"Reiterating"? Seriously?
What is it with financial types and their passion for abusing this verb?
What is it with financial types and their passion for abusing this verb?
First of all, spending $40 billion, the high end of your estimate, is unlikely to even use up each year's free cash flow. They made 23 billion dollars last quarter. The smartphone and tablet markets continue to grow. Apple will have a better Christmas quarter this year.
Second, when a company goes private it gets owned by someone. Who in the world would have the necessary hundreds of billions of dollars to buy Apple? It would probably take at least $600 billion to take Apple public (the current Market Cap is NOT the price that a company will go private at because that price does not include the control premium) and "only" $137 billion could be funded from Apple's cash pile.
the board of directors could care less about the customers. Their only concern is their shareholders.
the board of directors could[n't] care less about the customers. Their only concern is their shareholders.
As it should be.
All it means is that the company is generating more free cash than God, way more money than they any company could use for growth. They can easily fund any idea you or anyone else can imagine.
Microsoft did issue a large, one-time dividend. It didn't help the stock price longterm because earnings are not growing much longterm. But it did shove a lot of dollars into the pockets of investors, which is sort of a nice thing, if you are an investor.
----------
Sort of. Stockholders do own the equity in the company, but the stock markets do not price in cash assets (or any others, really) since stockholders don't see any of that cash unless the board declares a dividend. Or if a stockholder buys the entire company. Only in those two ways do stockholders care about cash.
Apple does not have $140B in cash. It has $10.7B cash and cash equivalents.If that $140B in Cash disappeared tomorrow (as in gone instantly, not given to shareholders), you would see a significant hair cut in the price of the stock.
Of course the cash assets are baked into the price (maybe not 1:1, but it still there). Why else do do you think a stock drop in price almost identical to the amount of a dividend when it trades ex-dividend?
Too bad Apple got so defensive after SJ's passing. If he were still alive, his standard answer to Einhorn and his vulture clan would be: ******* OFF.
But now that spineless Cook has decided to issue dividends even though Apple is and has always been a growth stock, the toothpaste is out of the tube and won't come back.
Alas, a terrible decision that sets terrible precedents.
I always wait for you to post because it's hilarious how ridiculous your comments are. Get it through your brain: Apple wasn't using the cash they had. Period. As a shareholder, I'd rather get that money back in my pocket for other investing rather than earning a percent on cash reserves. That's what people don't seem to get. If they were using most of their cash to generate their growth then it wouldn't make sense to distribute the money to shareholders who probably couldn't make a higher return than Apple. But that's not the case.
Apple does not have $140B in cash. It has $10.7B cash and cash equivalents.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=AAPL+Balance+Sheet&annual
Apple holds $92B long term investments.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-...e-puts-even-most-aggressive-hedge-funds-shame
People in this forum really have an issue with belittling others. My comment about applying 20 billion to R&D is an exaggeration (obviously) and comes from my opinion that iOS/OS X has become stale.
CAN I GO TO YOUR STORE AND ORDER $20 BILLION IN BELITTLEMENT, PLEASE?
As mentioned in my original comment, taking a company the size of Apple private could not happen overnight. I'm talking about over the course of 7-10 years (or more). For what it's worth, a private company can still be owned by a group, not a single person. Put the right people in that group and Apple can still shine. It's all hyperbola anyway, but an interesting concept to toss around.
There are some pretty damn big private companies out there..
I present the post directly above yours:
Seems like 72 billion in long term investments is making money.
I present the post directly above yours:
Seems like 72 billion in long term investments is making money.
Why would a share holder like to have Apple to reinvest the profits for him/her? Is Apple a mutual fund company?
How about get the profits back from Apple and buy Exxon Mobil?
First time the stocks gone up in a while
If that $140B in Cash disappeared tomorrow (as in gone instantly, not given to shareholders), you would see a significant hair cut in the price of the stock.
Of course the cash assets are baked into the price (maybe not 1:1, but it still there). Why else do do you think a stock drop in price almost identical to the amount of a dividend when it trades ex-dividend?
I don't think they make much. They disclose the returns on those investments. As I read it they made about about a billion dollars last year on their investments. Not a very impressive return for this amount of money.
The investments are in highly rated corporate bonds, US treasuries, other US agencies, and some foreign government bonds. All those high rated securities are giving terrible returns these days.
If you go to their 10-K you can see the results of their investments. They really aren't impressive even when you factor in their conservative nature. Apple is getting soundly trounced by inflation on these long-term investments.
Misleading. First, the capital market can't function or even exist without a stock market for trading the stock. It is all one system. No stock market, no IPO. Second, the stockholders own the equity in the company. This is is why it is called an equity market. So while technically giving the money "back" to the stockholders is a bit of a misnomer, it is the stockholders who have invested their money in the company so they are first in line to get cash payouts, otherwise known as dividends.
What happens the original shareholder owned X shares of aapl. A part OWNER of the company. That is what you are. That VALUE you own goes up and down depending on the share price and the dividend. The share price is only what you bought it for and what you can sell it for. It's true the company no longer gets money from the sale of it's stock after it raised the initial capital and subsequent share offerings. However APPLE is you TOO if you own the stock. So the point of wanting apple to give money to shareholders- it is to distribute more of the profits to the part owners (shareholders) of apple.
Don't look now, but Apple will be back at $700 real soon.
*that they just let sit in the bank
There were 17 companies last year alone that had more $$$ coming in