I agree. Rather than buy back their shares they should hand this out in increased dividends. That rewards long term investors and pension funds without helping short term speculators like iCon. I know there are tax implications but Apple stock is owned worldwide so they shouldn't look just at what is best for US shareholders.
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 Repurchases $14 Billion in Shares in 2 Weeks, Company Open to Large Acquisitions
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree. Rather than buy back their shares they should hand this out in increased dividends. That rewards long term investors and pension funds without helping short term speculators like iCon. I know there are tax implications but Apple stock is owned worldwide so they shouldn't look just at what is best for US shareholders.
Glad to see Apple waking up to the fact that Carl Icahn is absolutely right.
The very best thing Apple could do with is excess money right now is buy Apple. You can buy it for a mega bargin. If WallStreet does not want Apple then fine. Apple knows whats up, and can buy $100 billion worth from Wallstreet for cheap, and let WS come crying back in a couple of years time when Apple is a mega growth story again. But this time let WS pay handsomely for the stock.
Keep this up Tim, do another $150billion worth of buy-backs and kill ever single WS shorter of Apple in the process.
The very best thing Apple could do with is excess money right now is buy Apple. You can buy it for a mega bargin. If WallStreet does not want Apple then fine. Apple knows whats up, and can buy $100 billion worth from Wallstreet for cheap, and let WS come crying back in a couple of years time when Apple is a mega growth story again. But this time let WS pay handsomely for the stock.
Keep this up Tim, do another $150billion worth of buy-backs and kill ever single WS shorter of Apple in the process.
It's not a waste of money. They just bought out 28 million shareholders. It's only a waste of money if you consider for example paying back your mortgage or your credit card debt a waste of money.
Look at it at a smaller scale: Say four guys own a company worth a million dollar. Then some analyst says the company is only worth $900,000, and three of the guys pay $225,000 to the fourth to buy him out, because he thinks the analyst is right and they think the analyst is wrong. So now three guys own a company worth $775,000. They are each richer than before.
----------
Why would they? If Apple wants to sell Windows PCs, they can ship better PCs for better prices than Sony does in a heartbeat. I'll bet Apple would get an amazing deal for a Windows OEM license out of the new Microsoft CEO, and ten minutes later they start selling the Apple WinBook Air, the Apple WinBook Pro, the Apple Retina WinBook Pro, the Apple WinMini, the Apple iWin, and the new Apple ProWin. Makes a lot more sense than selling a product line where Sony didn't manage to make money.
----------
With Apple's annual profits, the company is worth more than that at zero growth.
From the article: "It's likely that the repurchase was done entirely with Apple's domestic cash. "
What are you basing this on? When they originally announced their buyback plan they said they would be borrowing money for the buyback. Has that changed?
What are you basing this on? When they originally announced their buyback plan they said they would be borrowing money for the buyback. Has that changed?
Buy Samsung + HTC and create non-Android phones (block new Androids and add non-Android competition to the market with Apple getting the $$$).
Then band with M$ to buy Google, extract their search engine, and sell off the rest of ex-Google for the tuppence it's worth.
Aaaah antitrust cases
buy out a big law firm while they're at it.
I don't do a lot of trading, but I use TradeKing - low commissions
----------
Now that they bought back that many shares they can increase dividends easier for those of us that are left.
I've just been reading this:
Seriously, this guy is a locust, and appears more and more to be getting his way.
I'm sure AT&T and T-Mobile would love that.
That's sort of the same problem I see with my "fantasy acquisition" for Apple, which would be Disney - or more specifically, Disney's media empire (ABC, ESPN, part or full ownership of several other cable networks, radio stations, film and print distribution, etc.), with all of the Disney IP plus the IP and assets from the recent purchases of Marvel and Lucasfilm as a nice bonus.
To a large degree, it makes sense because Apple really wants to shape how people consume media, and how better to make that happen than to have a large amount of media under its control? They could then create and establish the model they want, controlling a significant (but minority) part of the media supply chain.
The drawback is the same as a Verizon purchase would be - Apple would become a direct competitor with companies that also need to partner with. Not an impossible situation, but a tricky one.
Content
I'd like to see Apple acquire content.
Something like Sony's movie catalogue or maybe Turner's content. Content is king and access to content for distribution is the current battlefield. That's why we're seeing Netflix and Amazon in the content production business competing against the Comcast's, Viacom's and Disney's of the world.
I'd like to see Apple acquire content.
Something like Sony's movie catalogue or maybe Turner's content. Content is king and access to content for distribution is the current battlefield. That's why we're seeing Netflix and Amazon in the content production business competing against the Comcast's, Viacom's and Disney's of the world.
This. The whole growth argument is not enough on its own. If there's a company with a 300% growth year over year but it's making 10000$ profits annually, is it worth more than a company with 1% growth and 15Billion$ profits? Obviously not. Apple is making more profits than anyone else in the tech industry right now. Not just more than anyone else, substantially more.
And I don't really understand what people expect of companies. No company can grow forever. It's mathematically not possible. Does that mean any company that comes to 0% growth starts to lose valuation? Why? They are not at a worse position than they were yesterday.
I actually don't know any finance but I'm a mathematician and this doesn't make any sense to me, at all. It seems like Wall Street is basically like Vegas. People buy only if they think they can sell for more so they are playing the odds. They don't really care if the company is growing or shrinking or whatever. They just care if the stock is going to go up or down, which is not necessarily related to what the company is doing. It's an entirely different game in itself.
Last edited:
Actually, it's likely the repurchase was funded from the bonds they've been selling for exactly this purpose.
----------
If you have to ask questions like this, please do yourself a favor and don't buy individual stocks. Put some money into a S&P 500 fund every month. You'll be a lot happier.
----------
No, I think this is just a bad guess.
Sort of. The market valuation for AAPL is low, historically speaking, but the multiples have been compressing pretty steadily for many years now, so in reality it's a longline trend. It isn't like the markets had no reason to lower AAPL's multiples, given the decline in earnings we've seen over the past year. I also don't see their "willingness" to buy at any given time as an indication of anything but the continuation of a buyback program announced months ago, which if memory serves, was to be $100B over a period of a few years. Their confidence (and yours) should be based on other factors, such as an expectation that they will be getting into new markets and doing it fairly soon.
Speculators and investors are poison. I see no need to reward them, honestly. Using it to make acquisitions is much better for the people that matter; the consumers.
What a ridiculous thing to say. If you don't reward investors then you will have no investors. And without investors, you have no business. No business? Well, that can't be good for consumers.
Yeah, just because you don't reward them doesn't mean they're still not making money. Honestly, the greedy fools don't deserve any "rewards". They spend their time whining that they're not making *enough* money, why do they deserve more?
Email expertise? Pfff, if you call piggybacking other email services by requiring dedicated hardware "expertise", I guess. BES is last decade's technology, Apple doesn't need that.
And as far as infrastructure on iMessage, mixing technologies is never a good idea.
You're wasting your time arguing with someone who is bound and determined to die poor.
Yeah, I know. I do it too.
The underlined part of your quote doesn't make any sense. Making money is the reward. It's the reward that every investor, speculator, day-trader, 401(k) holder, etc. is looking for. It doesn't matter if it's by way of stock performance, dividend, buyback, etc. And could you pose a more arbitrary question than "why do they deserve more?" Who should draw the line to decide what's enough ROI? Is 5% enough? 10%? 20%? 200%?
----------
Yeah, I know. I do it too.
I just can't help myself, i guess
Why?
Why would any board actually listen to the completely irrational stock market?
Most messages on here sound as if they're written by kids who just won the lottery... we should buy this! We should buy that! Why? Buying a large competitor hardly ever works. It'll take years before cultures match. If the bought company actually has products out there, people will expect them to become Apple-like products. They won't be. If they strip away all products and only want the IP, people will complain that Apple is just a patent buyer. If they venture out into completely new markets, they'll only run the risk of watering down their brand and turning into a conglomerate - which the stock market doesn't like either.
Look at how well Sony is doing. They did all the things everyone seems to recommend. Venture into new markets - from electronics to computers, to movies, to music - launch new product lines like crazy, jump on many bandwagons and try to launch a new 'standard' every few years or so. They haven't made a profit in 10 years. Is that what you would like Apple to become?
Really, I don't see why Cook would actually pay any attention to what the stock market thinks it wants. As soon as Apple launches another product that people stand in line for, they'll love Apple again. The stock price will soar. Apple will again be on everybody's lips. The whole thing is that fickle. I hope Tim Cook is as stubborn as Steve Jobs was. Keep cool and keep going.
Why would any board actually listen to the completely irrational stock market?
Most messages on here sound as if they're written by kids who just won the lottery... we should buy this! We should buy that! Why? Buying a large competitor hardly ever works. It'll take years before cultures match. If the bought company actually has products out there, people will expect them to become Apple-like products. They won't be. If they strip away all products and only want the IP, people will complain that Apple is just a patent buyer. If they venture out into completely new markets, they'll only run the risk of watering down their brand and turning into a conglomerate - which the stock market doesn't like either.
Look at how well Sony is doing. They did all the things everyone seems to recommend. Venture into new markets - from electronics to computers, to movies, to music - launch new product lines like crazy, jump on many bandwagons and try to launch a new 'standard' every few years or so. They haven't made a profit in 10 years. Is that what you would like Apple to become?
Really, I don't see why Cook would actually pay any attention to what the stock market thinks it wants. As soon as Apple launches another product that people stand in line for, they'll love Apple again. The stock price will soar. Apple will again be on everybody's lips. The whole thing is that fickle. I hope Tim Cook is as stubborn as Steve Jobs was. Keep cool and keep going.
Who says they do? It does pay to keep in mind that the board members are stockholders, and so are all the top execs at the company, as well we can assume, are a great many of their employees. It is in everyone's interest to see the stock perform well. That being said, Apple has been very disciplined when it comes to outside acquisitions. The money they've spent to buy other companies has been remarkably little. The way I see it, Cook is throwing down a marker: just because we haven't done it before, don't assume we will never be a player in a major acquisition. He's running up the colors, telling everyone to remember that Apple is still an 800 lb. gorilla.
And they do make money based on standard stock transactions.... why do you think they should get a bonus? What have they done besides be greedy and self-serving? Look at the movie Wall Street if you want to see what kind of people investors and speculators are.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I assume they do, too. So what else could have been accomplished with $14 billion? What kind operations could they have gotten a head start on, knowing where they are going?
That is the trap. These companies start making billions and then they start throwing them around, carelessly. Apple is not unique to this. Google buying Motorola for $13 billion - what did that achieve? Microsoft buying Skype $8.5 billion - what did that achieve? Both companies could have respectively created their own alternatives starting from nothing for far far less.
Is this Apple's single biggest purchase to date? Remember Apple of the late 90s, where even a few million had to be carefully spent.