randominternetperson

muthuk_vanalingam said:

I am not a finance/stock market expert, so please pardon my ignorance (if any) on this question. What does this stock split means for Apple's stock buyback program? That stock buyback program reduces the number of outstanding shares on a continuous basis.... until the stock split happens which does the exact opposite of stock buyback and explodes the number of outstanding shares. Then why bother with stock buyback at all?

Think about it in terms of "what percentage of Apple" you own if you hold a share of AAPL.  A stock split gives you 4 shares that control each control 1/4th as much as Apple.  Right, so before and after the stock split everyone controls exactly the same proportion of Apple.  On the other hand, stock buy backs remove shares from the pool, increasing how much of Apple each AAPL share represents.

Let's use small numbers to explain this better with an example. 

Suppose there are 100 shares of AAPL total, and you own one.  Clearly you own 1% of Apple's shares. 

Now, Apple does a stock buy back and removes 5 shares from circulation (buy buying 5 shares from other owners).  Now you own 1/95 of Apple instead of 1/100.

Then Apple does a 4-1 split, you would have 4 shares out of 380--still equal 1/95th of all the shares.

Does that make sense?  Stock splits have no real impact on existing owners while a buy back does.

fred1 said:

I agree that it's wonderful that he gives money to charity and of course he's free to do what he wants with his own money, but I do wonder why he doesn't want to disclose the name of the charity.  His call, of course, but seems odd.

He is legally required to disclose to the SEC when he gives up or sells shares.  He isn't required to identify the recipient.  I don't know about you, but when the government gives me an option to provide additional, nonrequired information, I decline.

This wasn't a press release; it was a government filing.

But it doesn't come in space grey.  Everyone knows that pros require darker, edgier equipment.

I'm somewhat surprised that Apple didn't knock a few (hundred) bucks off the pro, but perhaps they would actually prefer that consumers do the obvious thing and buy the new model instead.

SpamSandwich said:

gatorguy said:

"...studies have shown that students who do not utilize the Roman alphabet respond better to completing computations problems in STEM fields better on tablets."

I haven't a clue what that means. 

I think they’re being coy about crediting Asian students for some bizarre reason.

No.  Here's the actual text from the source article:

The College’s iPad program in support of online learning is the brainchild of the CTLG, whose findings included the recommendation that completing computational problems in chemistry, math, physics, and economics—and teaching languages, especially those that do not utilize the Roman alphabet—in online courses would benefit dramatically were instructors and students to have access to tablet devices.

https://www.bowdoin.edu/news/2020/07/bowdoin-to-provide-ipads-to-all-students-during-pandemic.html

sidrictheviking said:

gatorguy said:

"...studies have shown that students who do not utilize the Roman alphabet respond better to completing computations problems in STEM fields better on tablets."

I haven't a clue what that means. 

I’m equally curious!

It means that Asian students who take notes and do school work in their native language (and character set) are disadvantaged if they have to type their notes.  (Not the usual group you think of when the term "disadvantaged" is used, but whatever.)