Mike Mod join:2000-09-17 Pittsburgh, PA ·Verizon FiOS
|
Mike
Mod
2014-Apr-23 4:45 pm
Tim Cook to piss investors off moreBesides the excellent logistics and retail operations (aka record profits - » www.apple.com/pr/library ··· lts.html)... Apple will be doing a Stock Split (wtf) and do even more stock buy back (bye money). » www.apple.com/pr/library ··· ion.htmlI wonder if someone accidentally uploaded Android firmware to Tim Cook? Since we're in a backwards market, APPL is up 7% today. |
|
|
Why do you think a stock split and buy-back are anti-investor? Seems like it was pretty well received, and it's not unheard of for Apple to do splits. |
|
Mike Mod join:2000-09-17 Pittsburgh, PA ·Verizon FiOS
|
Mike
Mod
2014-Apr-23 5:05 pm
Couple reasons.
Apple does splits but they're overdoing it. Volume is 468.1 billion at 524.75 per share.
Isn't that maybe... a little too diluted?
Then they are buying it back. So they just want to lower the price...
Look at the opposite.. Berkshire Hathaway is at at $190,800 per class A share. |
|
Daemon Premium Member join:2003-06-29 Washington, DC |
Daemon
Premium Member
2014-Apr-23 5:13 pm
IIRC Steve Jobs was opposed to splits because the higher per-share price means that, among other things, option contracts (which are based on the even lot 100 share number) get extraordinarily more expensive. This limits speculation on Apple and, one would hope, price swings unrelated to actual company performance.
The counter argument is that stock splits increase retail investor participation, as retail investors may not have $500 a month to put into the stock market, but they will have $71. Increased retail investor participation both increases the pool of available investors, putting upward pressure on price, and has the potential to limit the holdings of large funds, allowing apple to more easily ignore them.
Traditionally, stock splits are seen as an optimistic sign, leading to higher prices for the same ownership share of a company, which would lead to higher prices for the buy back, not lower (for the same number of dollars invested). |
|
gjrhine join:2001-12-12 Pawleys Island, SC
2 recommendations |
to Mike
Tim Cook wrong and AAPL up 7% in the same post. Awesome. |
|
|
to Mike
One sign of a company that thinks it's going to do well is when they do 1) a split and 2) buy their own shares. The three or four times that happened to stocks I owned, I 3x and 4x my money.
I wish I owned Apple stock. |
|
HomunculusPipsquack Premium Member join:2000-12-14 Uranus |
to Mike
So. 7-1 stock split.
I had shares when they did a 2-1 split, and still do. I'm not unhappy about this at all. So x my shares by 7?
Wonder if they will keep the dividend going through 2015 as well... Call me short-sighted but I sure wouldn't complain. |
|
|
Cook (paraphrasing): Expect "annual dividend increases".
Sounds like it's here to stay, and at 8% increase, that's not bad at all...
Edit: Although, I'm not sure if he meant annual 8% increases or just some annual increase. Probably just "some". |
|
HomunculusPipsquack Premium Member join:2000-12-14 Uranus |
Yeah, probably meant some. 8% year over year would be pretty significant, even for Apple. Is it August yet? |
|
|
to Daemon
Jobs presided over two stock splits. One in 2000 when the pre-split price was around $100/share and another in 2005 when the pre-split price was about $90/share. |
|
Daemon Premium Member join:2003-06-29 Washington, DC |
Daemon
Premium Member
2014-Apr-24 1:08 pm
said by Tex Longhorn:Jobs presided over two stock splits. One in 2000 when the pre-split price was around $100/share and another in 2005 when the pre-split price was about $90/share. But, when Apple stock heated up substantially after the release of the iPhone, he was queried a number of times by analysts about splitting it again, and IIRC, responded with something like what I put in my earlier post. |
|
BellBoySteven Paul Jobs 1955-2011 Premium Member join:2001-02-20 Los Angeles, CA |
to Tex Longhorn
said by Tex Longhorn:Jobs presided over two stock splits. One in 2000 when the pre-split price was around $100/share and another in 2005 when the pre-split price was about $90/share. Just curious where you got those numbers. In 2000 and 2005 too I think the stock price was maybe around $30. |
|
Daemon Premium Member join:2003-06-29 Washington, DC |
Daemon
Premium Member
2014-Apr-28 8:48 pm
said by BellBoy:said by Tex Longhorn:Jobs presided over two stock splits. One in 2000 when the pre-split price was around $100/share and another in 2005 when the pre-split price was about $90/share. Just curious where you got those numbers. In 2000 and 2005 too I think the stock price was maybe around $30. Yahoo finance has the details. » finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s ··· 2005&g=mLook at the left side columns, and not the "adjusted close" pricing on the right. |
|
|
to BellBoy
From Quicken 2007. Apple stock owner since 1999. |
|
|
UglyFishy Cool Bird join:2001-12-12 The Meadow |
to Mike
Let's try to end guessing and speculation on motives with some commonly known facts.
Many US companies claim that share buybacks are intended to serve the financial interests of their existing shareholders, by creating demand to maintain market price and reduce supply. This means more earnings and dividends per share, which are both further supportive of market price. That is an acknowledged premise of share buybacks and fairly uncontroversial.
Many argue the artificially low interest rate environment that facilitates the borrowing at low costs to facilitate such buybacks is a form of corporate welfare and a transfer of wealth from savers and pensioners, via loss of purchasing power, to such large companies and their shareholders. This too appears quite reasonable. Indeed, one might ask oneself two further questions. 1. Would (or did) companies borrow to finance share buybacks in a former market-based rate environment not that long ago? Exactly! Not so much. 2. Why are there no better opportunities, with greater returns offered for a company's investment of capital? Many observe a constrained and manipulated market and a heavily regulated operating environment with extreme regulatory uncertainty combine to make a safe investment in stock buybacks the last best choice for any CEO who wants to keep his job.
You see, the intended and likely benefit to AAPL of a split is that this will directly lead to institutional demand to buy and hold Apple shares. This will do many times more for the price and CEO's performance than any self-funded buyback ever could. If and when AAPL is included within a major index, say the US DJII, aka the Dow 30, then dozens of mutual funds with trillions of dollars in AUM will immediately be forced to buy AAPL shares. Apple has grown so large that organic growth is severely limited by the Law of Large Numbers.
As the company matures, an institutional ownership will serve to stabilize the price and somewhat protect the company and CEO from inevitable market turbulence that would far exceed even the cash reserves of Apple and their small (by comparison) share buybacks. The comparison of institutional ownership to a self-funded buyback is on the scale of a few orders of magnitude (zeros added on the end of a number) difference. Cook knows what he's doing. This approach makes sense and appears to have a pretty good chance to succeed. |
|
MajestikWorld Traveler Premium Member join:2001-05-11 Tulsa, OK |
to Mike
Sold my 1400 shares at $701 on a trailing stop. (I've learned to be fearful when others are greedy) Stock splits,dividends and some buy backs are the best things to happen to investments. Reverse splits are scary. . |
|
neuronbobCavs NBA Champs 2016 join:2000-03-30 Bedford, OH |
to Mike
This now-longtime AAPL stockholder is ecstatic about the stock split. *rubs hands together in anticipation of eventual profit* |
|