the stock is a clear indicator that Apple thinks the stock price is low and/or that they expect something to move the stock higher in the future to make the buyback a lucrative endeavor.
    How would it be a "lucrative endeavor"? That would imply Apple could profit from a higher price later, which they won't. 


    1. No one understands the health of the company better than its senior managers. No one is in a better position to judge what will happen to the future performance of the company. So if a company decides to buy back stock (i.e., decides to invest in its own stock), these managers must believe that the stock price is undervalued and will rise (or so most observers would believe).
    Apple is not investing in its own stock tho. There is no retained value, the stock gets burned in effect. 

    As far as these repurchases driving up the value of the remaining stock I perfectly understand the theory. The proof is lacking, therefore it's somewhat a leap of faith that you will benefit more from an increased share price later on directly due to a buyback this quarter compared to an identifiable and tangible check distributing those funds directly to you.
    Sure they are. Retiring outstanding shares increases the value per share and increases EPS. Although, they never retire all the shares since they use some of these shares to issue to employees.
    I think you're incorrect. To the best of my knowledge not a single repurchased share is retained for redistribution. Not one. They no longer exist, so using my "burned" analogy is apt. POOF! If you're going to find fault with my opinion you should first make sure your own understanding is correct. 

    As far as the repurchase program not having significant value I'm certainly not saying that. At the same time there is no proof that it has, even if "in theory" it should all things being equal, so neither you nor I can be absolutely certain of the dollar value. With a check in hand you would have your proof. 

    EDIT: Personally I get the impression the stock repurchase deals are intended to benefit the largest investors, increasing their voting power. Small guys are in it at the whim and fancy of the big market investment forces far beyond anything you have any control over. You have no voice in it.

    There is often no rational reason for certain stock moves. If/when things crash and burn the largest investors will get along just fine IMO. 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Apple issues $6.5B bond to fund buyback, acquisitions

    Xed said:
    gatorguy said:
    Xed said:
    gatorguy said:
    IMO actually distributing it to the stockholders in a special dividend would be more direct, assurance of truly getting something tangible instead of simply having faith it made your investment more valuable, but I guess they don't want to get hopes up of an ongoing thing. 
    Buying back the stock is a clear indicator that Apple thinks the stock price is low and/or that they expect something to move the stock higher in the future to make the buyback a lucrative endeavor.
    How would it be a "lucrative endeavor"? That would imply Apple could profit from a higher price later, which they won't. 


    1. No one understands the health of the company better than its senior managers. No one is in a better position to judge what will happen to the future performance of the company. So if a company decides to buy back stock (i.e., decides to invest in its own stock), these managers must believe that the stock price is undervalued and will rise (or so most observers would believe).
    Apple is not investing in its own stock tho. There is no retained value, the stock gets burned in effect. 

    As far as these repurchases driving up the value of the remaining stock I perfectly understand the theory. The proof is lacking, therefore it's somewhat a leap of faith that you will benefit more from an increased share price later on directly due to a buyback this quarter compared to an identifiable and tangible check distributing those funds directly to you.
    GeorgeBMac
  • Apple issues $6.5B bond to fund buyback, acquisitions

    genovelle said:
    I’m not understanding the debt angle. They tend to maintain around 200 million in cash, so why pay interest on debt. Unless it provides tax savings somehow. 
    I think you meant 200 billion, not 200 million. But what's the difference?

    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/27/apple-q1-cash-hoard-heres-how-much-apple-has-on-hand.html <--
    LOL, yea 200 million for a 350 billion revenue company isn't enough by factor of A LOT. 
    Apple doesn't maintain all cash, fyi. I think gross cash on hand is about 80billion. The rest (a lot) is is in easily converted securities (probably T notes/bills/bonds or corporate bonds).
    Apple had $195.57 billion in cash on hand earlier this year. I didn't look into the latest results. That's different than net cash of course. 
    Alex_V
  • Facebook reports record ad revenue after grousing about iOS privacy features

    Alex_V said:
    gatorguy said:

    It's more YOUR little semantics game, and a very misleading one played by a few others. There's no advertiser access to user data, especially not YOUR OWN personal data. 
    User data is not for sale, tho there are companies that do, even ones you inherently trust (perhaps because you don't know any better?)

    Google places ads for companies based on baskets of ANONYMISED USERS WITH SIMILAR DEMOGRAPHICS in much the same way Apple creates baskets of users for delivering targeted ads in certain Apple services. Baby steps. You know why Apple treats that as OK to do? Because they aren't selling that data or even giving it away, and neither is Google. The intellectual dishonesty is pretending they do.

    Is maintaining a talking point so important to you that using half-truths to do so is acceptable? Don't work that FUD. Be better than that. 

    Whatever. Google snoops on us. They monitor us online, they scan our emails, etc. They want to know as much as they can about each of us to build up a detailed psychographic profile of us: Demography, socio-economic status, political beliefs, sexuality, etc. Etc.  In the long run, like the NSA, they want to know everything about everyone. Google then sells that knowledge to advertisers. I’m not so comforted that it is anonymous. Because Google knows. Plus, they did this surreptitiously, without informing us. Apple's big offence was to insist that we are informed. 

    As far as I know, the only adverts that Apple presents to me are on the App Store. When I search for a word processor, it says: “Here’s another word processor, have a look.”
    Scanning emails for ads? Nope, not in years.
    Political beliefs? Google doesn't permit ads based on that, nor allow collection of data related to it.
    Sexuality? Nope, another category that Google does not allow. 

    You're also not all that familiar with Apple's ad platform, so the link to that is here:
    https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205223

    If you do more reading and research and less assumption you'd not be so misinformed. 
    muthuk_vanalingamctt_zh