Of course not, at least not directly. All I'm saying is that Trump is creating an atmosphere where companies are not afraid to invest. This creates the PERCEPTION to investors not to be so stingy with their money. We all know that the stock market is based on perception.
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 Stock Smashes Previous All-Time High For Second Month Running
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Of course not, at least not directly. All I'm saying is that Trump is creating an atmosphere where companies are not afraid to invest. This creates the PERCEPTION to investors not to be so stingy with their money. We all know that the stock market is based on perception.
True, but if a company allows retaining earnings on its books to grow, then eventually questions are going to be asked about why they aren't using more of those funds for capital investment or returns to the stockholders. That was happening with Apple before they started paying out a dividend and repurchasing shares. Steve Jobs always played "talk to the hand" when he was asked about this at stockholder's meetings. It was like he was saving up for Noah's Flood or something. That makes investors nervous at some point. Tim Cook's approach is far more conventional.
Cash is hard to value, but it can be subject to what-if exercises. Apple could theoretically afford to take about a third of their shares out of the float. What if they did it? That creates some speculative optimism but hardly on a dollar for dollar basis because we know it isn't going to happen. A lot of the optimism with AAPL right now is speculation over the tax holiday. If Apple does get to repatriate retaining earnings from overseas then they will have little other way to use it but to buy back more shares and raise the dividend.
It's "undervalued" because at it's core Apple is still identified as a "devices" and not a "services" company. Besides that the investment banking market is absolutely in love with "data" companies (like Google). But if you look back about 5 - 6 years you will see that Apple did engage in a stock "Split" which reduced the present market value per share by half. So "technically" if they hadn't done that they would be closer to $300.00 per share.
Frankly I believe Apple is doing as well as can be expected "all things considered" and it does indeed have potential for growth in the future. They just need to sort out their "mission" as it relates to P/L and represent that to Wall Street.
Not really. Corporations are looking forward to lowered taxes and a tax holiday for repatriating earnings retained overseas. Where the vast majority of this bonanza goes is to stockholders. Very little of it goes to investing in growth. This is what the stock markets are buying, not increases in investment.
Stock splits do not reduce market value, they reduce share price. They are done for many reasons, but are often psychological for investors. It's the same pizza cut into smaller pieces. In Apple's case, one of the reasons for the last split was to bring the price (not the value) of shares down so they could be included in the Dow.
To not be arbitrary about it, the total of all AAPL splits since inception is 56:1.
You're right. Apple has become a mainstream product and all kinds of people are shelling out money to be like everyone else. You're not cool or hip unless you have an iPhone. Apple has become everything it was against. A luxury/douchey have to have brand to be accepted by society. Make sure you're an extra special tool by getting a $10k watch. Design, principals, & aesthetics were out the window with the iPhone 6. Apple is now a social justice company that sells junk to everyone who wants to be cool and mainstream. "I am different and unique by having the same phone as everyone else."
Some day the cool factor will be out and Tim Cook's trans-bathroom support will do nothing to save the company. The higher this stock goes, the harder it will fall. Apple's final demise will be much more glorious than someone like SGI. It will be a total meltdown with no way to recover. You can't support this empire anymore once the iPhone tanks. If they keep copying Android phone designs....it will happen a lot faster.
Not thrilled here either about that recent 'pipeline' (with the exception of the enticing, if somewhat overpriced, late '16 MBP), however the stock market is purely speculating, and contemplating future expectations, and not about rewarding past achievements.
As an outsider I would think now is not a good time to invest in Apple stock. While it may go higher yet, a market correction is coming as sure as the sun will be rising tomorrow morning. The investors who made a killing are those who didn't get nervous last year, and held on to their portfolios to reap these latest spectacular gains.
Last edited:
Apple's market value will be surpassed by both Google and Microsoft in two years. Mark the words!
Apple is a corporation, not a charity. They are required to maximize shareholder value by law which means making use of all loopholes in tax law to maintain as small a taxation undertaking as is legally possible.
[doublepost=1489774892][/doublepost]
This was the point where a lot of people realized Cook was just clueless. Paying out dividends is a general admission you have no idea what you're doing. Cook should step aside immediately.
Bah. Paying out dividends is an admission that the company is making money faster than they can spend it.
then in January 2018- we are back to order cuts and downgrades - unless Wallstreet gets away from this 1 hit wonder valuation, Apple will continue to experience this seesaw swings
Are you really that math incapable? Anyone with a minimum math awareness would immediately see that is a typo in the article or a wrong methodology in the first place.
you realised that Apple is paying more that any bank -this is great for someone looking for current income and some upside on their stocks.
And what exactly has he done to make the shareholders happy?
Expand iPhone sales to emerging countries. And, in the short term that is the best he can do for Apple. I hope he can keep the hopes up. (that's what stock is all about.. hopes)
That will only do damage to Mac sales in the long run. In other words, the situation would have been better if they just kept the earlier MacBook Pro design but kept bumping the specs. Unfortunately, instead of improving the design, they moved towards a wrong direction (at a wrong time). To make things worse, they also increased the unit price at a insane percentage.
[doublepost=1489778386][/doublepost]
Here, I blackened it for you, you confused two things together. They paid at a much higher rate (to the U.S.) on domestic earnings. At the same time, they paid tax to all of the foreign countries as well for their earnings in those countries. The numbers you quoted were only the rate they paid to the U.S. on all of the earnings they made in non-U.S. countries, on top of what they've paid for the same part of earnings they've already paid the regarding countries where they earned that money.
When you add them up, it comes to what Apple's financial report lists as the average tax rate -- 25%.
Effective Tax rate on paper. What they actually write the check for, around 8%. That hide the money overseas thing big corporations do. If we stop the overseas money laundering and dropped the corporate tax to 15%, Apple would pay more. Why corporations like Apple are very careful about corporate tax reduction plans.
Just wishing I had bought a couple thousand shares at $11 in 2000 or so.
...and from a business perspective that is smart, very smart. Apple is in a great position to really milk their customers. I can't think of any other company that had a better opportunity to do that (that did NOT have a monopoly). It would be fiscally irresponsible if Apple didn't take advantage of the opportunity.
Most customers don't care about a "same ol' iPhone" and those loyal customers who DO care aren't going anywhere. Apple has zero incentive to do anything differently.
If everyone who said that they'd leave the Apple ecosystem actually did, then MAYBE that would be enough of a blip for Apple to take notice. But what happens is they say they're waiting for Apple to change... but continue to buy their products in the meantime. That's some great incentive for Apple to change. LOL
Right but I also left out the fact that consumers are also willing to spend more money as well. I'm having a hard time with people who keep denying Trump any sort of credit for helping the economy in general. He's doing it but the hate is still blinding everyone.
It's more like 21% for the last 3 years combined and 18% for FY 2016. But, yes, the effective tax rate (of 25-26%) that often gets reported for Apple includes a significant amount of deferred tax liability that Apple hasn't actually paid yet.
In very broad strokes (I'm happy to discuss it in more detailed terms if you'd like), this is Apple's situation when it comes to paying income taxes:
Apple pays quite a high rate of U.S. income taxes if we look at the profits it makes from domestic sales - above the (federal) statutory rate of 35% even. That's because (1) it pays U.S. income taxes on a considerable portion of the profits it makes from sales in other parts of the Americas as the U.S. is were it considers the value to be created, (2) it pays a (relatively) small amount in state income taxes, and (3) it pays some U.S. income taxes on profits it makes from sales in other parts of the world as it remits those profits to the United States (i.e. to the parent company).
On the other hand, Apple pays quite a low rate of foreign income taxes if we look at the profits it makes from foreign sales. Most of those profits don't get remitted to the U.S. (i.e. to the parent company) so Apple doesn't pay U.S. income taxes on most of them. That isn't Apple shifting profits offshore as some companies do, those are profits that can legitimately be said to be made outside of the United States. Apple does, however, effectively shift where those foreign profits are accounted for (i.e. based on where the value is considered to be created) such that it avoids quite a bit of foreign taxation. Also, Apple has accounted for - but hasn't yet paid - U.S. income taxes on about half of those foreign profits which it hasn't yet remitted to the United States.
So... Apple doesn't really avoid paying taxes on legitimately domestic earnings, but it does avoid paying (a lot) of taxes on legitimately foreign earnings. Mixed together those dynamics mean that Apple pays an aggregate tax rate of around 20% (on all of its earnings) and accounts for taxes (i.e., as you refer to it, on paper) at an aggregate rate of around 25%.
Apple would make out pretty well if the U.S. lowered the corporate tax rate to 15%, even if that came with an elimination of corporate tax expenditures (i.e., among other things, Apple would have to pay U.S. income taxes on those foreign profits). Apple has advocated for just that, an elimination of corporate tax expenditures and a lowering of the corporate tax rate. And Apple has done that not necessarily based on the rate going down to 15%, but rather at something higher that might mean that Apple ended up paying a little more in taxes. Apple thinks simplified tax policies and the flexibility that would come with them would be worth the (tax) cost to it.
Last edited: