Incorrect. U.S. companies get full credit for foreign taxes paid.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Reaches $800 Billion Valuation On Path to Becoming World's First Trillion Dollar Company
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Incorrect. U.S. companies get full credit for foreign taxes paid.
The idea of "same P/E for the companies being compared" only works correct if these companies have the same earning increase/decrease rate in the next 10 years. The biggest problem with Apple is that it holds minority market share in all fields it competes in, thus holds very low chance to over-grow the industry, especially that the high-end smartphone market is now almost saturated. Microsoft has been making a list of incredibly good steps in the last 3 years, that's why its P/E ratio increased a lot.
Google 'time magazine apple must', hello from Cortland !
Apple's stock is currently trading above the $153 mark for the first time ever, after factoring in a 7-for-1 split in 2014, giving the company a record-high market cap of roughly $800 billion. That means Apple is within $200 billion of becoming the world's first trillion dollar company.
Google Finance values Apple at closer to the $810 billion mark today, but the tool appears to be overcounting the company's number of outstanding shares, which totaled 5,225,791,000 as of last quarter. Apple's outstanding shares have declined as the company continues its share buyback program.
Apple's stock has been on an impressive run since dropping to as low as $89.47 in 2016, when the iPhone maker reported its first decline in annual revenue since 2001, and its first drop in iPhone sales ever.
Apple analyst Brian White of Wall Street investment firm Drexel Hamilton continues to believe Apple "remains among the most underappreciated stocks in the world," with "attractive upside" for investors. White raised his 12-month price target for Apple's stock to $202 today, up from an already bullish $185.
An excerpt from White's research note, distributed today and obtained by MacRumors:White's price target implies that Apple could become the world's first trillion dollar company within the next year. Apple shares trading for $202 would currently give the company a market cap of around $1.05 trillion.
Over a dozen prominent Wall Street analysts remain upbeat about Apple's stock price heading into the second half of the year, with lots of excitement surrounding the significantly redesigned "iPhone 8" expected to launch in the fall. The smartphone's sales may be boosted by a large "supercycle" of users due to upgrade.
Apple's stock had briefly declined to as low as $144.27 last week after its second quarter earnings results fell slightly below Wall Street expectations, but the drop proved to be only a blip on the radar.
Update: Apple's market cap has reached $800 billion. This article has been updated accordingly.
Article Link: Apple Reaches $800 Billion Valuation On Path to Becoming World's First Trillion Dollar Company
Apple pays taxes approximately at a 25% rate. If they can borrow the money for less than the investments earn, the executives are good stewards of the company money.
Aha! Then I won't be surprised to see an Apple iWasher machine available on the market soon. It can do laundry, dryer, wash dishes, cars, pets and body shower too. Embeded with WashOS and capable of connecting to your Mac, iPhone and Apple Watch through Type-D connector. Apple can charge you by the water you use. $1/gl. 50 cents go to Apple and another 50 cents go to your local water district. LOL.
Such machine should pump up Apple to a Trillion dollar company easily.
Ah thanks, that seems like a fair system, the EU is looking at a similar system for the offshore funds.
That's a handful of executives. There are thousands of thousands of employees outside the USA, billions and billions of revenue outside the USA. I see no reason why greedy Americans should get tax money when I buy a Mac or an iPhone in London. Doesn't make sense at all. Especially when they want that tax money to spend more on military dropping bombs in foreign countries, and giving tax breaks to the richest.
[doublepost=1494318937][/doublepost]
More precisely, it's the latest share price, multiplied by the number of outstanding shares. A number that changes every time someone buys or sells some shares.
And as someone who has experience with more than one country, this is hugely misleading. Companies get credit for corporation taxes paid. But there are other differences between countries. For example, in the UK my company has to pay about 13% of my salary as National Insurance contributions. (That is on top of the contributions that I have to make). In the USA that money would come out of corporation taxes. So obviously corporation tax in the UK is much lower, because they have different sources of money that are also in the end paid by the company, but that the company won't get credit for.
[doublepost=1494319453][/doublepost]
When my child gets sick, it will be covered by the NHS, at no additional cost to me. And if I get sick after I'm retired, that will be covered by the NHS as well. I'll get the same quality of healthcare at a much lower cost than you, thank you very much. NHS has a bit too much bureaucracy which isn't quite good for efficiency, but at least there are not dozens of companies who profit in an unbelievable way from any illness.
[doublepost=1494319650][/doublepost]
Since Apple has no obligation to allow any app on the store, and no obligation to do business with any developer, you can be 100% sure that taking Apple to court will mean that you will never, ever have any app on the app store.
Shortening app names mostly affected apps with > 100 character names, designed to hit search engines better. The limit is now 50 characters, which is already unreasonably long for the _name_ of an application.
[doublepost=1494319980][/doublepost]
Selling items at massively inflated profits and minimising the amount of taxes paid would seem to make a company more "valuable". What do you think would happen to Apple's share price if they reduced all prices by 40% and repatriated all foreign made profits, paying $70bn or so to the US government?
Last edited:
It's not your fault that others have convinced you of this nonsense, but you really should go back and look at prior examples of the same thing. Tax holidays don't really improve anything. Predictable policy can help, as it allows companies to plan accordingly, but adding money to an economy that isn't actually cash starved will not spur on new investments.
Nobody is pointing a gun to my head and forcing me to buy Apple products. If people thought that Apple products were overpriced or useless, nobody would have bought them, much less buy enough to make Apple one of the most valuable companies around today.
That I do despite their higher prices goes to show that I find value in what Apple sells, moreso than what the competition offers.
I fail to see what is wrong with that.
The analysts seem to think Apple has a magic cloak that can shield it from the ups and downs experienced by all tech companies over time. Without the iPhone they would be just like everyone else. They might well have a super upgrade cycle with the iPhone 8 but what happens next year when it's back to spec bumps. The bigger the super upgrade this year the harder it will be to replicate next year.
Real life:
My son was born 2 months early. We spent a month in NICU and then a month caring for him at home, both parents.
We paid $50 for the entire hospital time and 2 visits a week by a specialist nurse in our home for the second month.
We both had paid leave for the 2 months since our son was admitted to the hospital. After that, our 480 days of shared paid parental leave from work started.
All that, and we pay the standard 30-33% tax on our income, and healthcare and parental leave is not all that's covered by tax.
I could've gone through life without ever visiting a hospital, or this happened. To know that whatever life throws at you, you are covered is to me worth a lot more than 30% of my income. I do not have to "shop around" or study in detail terms and conditions. I know that whatever happens, I'm covered, 100% covered. Period. And not only in Sweden. Would this have happened while abroad, we would have been covered! And better yet, had we both been unemployed, we would still have been covered.
I work at a uni and we have 45000 students, all attending for free. Could it get more equal? Everyone can attend if they have the ability, it's not up to the size of their parents wallet.
I know that it's sort of a religion to not have the government interfere in any way and that nobody wants to pay for anyone else. The grand idea here though is that if everyone pays according to their ability, there is enough money to go around for everyone. Call it communism if you want to, I'd take it any day over any other system. I do not feel less "free", I'd say the other way around.
Freedom is paid for with taxes that are general. Everyone pays to their ability, and all possibilities are open to everyone, regardless of how much tax you pay.
You may be right about that, I do not know for sure if "Trickle Down" will work this time. I can only tell you that I will be spending more money if I get more money, and to me it seems like that would help other businesses because of the loose money.
[doublepost=1494338805][/doublepost]
It does not even matter much. The markets may react as they have in the past, or there may be a new attitude that prevails about AAPL. The new viewpoint/attitudes might look at this AAPL stock - the largest company in the world - producing incredibly enormous revenue - the new "utility" of the Information Age - the company and products that we cannot live without - the diversity of income streams - the innovation of future life changing technologies - etc etc.
If you look at the company like the Apple Fanboy I am, you see so many good things and so much revenue to back it up, that you do not care about "iPhone revenue growth" in isolation. You look at the services that will double in 4 years, and the liquid asset value of the company and dividends vs AMZN stock and others and you just cannot bare to sell this jewel of a stock.
I don't think anyone can look ahead 20 years - we may have AI robots demanding human rights in 20 or 30 years, humanity might achieve immortality in 20 - 30 years! But for the next 10 years, I see AAPL doing very well, even if iPhone yearly sales peak - they have a lot more things going on that make big money.
You mean to say, Apple is not a trumped up ad agency like Google and Facebook.One of the few large companies in the world who actually DESERVE their earnings because it is based on products that people want and make the world a better place. Well done Apple!!!
[doublepost=1494340447][/doublepost]
And lets apply the same standard to Samsung S8, where the front, side and the back looks like the S7 and S6, except for when the screen of S8 is turned on.
Taxes are based on profits, so any expense (including the contribution the NHS, presumably) come off the top line. But as you say, taxes are structured differently in every country.
It's not quite as closed as that, but even if it was, this would still be a bad idea. It tends to favor large multinational corporations in terms of tax treatment. It doesn't do anything for long term tax policy. If Congress feels that these things need to be addressed, they should focus on policy that covers the longer term, not simply issue a tax holiday whenever companies with US headquarters and foreign subsidiaries declare a significant amount of cash as being perpetually invested outside the US (doesn't actually have to be outside the US banking system, merely has to be legitimately held by a non-US based subsidiary).
Unfortunately, this won't. This holiday was done about 15-ish years ago and it didn't help. Shareholders got a one-time special dividend, which went almost nowhere. It never 'trickled down' or got to where it was supposed to go. Pundits and investor types will say "oh we put that money into other investments, etc." Yes, but "etc." was not "paycheck bonuses for your employees" like we were all snowed into believing. It just stayed "up top" and never ultimately got back to US Treasury. Shortly after that holiday, a little event known as "World Financial Crisis/Global Recession" happened. Huh. Funny thing.
Charlie Munger recently said "Tax holidays don't help anyone. Companies will be encouraged to keep money off shore and do it again, waiting for the next holiday." He even used the word 'disgusting' in that commentary, too.
I do wish and hope such an event would be beneficial to the common folk, but it never will. Greed is waaay too powerful.
Disclosure: I do own a hundred-ish shares of AAPL common stock, and have a positive gain return. I would benefit both directly (personal brokerage) and indirectly (personal IRA) from a tax holiday.
I still disagree with a tax holiday. The overall tax structure itself needs fixing so this doesn't have to be an issue.
The whole tax system is broken, it is riddled with loopholes lobbied by corporations.
Time to simplify the tax code, close loopholes, close deductions, reduce tax rate.
I said that believers should invest everything in Apple (instead of diversifying), and that's exactly what you have been doing. So it appears you agree with me. We just have different risk threaholds — I'm not willing to put a lot of eggs in one basket, whereas you are ok with that. But that's not disagreement, it's a matter of personal preference.
If it is not publicly traded it will be difficult to calculate the price, like Trump said his business is 100 billion $ business or something, he can say what ever he want no one can contest it.
At not point did you identify the source of your right to remove my choice from the equation. It's interesting though, because you put your finder right on the issue: "At no additional cost to me." that is, "If something happens to ME it will cost SOMEONE ELSE."
Now. Where exactly do you get the right, and how to you morally justify laying a claim on someone else, because of a loss or hardship you experienced?
And I find it interesting that you ignored the disasters that occur as a result of the NHS, particularly the evil that is the rationing based on age, injury severity, or potential social utility, etc. Talk about a ghastly consequence of the monopolization of healthcare by the government. It all good though, as long as people mean well when they remove other people's right to choose a healthcare plan for themselves, it's fine if those actions lead to people dying when your plan doesn't cover what they needed.
Where does your right to do that come from again?
If you have no problem giving 30% of your income to the government for insurance, then you should have no problem giving it to a private company to provide you the exact same coverage, invariably a cheaper rate. Let's not pretend that this option wouldn't exist in the free market. Let's just save us that time.. It's a service which is needed, and some people would compete with each other and provide it, at a cost, and make some money doing it.
Do you believe that your hospital visit cost $50? It may have cost you $50, but who paid for the other many thousands of dollars? And by what right did you gain this money from them? Did they give it to you voluntarily? Was it a form of charity? Or were they forced to contribute to your hospital visit under the threat of the penalty of imprisonment or death by the government which is supposed to be protecting their rights?
At the end of the day, YOUR hardship does not give you the right to lay a claim on MY life. You have every right to ask me for help, and I have every right to help you if I want to, but at NO point during your hardship do you gain the right to steal from me, to pay for your hardship. This type of event is exactly what insurance is for. I have a right to choose to buy insurance I want, or not buy it if I prefer to purchase something else. At no point does anyone else gain the right to stick a gun in my face and tell me what to do, or else I get it, for the greater good.
You seem to me an individual who is concerned with ethics, could you explain to me exactly how you determinate to be 'good' to use the force of the government to rob me of my choice to choose to live my life the way I see best?
For the record, the above post should make all sensible people want to retch.
Last edited:
This here is why the US may never get a decent social security system.
The HUGE difference between a private system and a public is that the public system is there to serve the public, not a private owner. The main idea and driving force behind a company is to make money, NOT to serve the little people whatever they may say.
In a public system, you get the care you need and the decision is up to the treating doctor, NOT some policymaker at a company that wants profit.
The human is a very greedy animal. Asked directly, I don't think many people would say: hey, I've never met you before but sure, I'll help you with your huge hospital bill. Therefore, require everyone to pay to a shared fund. No need to argue who gets what coverage or when or how, it's just covered, and already paid for.
Me, I like taxes. And, when you pay tax, and it's all public, there's accountability. If they do a crap job with tax money, use your voting rights at the next election. Or, if they're public servants, demand their resignation.
The level of transparency in Sweden is not so well known I think. We have a "freedom of information" law from 1766 that states that all information, and I mean all information, that is handled by government is public. The only exception being information being classed as secret, and that is only stuff directly related to national security (your medical record is also secret, to the level that it's criminal by law to read it, even if you have access, unless you are the treating doctor/nurse). Otherwise, everything is public, available to anyone by request. From the big things like economics and policies down to letters, emails and browser logs of even the prime minister. It's all available to anyone upon request! And believe me, the press uses this right every single day to try to find incriminating stuff on the politicians and public servants.
Oh, and btw, no, our hospital visit didn't actually cost $50. We were told that NICU treatment costs were $10000 per day. Unlike the UK where it's actually totally free, every treatment here costs about $50. You pay the same amount regardless if you want a doctor to look at your rash or need heart surgery. Unless of course you are under 18, then it's all free.
The HUGE difference between a private system and a public is that the public system is there to serve the public, not a private owner. The main idea and driving force behind a company is to make money, NOT to serve the little people whatever they may say.
In a public system, you get the care you need and the decision is up to the treating doctor, NOT some policymaker at a company that wants profit.
The human is a very greedy animal. Asked directly, I don't think many people would say: hey, I've never met you before but sure, I'll help you with your huge hospital bill. Therefore, require everyone to pay to a shared fund. No need to argue who gets what coverage or when or how, it's just covered, and already paid for.
Me, I like taxes. And, when you pay tax, and it's all public, there's accountability. If they do a crap job with tax money, use your voting rights at the next election. Or, if they're public servants, demand their resignation.
The level of transparency in Sweden is not so well known I think. We have a "freedom of information" law from 1766 that states that all information, and I mean all information, that is handled by government is public. The only exception being information being classed as secret, and that is only stuff directly related to national security (your medical record is also secret, to the level that it's criminal by law to read it, even if you have access, unless you are the treating doctor/nurse). Otherwise, everything is public, available to anyone by request. From the big things like economics and policies down to letters, emails and browser logs of even the prime minister. It's all available to anyone upon request! And believe me, the press uses this right every single day to try to find incriminating stuff on the politicians and public servants.
Oh, and btw, no, our hospital visit didn't actually cost $50. We were told that NICU treatment costs were $10000 per day. Unlike the UK where it's actually totally free, every treatment here costs about $50. You pay the same amount regardless if you want a doctor to look at your rash or need heart surgery. Unless of course you are under 18, then it's all free.