- Last Active
GeorgeBMac said:A company buying its own stock is an indication that it has nothing to invest its money in -- so it's giving it away.Historically companies who borrowed money to pay dividends or buy back stock were viewed as failing companies.It is also a sign of how the U.S. has begun to gauge its economy and corporate health based on stock prices rather than fundamentals..... None of this speaks well for the future of either the U.S. or Apple.
It is unwise to predict Apple's based on the financial landscape twenty or thirty years ago. If you just look at Apple itself, it is a vastly different company than it was in the Nineties. If they hadn't adapted to the changing world, they certainly would not be a $2 trillion market cap company.
And it's not just Apple, the entire financial world has changed. We saw a blatant and stark demonstration of this last spring when the investment markets took a massive dive and various central banks worked together to thwart a depression. There's a new sheriff in town and the Fed isn't going let a repeat of 1929 happen. Some economists predicted a V-shaped recovery for the stock market and that's what actually happened due to an unprecedented central bank intervention worldwide.
With globalization and the emergence of large foreign markets like China, multinational corporations like Apple often generate large amounts of cash elsewhere. There were relatively few companies like that fifty years ago. Repatriating cash to the USA wasn't a major issue in the Sixties.
Apple has plenty of cash to acquire new companies but they are very choosy about what they acquire. A lot of other companies buy stuff willy nilly and many of those purchases are ill-conceived. Look at Verizon Media's stupid acquisition of AOL and it's subsequent boneheaded acquisition of Yahoo. They basically lost half of their investment, about $5 billion according to their 2018 writedown. Go ask the Verizon shareholders if they would have preferred to have received that $5 billion in dividends.
Apple doesn't make those kind of boneheaded acquisitions. Acquiring things for the sake of acquiring things is not a sane strategy albeit one that many companies pursue.
Let's remember that a publicly held company's primary responsibility is to increase shareholder value.
And it's clear that you don't understand the concept that cash can be used in multiple ways: a company can use some for dividends, some for share buybacks, some of capital investments, some for R&D, some for M&A. Just because Apple has a big pile of cash doesn't mean they need to spend ALL of it acquiring companies. In the same way, you don't need to spend everything in your checking account on videogames, lettuce, toilet paper, or socks.
Beats said:Ok the buy back shares thing kinda makes sense but acquisitions? Just reach into your coin purse
Issuing a bond is a strong consideration because using someone else's money is pretty much cheaper than using your own -- at least with current interest rates.
With COVID-19 delta variant cases exploding, Apple likely realizes that the Fed will not be motivated to hike interest rates quickly. Anti-vaxxers are probably giving Apple (and other major corporations) an extra 3-4 years on corporate bond issuance because a slowed recovery will stifle interest increases.
Appleish said:DAalseth said:Appleish said:On a conference call about a month ago, a medical specialist I highly respect said that within a few weeks, mask mandates would come back due to the Delta Variant. He nailed it. He also said that there would be a 50/50 chance there would be widespread lockdowns starting in October. Let's hope it's the right 50.
Over 99% of all current COVID-related hospitalizations and deaths are with people who aren't vaccinated. US Surgeon General Murthy mentioned this in PBS interview a couple of weeks ago. Nothing new. While the various vaccines don't fully prevent infection, they are HIGHLY effective in reducing the severity of symptoms, hospitalization and excess mortality.
The USA is staring at another grim winter season. The more-contagious delta variant will run rampant through the unvaccinated population. In other nations with even greater vaccine hesitancy, they will be even more screwed.
Apple Corporate (Apple Park, Infinite Loop, various other campuses in Cupertino) itself isn't a high risk. Most of Santa Clara County's vulnerable population is in the poorer neighborhoods like East San Jose or the rural communities (San Martin, Gilroy, etc.). The big problem is that Apple's corporate campuses (like those of other Silicon Valley companies) have support and maintenance staff from low-income populations -- F&B, maintenance, janitorial, landscaping, security, etc. -- many of whom live in communities with lower vaccination rates.
Genetic mutations amongst virus strains is well known. That's why there's a new flu vaccine every year.
robaba said:Wow-lots of FUD here. Only a few minutes before my mid morning shift begins, but I just want to point out a few things.
M1X is in production as we speak.
the Mac Pro workstation will feature a chiplet with multiple M1X instances on it.
These chipsets will be cost effective simply because of the volume of the M1X.
the Mac Pro Workstation will not need to exist in its current huge chunk of milled aluminum tower format simply due to the fact that Apple silicon produces a fraction of the heat of x86.
I would not expect a redesigned Mac Pro chassis until the second iteration of the ASi Mac Pro. The current Mac Pro design has been on the market for a while and there are now third-party accessories, mounting hardware, etc. for this specific design. Moreover, this Mac Pro has a modular component design, Apple might be able to redesign the individual modules and still keep the main chassis the same (or very close). Remember that Apple prefers to get some mileage out of an industrial design.
Perhaps more importantly, Mac Pro customers (I'm thinking production houses, etc.) can swap out Intel Mac Pros with ASi Mac Pros without reconfiguring cages, racks, whatever.
Xed said:The Mac Pro was a market failure long before the trashcan. It's why they tried a different form factor in the first place. Calling that an "experiment" and in the same breath calling Apple foolish for designing their own chips is about the most assinine thing I've read on this forum.
The current Mac Pro is better, but it's still not great. I doubt that it ever can be. The overhead is too high for the low volume of sales. The era for giant desktops is long over, regardless of what Golden Age you want to pretend will come back around.
Remember that Apple returned to the standard form factor BASED ON THE DESIRES AND FEEDBACK OF MAC PRO USERS. They did not like the trashcan. Apple made a mistake making the Mac Pro design whimsical rather than practical. When the system is under a desk, in a server room, or mounted in a rack, it really doesn't matter that it's a mid-tower PC case.
Externalizing the PCIe bus via Thunderbolt was also poorly received. It's helpful for a notebook computer or a SFF desktop like the Mac mini. For a larger desktop configuration, relying on Thunderbolt for expansion makes very little sense. As an owner of a Sonnet Breakaway eGFX chassis, I will state that this is a rather large box for just one graphics card. There are no connections for anything else, so an inefficient use of space.