Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Highlights from Apple's Preliminary Proxy Statement, 2014 Shareholders Meeting Proposals

N64 said:
Why is that good for AAPL long-term? Buybacks are for when the company is undervalued. It was undervalued when it was at $390, but now, I don't really think so.
Click to expand...

Because it concentrates earnings on fewer shares. If a company reports $10.00 EPS on a million shares, and they take 200,000 shares off the market, EPS is now $12.00 on the same gross profits. I wonder why this rudimentary concept has to be repeated so often and why it sinks in so slowly, if at all. How the company is valued is irrelevant to this calculation. If a company is throwing off more cash than they can reinvest in growing their business (as Apple certainly is), then buybacks and dividends are two longstanding methods for using that cash to boost shareholder value.
 
calaverasgrande said:
at current share prices and current retail wages it would take most people a couple months to afford one share. And then they might or might not get a dividend. When I worked retail, investing in stocks was not on my mind, paying the rent was.
Click to expand...

Then they can't do it unless they really want to do something like a money pool or use options. No employer is going to hand out free money like that, and besides, it's unfair to people doing the same kind of work but for some a loser company like Blackberry or Microsoft.

----------
IJ Reilly said:
Because it concentrates earnings on fewer shares. If a company reports $10.00 EPS on a million shares, and they take 200,000 shares off the market, EPS is now $12.00 on the same gross profits. I wonder why this rudimentary concept has to be repeated so often and why it sinks in so slowly, if at all. How the company is valued is irrelevant to this calculation. If a company is throwing off more cash than they can reinvest in growing their business (as Apple certainly is), then buybacks and dividends are two longstanding methods for using that cash to boost shareholder value.
Click to expand...

Sure, if they REALLY can't find a use for the money. I know they need better servers and factories. Always supply shortages for everything.
 
N64 said:
Sure, if they REALLY can't find a use for the money. I know they need better servers and factories. Always supply shortages for everything.
Click to expand...

All the evidence, sense, and logic dictates that they can't. This debate has been raging since Apple socked away their first $25 billion, about five years ago. Now they've hoarded six times that much, even with the dividend and buybacks. And we're still debating whether they can find a use for it? I think it's the sheer scale of $150 billion that doesn't make the impression it should. Apple colonies on Mars, anybody?
 
Last edited:
suprakc said:
Icahn is an idiot. Anybody remember the days of John Sculley? ..........


Let's not cause that crap again.
Click to expand...

He's no fool, to believe so shows you're lack of investor experience!!

I'm not suggesting his goals are amicable, just or if his vision for Apple currently is either. What I am saying is that he's VERY savvy!

And what is with the first 4 or 5 posts talking about what he looks like?!!! Who cares this is a topic on investor purchasing and control. Good things will NOT come from this.
 
IJ Reilly said:
Not weaker, just more conventional. Steve could never explain why Apple was continually stockpiling more and more cash. This was never a sign of strength, but in fact can be read as just the opposite, and was increasingly being read that way.

----------



Fundamentally wrong. Fewer shares increases a stock's EPS. This does not produce a "spike" but a higher share price going forward on a permanent basis, other variables being equal.

Funny (in a sad sort of way), but just this morning I read an article about how the vast majority of Americans are financially illiterate, and how this is leading most to being totally unprepared for retirement. Each and every thread on financial matters reminds me how true this is.
Click to expand...

Wow, where to begin on this thread in general? First off, IJ is absolutely right. Most people can't manage their own retirement, yet insist on providing financial counsel to vast corporations?!

Regarding Icahn's picture, yes it looks creepy. But I'm sure he didn't recommend this shot to the macrumors admins. Let's judge people on the facts, and if he somehow negotiates his stocks' exclusion from the buyback effects (not sure if possible), we can be fairly guaranteed he is being objective.

Apple's shareholders will be soon deciding if Cook is correct that future investments and products will bring market growth and large profits, or Icahn is correct in prioritizing the purchase of "discount Apple bonds". In my opinion, they are both correct, and the only real argument is how much capital goes to each endeavor. I do wish Apple would have conducted a massive surprise buyback when the stock was around $380-400, although the ROI is still a considerable 25% if current prices go to $700.
 
iLondoner said:
Definitely agree about the value of a buyback when the stock was in the low $400s, don't know why Apple didn't take advantage of that.

Your "current $650" is a bit hopeful, actual price is around $560.

A 'very minor' Apple investor...

.
Click to expand...

Lol, oops that was a typo. Swapped the 5 and the 6. Although it was probably also wishful thinking on my part. Thanks for the correction though.
 
notjustjay said:
Yeah. Well, there are two kinds of investors I guess, the kind that truly believes in the future of a company, its vision, its technology, etc. and wants to see it succeed in the long run (with a financial reward for the investor, of course) -- and the kind that just wants to make a buck as quickly as possible, no matter how.
Click to expand...

Which one is Icahn when he told Apple to buy back its shares when they were trading at $390 earlier this year? Apple's shareholders could have benefited to the tune of tens of billions if a bigger share buyback program had be instituted. Icahn was right. Apple's board was wrong. The cash pile continues to grow and be largely unused. Now the stock trades at $560 and the buyback opportunity is either gone or at least significantly missed.
 
Nevaborn said:
Hopefully investors will realise, Apple is working on great stuff compared to it's competitors and they as a company are still growing.
Click to expand...

Apple needs to be careful. What screwed them last time was too many products and product lines. Televisions, watches and game consoles are the new printers, flatbed scanners and game consoles apple tried to make before.

Developing new products consumes a lot of resources - especially investing in fab plants to assemble or build them - and they can fail spectacularly.

It's just a hunch, but I don't think Steve is going to come back and save them if they screw it up again.
 
wikiverse said:
Apple needs to be careful. What screwed them last time was too many products and product lines. Televisions, watches and game consoles are the new printers, flatbed scanners and game consoles apple tried to make before.

Developing new products consumes a lot of resources - especially investing in fab plants to assemble or build them - and they can fail spectacularly.

It's just a hunch, but I don't think Steve is going to come back and save them if they screw it up again.
Click to expand...

Apple has massively more resources now then it did a decade or two ago. Yes, distraction hurts. Also putting out mediocre products will confuse the customers. Right now Apple has a simple set of products basically each of which is arguably (or in some cases undisputedly) best in class. That is simple for the consumer. Buy Apple and you've basically bought the best. But that is a tough standard to maintain across more product lines.
 
The power is ALL MINE!!

christopher-lee-sarumann.jpg
 
IJ Reilly said:
All the evidence, sense, and logic dictates that they can't. This debate has been raging since Apple socked away their first $25 billion, about five years ago. Now they've hoarded six times that much, even with the dividend and buybacks. And we're still debating whether they can find a use for it? I think it's the sheer scale of $150 billion that doesn't make the impression it should. Apple colonies on Mars, anybody?
Click to expand...

Why hell bent on an aggressive buyback? This will only serve the agenda of a select few how have large amounts of Appel stock, not you or me how have few of them.

I for one will vote no. For all I want is for this guy to scram out of Apple's shareholder list.
 
IJ Reilly said:
Not weaker, just more conventional.
Click to expand...
Apple becoming more conventional is exactly what I'm afraid of. A conventional company is bound by market mechanisms and people like Icahn are part of those mechanisms. Those market mechanisms push companies to avoid risk and therefore innovation speed is inevitably reduced. Which rarely is a good idea in the IT market...

Apple did not rise to its current market status due to conventional behavior, but because of bold and sometimes risky decisions. Whenever it was acting too "conventional", it eventually failed.

IJ Reilly said:
Steve could never explain why Apple was continually stockpiling more and more cash. This was never a sign of strength, but in fact can be read as just the opposite, and was increasingly being read that way.
Click to expand...
Stock exchange works mainly on the expectations of the investors. A big and increasing pile of cash doesn't necessarily require any further explanations - as long as good and innovative products are continuing to appear.

The best thing Steve could do was refusing to fulfill the expectations of conventional market elements, in order to stay as independent as possible. With Apple lacking critical mass, only that behavior allowed Apple to survive and prosper in a difficult and fast-changing industry. And if they want to stay ahead of the pack in the ever-changing IT market, they better not become any more conventional than they already have become over the last two years!
 
IJ Reilly said:
All the evidence, sense, and logic dictates that they can't. This debate has been raging since Apple socked away their first $25 billion, about five years ago. Now they've hoarded six times that much, even with the dividend and buybacks. And we're still debating whether they can find a use for it? I think it's the sheer scale of $150 billion that doesn't make the impression it should. Apple colonies on Mars, anybody?
Click to expand...

I have a hard time believing that they can't find a use for it. Apple could give out iPads and Macs to schools, sell new things at a loss like Amazon and probably Google do to expand their reach, buy out more companies (keep in mind they can buy Facebook or easily Yahoo), or even invest the cash somewhere. Or throw it at better factories like I said before. You're using the fact that they haven't done any of these things as evidence that they can't, but that's post-hoc reasoning... Maybe there's a different reason.

A buyback when the stock isn't undervalued will just give the shareholders money once. Surely that can't be better than even the sloppy acquisition of a bunch of other companies like what Google does. AAPL has such a low P/E ratio that says something about their expected growth.
 
Last edited:
Please, put a new News story up and move this stiff down the page so I don't have to look at him every time I open Firefox.

If he's not gone by tomorrow, I'm changing my Home Page.
 
A portrait of a sociopath.

How charming. Looks like Carl wants to end the speculation regarding what Apple will look like now that Steve is gone.

We know, we've already seen it.

Thank you Scully.

I wish someone would help Carl out.

I think I know how he came in.
 
Neodym said:
Apple becoming more conventional is exactly what I'm afraid of. A conventional company is bound by market mechanisms and people like Icahn are part of those mechanisms. Those market mechanisms push companies to avoid risk and therefore innovation speed is inevitably reduced. Which rarely is a good idea in the IT market...

Apple did not rise to its current market status due to conventional behavior, but because of bold and sometimes risky decisions. Whenever it was acting too "conventional", it eventually failed.


Stock exchange works mainly on the expectations of the investors. A big and increasing pile of cash doesn't necessarily require any further explanations - as long as good and innovative products are continuing to appear.

The best thing Steve could do was refusing to fulfill the expectations of conventional market elements, in order to stay as independent as possible. With Apple lacking critical mass, only that behavior allowed Apple to survive and prosper in a difficult and fast-changing industry. And if they want to stay ahead of the pack in the ever-changing IT market, they better not become any more conventional than they already have become over the last two years!
Click to expand...


My God, this people! This over 100,000 times and 100,000 times more!

Steve never yielded to clowns like this for a reason. Something I think Cook and Co haven't understood why. There is no need to pay attention to investors like Icahn as long as the company is profitable and can innovate at a capacity that people love the brand.

Steve said he required investors for the very long run, not investors like Icahn that just spend fleeting moments to become rich.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back