Apple Reports 2Q 2024 Results: $23.6B Profit on $90.8B Revenue

[tCdemon]

Dear Tim Cook,

Out of the $23.6 billion in profit would you be able to donate $50k to me to pay off my bills.

Love,

Ralph

P.S. Thank you Daddy.

 

[thettareddast]

How else do you expect Tim Cook to hit those EPS targets to get his annual stock bonus payout?

Fake information alert.

Tim Cook's stock bonus is not conditioned on EPS targets.

Tim Cook's and the executive group's stock bonus payout (the largest part of their compensation) is based on relative Total Stock Returns.

And hypothetically, if the company had executed their entire $110B buyback at current market price, their quarterly EPS would have increased by a massive..... 7 cents. From $1.53 to $1.60 having reduced 15.4B shares to 14.8B.

 

[thettareddast]

Wish Apple would invest their billions in new tech instead of pumping up executive bonuses via stock buybacks.

Apple puts ~$185 into Research & Development for every $1 in stock compensation for the executive team.

How much more would you like?

 

[thettareddast]

Guarantee that if his stock grants are based upon EPS (which none of us really know the metrics in which they are awarded), then those numbers are adjusted for any buyback that happens.

We know. Executive compensation criteria is public information and disclosed in annual and proxy statements.

I’m happy for the shareholders and all, but really, can’t they throw a bone to their customers for once and reduce that margin a bit? (lower product prices).

Customers can choose to be shareholders, and many are.

 

[thettareddast]

Invest more in R&D and make the products better and cheaper for the customer so they love the brand. Jobs wasn't an idiot. Piles of cash also allow they more freedom for innovation. Also, what gives you the impression they wouldn't be investing their piles of cash and earning more on it than inflation?!?

Tim Cook allocates more money to R&D.

In Jobs' last 2 years (2009, 2010), R&D was 3% of Revenue and 13-16% of Net Income.

In Cook's previous 2 years (2022, 2023), R&D was 8% of Revenue and 26-31% of Net Income.

 

[thettareddast]

Not a very accurate portrayal. There is an inference in your statement that it is a fraudulaent or shady practice or is an insider move. It is none of those things. Every buyback ever announced by Apple has been completed.
...
The market decides what the stock is worth, not Apple.

The fun thing about threads like these is you can spot who understands even basic principles of the markets and can know how to read financial statements, and who just operates from pure vibes.

Example below:

I’ll spell it out for you. There is an opportunity cost to spending billions on stock buybacks instead of growing your business and IP. You don’t need specific technological examples to understand this unless you also need someone to regularly wipe drool from your face. One would think that a company that is bereft of new ideas would be better served in the long run by R&D investments instead of using its resources to pump the stock price.

 

[ric22]

Tim Cook allocates more money to R&D.

In Jobs' last 2 years (2009, 2010), R&D was 3% of Revenue and 13-16% of Net Income.

In Cook's previous 2 years (2022, 2023), R&D was 8% of Revenue and 26-31% of Net Income.

It has been suggested that all R&D numbers by big companies should be taken with a pinch of salt... creative accounting and deliberate manipulations are commonly used to reduce tax, making comparisons between eras essentially impossible. Look at Amazon's history of inflating R&D to suggest they weren't profitable, year after year.

 

[thettareddast]

It has been suggested that all R&D numbers by big companies should be taken with a pinch of salt... creative accounting and deliberate manipulations are commonly used to reduce tax, making comparisons between eras essentially impossible. Look at Amazon's history of inflating R&D to suggest they weren't profitable, year after year.

Shifting expenditures around is definitely possible, but here not very provable. The tax rate was very steady through Jobs' tenure, and 6 years into Cook's, despite RD spending rate linearly and strongly increasing throughout that period.

You'd have to do some serious forensic accounting to understand all the allocation decisions they made, but until then the claim that Apple is spending less is an unsubstantiated hunch and contrary to prima facie evidence.

 

[ric22]

Shifting expenditures around is definitely possible, but here not very provable. The tax rate was very steady through Jobs' tenure, and 6 years into Cook's, despite RD spending rate linearly and strongly increasing throughout that period.

You'd have to do some serious forensic accounting to understand all the allocation decisions they made, but until then the claim that Apple is spending less is an unsubstantiated hunch and contrary to prima facie evidence.

I agree it's unknown- that is my point. However, it is known that Hollywood accounting does take place under spurious "R&D" guises nationally (and probably internationally), making R&D expenditure claims utterly meaningless and worthless to compare.