tjwolf

gatorguy said:

fred1 said:

nadriel said:

The problem is that Ireland abused the union by working as a tax haven for multinationals and giving itself unfair advantage over other union countries within the union and at the union level loss of tax money.

I have to pay back taxes if I pay too little. So does everyone around the globe even after a long time. Why do companies deserve special treatment even if their income is ridiculous amounts of money?

Exactly. Apple paid all the taxes it was required to according to Irish law. If the law was bad, make Ireland change it and pay a fine. How can you fine a company retroactively because it took advantage of a law that may have been unfair, but was a law nonetheless?  Besides, where was the EU all those years that this went on??

This is not a fine. 

You think you misread @fred1's comment - I think he's suggesting that Ireland should pay a fine to the EU for writing a law that's bad.  Not sure that's feasible, but I agree with the sentiment that Apple didn't do anything wrong - at least nothing that was shown by the commission ordering the tax backpay.  @Carnegie's comment explains it better than I could.

salmonstk said:

Apple does not need a cheap phone- as the article shows 8 is that now.

What it needs is a smaller form factor full screen phone.  Anyone else note the phones are priced 499 599 699 999.

Big gap in the 799 or 899 range.  Perfect for a full screen phone with a foot print of an iPhone 5.  MY bet is we are waiting for the size of the notch to shrink or the notch gone all together.

This was my reaction too - there's plenty of pricing room for an all-screen phone with iPhone 5-like dimensions.  If Apple can sell the mouthful "iPhone 11 Pro Max", it can sell an "iPhone 11 Pro Mini".  Here's what I've been preaching for awhile now: Apple will bring out a smaller iPhone again after it's delivered AR glasses!  The thinking is pretty straight-forward: as AR-glasses based presentation becomes more sophisticated, there will be less and less need for screens, much less phablet sized ones.  Increasingly, the phone will stay in ones pocket and simply be the compute engine & traffic cop to all the wearables.  An iPhone 5 sized phone is just so much more comfortable in a jeans pocket than an iPhone 11 Pro Max :-)

gatorguy said:

red oak said:

Debt interest is tax deductible for Apple.  That brings the interest cost down to its dividend yield 

So,  a nearly cost free way for Apple to buy back its own stock.   Makes a ton of sense, especially if Apple thinks the stock will 2 or 3X in the next 8 years 

Nothing about the stock repurchase program makes any sense to me. Apple doesn't keep it, they burn it, and if there's some proof that the buybacks have increased the stock price above where it would otherwise be it's being keep secret. 

This goes both ways: there's no proof that "they burn it" - that share buyback have had no impact on stock prices.  But in general, the laws of supply/demand would suggest that buybacks would positively impact stock price.

seanismorris said:

I’m not a fan of Apple’s financial engineering.  It may be the “smart” choice, but it’s smart until it’s not.  I’d rather have Apple debt free.

The company is simply borrowing against the money they already have in the bank (overseas) because it's financially advantageous.  They're not going into the red, so your trepidations, much less calling their decision "financial engineering", make no sense to me.

The root of most evils in this country can be traced back to the nature of our system of law.  We have 5% of the world's population, but 95% of the world's lawyers.  Why is that?  Because here lawyers are allowed to work on contingency.  So they all chase ambulances, offer their services for free to just about anyone - doesn't really matter whether the client is a real victim or just another jackal out for cash & willing to lie for it.  All they have to do is get it to court and in front of a jury, where they play on the heartstrings rather than facts.  They're especially happy when the supposed "perpetrator" is a big, fat company - it's easier to convince a jury to "stick it to the man".