Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on May 7, 2015 2:25:57 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on May 7, 2015 5:50:02 GMT -8
So far so good...up nicely on ex-div day.
Will it hold? There is some value in this company after all....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2015 6:48:01 GMT -8
I'm still waiting for retail and institutional money to wake up to the significance of Apple's share repurchase activity. On this news alone, AAPL should have popped at least $7 per share. With the carryover of $10B plus the new $50B, that buys nearly 10% of the company back at today's share price. But maybe Apple, Inc. will get the last laugh, so let me explain:
If Apple was to take itself private, this share repurchase plan is THE way to do it, right in plain view of everyone. Public companies that go down the path of going private pay a significant premium when they openly declare intentions to do so. Perhaps a premium of 30- 40% is paid above market capitalization before the news.
By buying back shares gradually, Apple avoids the "going-private" premium. Indeed, many of us can argue until we're blue in the face that AAPL is currently trading at a discount.
Apple does not even have to grow to accomplish this. The new $50B will likely be spent well before December 2017, simply because Apple can and AAPL is still cheap.
The timeline? My current wag is 12-15 years, depending on Apple's continuing performance and Mr. Market's valuation of AAPL. There are many advantages of going private, but that's another discussion.
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by mark on May 7, 2015 7:56:14 GMT -8
I'm still waiting for retail and institutional money to wake up to the significance of Apple's share repurchase activity. On this news alone, AAPL should have popped at least $7 per share. With the carryover of $10B plus the new $50B, that buys nearly 10% of the company back at today's share price. But maybe Apple, Inc. will get the last laugh, so let me explain: If Apple was to take itself private, this share repurchase plan is THE way to do it, right in plain view of everyone. Public companies that go down the path of going private pay a significant premium when they openly declare intentions to do so. Perhaps a premium of 30- 40% is paid above market capitalization before the news. By buying back shares gradually, Apple avoids the "going-private" premium. Indeed, many of us can argue until we're blue in the face that AAPL is currently trading at a discount. Apple does not even have to grow to accomplish this. The new $50B will likely be spent well before December 2017, simply because Apple can and AAPL is still cheap. The timeline? My current wag is 12-15 years, depending on Apple's continuing performance and Mr. Market's valuation of AAPL. There are many advantages of going private, but that's another discussion. I don't understand your line of reasoning. I look at it like this - let's say Apple has 6B shares outstanding, so I believe that each share represents a 1/6,000,000,000 portion of the ownership of the company. Now, suddenly the company is flush with cash and begins buying back shares, after 2 years it buys back 500M shares, and there are 5.5B shares remaining (outstanding). Doesn't that mean that at that point, each share is a 1/5,500,000,000 portion of the ownership of the company? And those shares would be valued by trading them as 1/5,500,000,000 portion of the value the market places on the company? And let's further say that the company remains flush with cash for 15 years and buys back 5.499B shares over that period of time, leaving 1M shares outstanding. Doesn't it follow that each of those shares represent a 1/1,000,000 portion of the company? And wouldn't each of those million shares be valued based on what the market thinks 1/1,000,000 of the company is worth at the time? How is this process an act of "going private"? Wouldn't "going private" require buying * ALL* the shares such that none are held by the public anymore? And wouldn't buying those last million shares cost as much as the market thinks the entire company is worth? Finally, isn't my line of reasoning above, the ENTIRE reason that buybacks are good for the remaining shareholders?
|
|
|
Post by mikez on May 7, 2015 8:11:42 GMT -8
I'm still waiting for retail and institutional money to wake up to the significance of Apple's share repurchase activity. On this news alone, AAPL should have popped at least $7 per share. With the carryover of $10B plus the new $50B, that buys nearly 10% of the company back at today's share price. But maybe Apple, Inc. will get the last laugh, so let me explain: If Apple was to take itself private, this share repurchase plan is THE way to do it, right in plain view of everyone. Public companies that go down the path of going private pay a significant premium when they openly declare intentions to do so. Perhaps a premium of 30- 40% is paid above market capitalization before the news. By buying back shares gradually, Apple avoids the "going-private" premium. Indeed, many of us can argue until we're blue in the face that AAPL is currently trading at a discount. Apple does not even have to grow to accomplish this. The new $50B will likely be spent well before December 2017, simply because Apple can and AAPL is still cheap. The timeline? My current wag is 12-15 years, depending on Apple's continuing performance and Mr. Market's valuation of AAPL. There are many advantages of going private, but that's another discussion. I don't understand your line of reasoning. I look at it like this - let's say Apple has 6B shares outstanding, so I believe that each share represents a 1/6,000,000,000 portion of the ownership of the company. Now, suddenly the company is flush with cash and begins buying back shares, after 2 years it buys back 500M shares, and there are 5.5B shares remaining (outstanding). Doesn't that mean that at that point, each share is a 1/5,500,000,000 portion of the ownership of the company? And those shares would be valued by trading them as 1/5,500,000,000 portion of the value the market places on the company? And let's further say that the company remains flush with cash for 15 years and buys back 5.499B shares over that period of time, leaving 1M shares outstanding. Doesn't it follow that each of those shares represent a 1/1,000,000 portion of the company? And wouldn't each of those million shares be valued based on what the market thinks 1/1,000,000 of the company is worth at the time? How is this process an act of "going private"? Wouldn't "going private" require buying * ALL* the shares such that none are held by the public anymore? And wouldn't buying those last million shares cost as much as the market thinks the entire company is worth? Finally, isn't my line of reasoning above, the ENTIRE reason that buybacks are good for the remaining shareholders? Yes. To go private the company needs the shareholders to vote on it and thats why they have to pay a premium.
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by mark on May 7, 2015 8:22:49 GMT -8
Yes. To go private the company needs the shareholders to vote on it and thats why they have to pay a premium. Good point, I forgot about that part, the shareholders have to vote to allow a company to go private! On another issue and continuing the conversation from yesterday, it appears that I wasn't assigned any option exercises this round of dividend. Not did I exercise any of my options. I was checking throughout late trading and it wasn't economically worth doing this time for any of the options I am long. Though there were a few instances about 10 minutes before the close when it appeared that it would be economically feasible, but in the end it wasn't. Did anyone here get assigned an exercise? I'm thinking that if the Jan '16 85.71s that I am short become economically feasible to exercise next dividend, then it is very likely that the Jan '16 71.43s that I am long would ALSO become economically feasible to exercise, so if I follow the same logic as the person holding those 85.71s, and I exercise, then I would be "even" with regards to dividend collection/payment. Obviously I can never be sure if I will be assigned, but if it is economically feasible to exercise, I have to assume that most holders of that option, being rational people, will indeed exercise. And if not (if I wasn't assigned), well, I get to collect some extra dividend and then have the choice to hold those shares I received in the exercise or to sell them (it does however mess up the timing of the capital gains realization if I do choose to sell).
|
|
|
Post by moltenfire on May 7, 2015 8:24:16 GMT -8
I don't think AAPL will go private. AAPL stock and options are a big incentive for employees. A private company issuing il-liquid stock and options that has no open market is a disincentive to a prospective employee.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2015 8:34:26 GMT -8
The market doesn't appear to be adjusting for fewer shares IMO. In theory, yes, the market capitalization should be unaffected by fewer shares with a correspondingly higher EPS to equalize things. At some point, yes, there s/be some correlation.
Instead, the P/E compressed (look at the P/E before and after earnings) and if this continues, Apple will ultimately pay less to acquire more shares. My main point is that WS has given Apple zero credit for the $50B just announced in buybacks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2015 8:37:14 GMT -8
I don't think AAPL will go private. AAPL stock and options are a big incentive for employees. A private company issuing il-liquid stock and options that has no open market is a disincentive to a prospective employee. The compensation plans of a private company could easily improve on the current setup wherein employees are subject to the whimsy of WS.
|
|
bud777
fire starter
Posts: 1,352
|
Post by bud777 on May 7, 2015 8:37:56 GMT -8
I haven't read much about WWDC and Apple TV. I get the feeling that the tide has turned against the cable companies. With Comcast's failed acquisition of TW and the introduction of HBO Now, perhaps the momentum has shifted toward a model where TV is more like iTunes. We pay a subscription fee for the channels or shows that we want and no more bundling. Siri responds to "Show me the latest episode of Masterpiece Theatre" and the idea of channels goes away. I guess a lot of this is already in place, but I think that the disruption will be much greater as things reach critical mass.
I was skeptical about Apples involvement with cars, but the recent articles on R&D spending have made me re-think it. The only other area I can think of that would create this kind of R&D growth is the much needed improvement in internet infrastructure.
All of a sudden, a stock price of 200 doesn't seem that unreasonable
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by mark on May 7, 2015 8:46:43 GMT -8
The market doesn't appear to be adjusting for fewer shares IMO. In theory, yes, the market capitalization should be unaffected by fewer shares with a correspondingly higher EPS to equalize things. At some point, yes, there s/be some correlation. Instead, the P/E compressed (look at the P/E before and after earnings) and if this continues, Apple will ultimately pay less to acquire more shares. My main point is that WS has given Apple zero credit for the $50B just announced in buybacks. What? The stock is up about 100% over the last 2 years [roughly] since buybacks began. Seems to be adjusting pretty well to buybacks and to increased earnings. And, if you (and I) think that the stock should be 140-145 now, then isn't this a golden opportunity for us? Heck, I am pretty well convinced that absent a huge market correction and/or economic event, this stock will almost surely be above 140 by January 2017. And that's why I bought some Jan'17 120/140 BCS yesterday (along with assorted other options that I already own and continue to acquire on the dips). I call these dips "gifts" or "opportunities" and I try to enjoy every one of them. And I daresay that Tim Cook and the folks at Apple doing the buybacks also look upon the dips as opportunities.
|
|
|
Post by hamourabi on May 7, 2015 8:55:24 GMT -8
I'm still waiting for retail and institutional money to wake up to the significance of Apple's share repurchase activity. On this news alone, AAPL should have popped at least $7 per share. With the carryover of $10B plus the new $50B, that buys nearly 10% of the company back at today's share price. But maybe Apple, Inc. will get the last laugh, so let me explain: If Apple was to take itself private, this share repurchase plan is THE way to do it, right in plain view of everyone. Public companies that go down the path of going private pay a significant premium when they openly declare intentions to do so. Perhaps a premium of 30- 40% is paid above market capitalization before the news. By buying back shares gradually, Apple avoids the "going-private" premium. Indeed, many of us can argue until we're blue in the face that AAPL is currently trading at a discount. Apple does not even have to grow to accomplish this. The new $50B will likely be spent well before December 2017, simply because Apple can and AAPL is still cheap. The timeline? My current wag is 12-15 years, depending on Apple's continuing performance and Mr. Market's valuation of AAPL. There are many advantages of going private, but that's another discussion. I don't understand your line of reasoning. I look at it like this - let's say Apple has 6B shares outstanding, so I believe that each share represents a 1/6,000,000,000 portion of the ownership of the company. Now, suddenly the company is flush with cash and begins buying back shares, after 2 years it buys back 500M shares, and there are 5.5B shares remaining (outstanding). Doesn't that mean that at that point, each share is a 1/5,500,000,000 portion of the ownership of the company? And those shares would be valued by trading them as 1/5,500,000,000 portion of the value the market places on the company? And let's further say that the company remains flush with cash for 15 years and buys back 5.499B shares over that period of time, leaving 1M shares outstanding. Doesn't it follow that each of those shares represent a 1/1,000,000 portion of the company? And wouldn't each of those million shares be valued based on what the market thinks 1/1,000,000 of the company is worth at the time? How is this process an act of "going private"? Wouldn't "going private" require buying * ALL* the shares such that none are held by the public anymore? And wouldn't buying those last million shares cost as much as the market thinks the entire company is worth? Finally, isn't my line of reasoning above, the ENTIRE reason that buybacks are good for the remaining shareholders? Buybacks are good for remaining shareholders iff the discounted present value of future earning plus assets minus debts happen to be ( as we think or hope ) greater than the market capitalisation
|
|
|
Post by archibaldtuttle on May 7, 2015 8:56:20 GMT -8
50-day moving average is 126.24... would be very nice to reclaim that today...
If we bounce up against it and stall, that's no good.
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on May 7, 2015 9:09:47 GMT -8
Mark, you're right about the buybacks. It has no impact on going private. In fact, if the premise of AAPL being undervalued is true then Apple would want to go private immediately and would be saving up all their cash to buy back a huge part of the company all at once (and finance the rest with debt). Better to pay a 40% premium on $750B than to do it on $1T+.
Regarding your option, glad you are safe. I learned during the 2012 debacle to close out my options positions when they reach 90-95% of full value. Better safe than sorry, for me anyway.
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on May 7, 2015 9:10:49 GMT -8
The market doesn't appear to be adjusting for fewer shares IMO. In theory, yes, the market capitalization should be unaffected by fewer shares with a correspondingly higher EPS to equalize things. At some point, yes, there s/be some correlation. Instead, the P/E compressed (look at the P/E before and after earnings) and if this continues, Apple will ultimately pay less to acquire more shares. My main point is that WS has given Apple zero credit for the $50B just announced in buybacks. The market already knew Apple was going to significantly increase their buyback program. It wasn't a surprise to anybody. Priced in. Priced in fairly? No. But priced in nonetheless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2015 9:49:52 GMT -8
The market doesn't appear to be adjusting for fewer shares IMO. In theory, yes, the market capitalization should be unaffected by fewer shares with a correspondingly higher EPS to equalize things. At some point, yes, there s/be some correlation. Instead, the P/E compressed (look at the P/E before and after earnings) and if this continues, Apple will ultimately pay less to acquire more shares. My main point is that WS has given Apple zero credit for the $50B just announced in buybacks. What? The stock is up about 100% over the last 2 years [roughly] since buybacks began. Seems to be adjusting pretty well to buybacks and to increased earnings. And, if you (and I) think that the stock should be 140-145 now, then isn't this a golden opportunity for us? Heck, I am pretty well convinced that absent a huge market correction and/or economic event, this stock will almost surely be above 140 by January 2017. And that's why I bought some Jan'17 120/140 BCS yesterday (along with assorted other options that I already own and continue to acquire on the dips). I call these dips "gifts" or "opportunities" and I try to enjoy every one of them. And I daresay that Tim Cook and the folks at Apple doing the buybacks also look upon the dips as opportunities. The stock's performance has FAR more to do with the sentiment/performance of the company, not the buybacks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2015 9:54:37 GMT -8
The market doesn't appear to be adjusting for fewer shares IMO. In theory, yes, the market capitalization should be unaffected by fewer shares with a correspondingly higher EPS to equalize things. At some point, yes, there s/be some correlation. Instead, the P/E compressed (look at the P/E before and after earnings) and if this continues, Apple will ultimately pay less to acquire more shares. My main point is that WS has given Apple zero credit for the $50B just announced in buybacks. The market already knew Apple was going to significantly increase their buyback program. It wasn't a surprise to anybody. Priced in. Priced in fairly? No. But priced in nonetheless. Oh, the almighty market that is now price-efficient and knew all about the $50B? I was hoping for $30B -- it surprised me that it was $50B. Too bad Apple didn't give us a better earnings report -- Mr. Market wouldn't have been disappointed in it, selling AAPL off since then.
|
|
|
Post by rickag on May 7, 2015 9:56:49 GMT -8
One Apple Inc. (AAPL) option bear bought a massive block of weekly 5/22 114-strike puts tinyurl.com/kabk656Apple? Someone had to write these puts right? Could be a quick way for Apple to retire 10,038,000 shares or collect the premium - win win. Naw, I don't think Apple plays with options.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,183
|
Post by JDSoCal on May 7, 2015 10:06:50 GMT -8
LOL @ Apple going private. The largest LBO ever was $55B (Nabisco) adjusted for inflation. Apple's market cap is 15X that, without the premium factored in. Dell's LBO in 2013 was $25B. Not enough tea in China, folks. There's a reason companies go public: more capital by at least an order of magnitude than exists in private equity. Cheers to the longs.
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on May 7, 2015 10:29:10 GMT -8
The market already knew Apple was going to significantly increase their buyback program. It wasn't a surprise to anybody. Priced in. Priced in fairly? No. But priced in nonetheless. Oh, the almighty market that is now price-efficient and knew all about the $50B? I was hoping for $30B -- it surprised me that it was $50B. Too bad Apple didn't give us a better earnings report -- Mr. Market wouldn't have been disappointed in it, selling AAPL off since then. Ok, there's no way to win. Everything is rigged. Sell everything and stash all your cash under the mattress. I really don't understand the daily incessant whining. Take advantage of the inefficiency of the market. Yes, Apple is significantly undervalued and has been for years. Yet I've still made a ton of money from it, along with many others on this board. If you can't figure out how by now then maybe it's not for you. Is it really something to get so upset over on a daily basis? I admit I've been frustrated the last couple of days but I can't imaging feeling like that constantly. Follow Apple instead of an AAPL - it'll lower your blood pressure. P.S. $50B over two years, with $190B cash in the bank and annual net income around $50B? Completely unsurprising to me. It's a lot of money, but in the context of Apple's cash hoard and earnings, it's not huge.
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by mark on May 7, 2015 10:30:49 GMT -8
Mark, you're right about the buybacks. It has no impact on going private. In fact, if the premise of AAPL being undervalued is true then Apple would want to go private immediately and would be saving up all their cash to buy back a huge part of the company all at once (and finance the rest with debt). Better to pay a 40% premium on $750B than to do it on $1T+. Regarding your option, glad you are safe. I learned during the 2012 debacle to close out my options positions when they reach 90-95% of full value. Better safe than sorry, for me anyway. I've also always told myself that I would close out my options spread positions when they reach 95% of max value. But almost every time I am tempted to keep them until they are closer to 100% of max value. The reason being that if I exit the position, I will most likely enter into a similar but further out position, and to do that, I would stretch further up the food chain to higher strike options. And that would greatly increase my overall risk, because as we all well know, there are periodic dips, and sometimes those dips are deep and sometimes they are even wide. So, with this viewpoint it is safer to keep the position for the last 5-10% of "easy" gains than to reinvest in a new, higher strike, spread with the possibility of 50-100% gains along with the increased risk those higher gains come with. Now, if there is a sizable dip, AND my spreads are at 90-95% of max value, then I would definitely think of closing the position and rolling out and up to higher strike prices because the benefit in that case is quite clear. Another method of reducing this particular risk of option spreads is to realize that just as someone else holds those options that you sold, YOU hold a corresponding option that someone else sold to you. So, if it is economically beneficial for the person who sold the option to you to exercise it (and you are assigned), then it is very likely that it is ALSO economically beneficial for YOU to exercise the option that you purchased. And indeed this is exactly what I did late last year, after having been assigned on the short leg, three months later I exercised the long leg in an economically beneficial transaction for me. Next time around, as I evaluated yesterday, if it is economically beneficial for me to exercise and capture a dividend, I will do it (whether or not I get assigned on the short leg, which obviously I wouldn't know about until it's too late). One Apple Inc. (AAPL) option bear bought a massive block of weekly 5/22 114-strike puts tinyurl.com/kabk656Wow, that takes balls! Meanwhile those 5/22 114's are now trading at $0.25-0.26, he should have waited a day and saved $300k, or maybe he's trying to double down if he can find someone willing to sell (to open) these options. Volume is only 259 today, so it hasn't happened yet. The stock's performance has FAR more to do with the sentiment/performance of the company, not the buybacks. Yes, this is generally true. But it is also true that there is no way to separate out the portion of performance due to sentiment from the portion due to other things like earnings or buybacks.
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by mark on May 7, 2015 10:39:17 GMT -8
One Apple Inc. (AAPL) option bear bought a massive block of weekly 5/22 114-strike puts tinyurl.com/kabk656Apple? Someone had to write these puts right? Could be a quick way for Apple to retire 10,038,000 shares or collect the premium - win win. Naw, I don't think Apple plays with options. I don't think Apple plays directly with options (and it may even not be permitted in many cases), but Apple *does* periodically contract with third parties using forward contracts to acquire its own shares for buyback. It is entirely possible that Apple contracted with an investment house for them to deliver 1 million shares (10,000 options covers 1 million shares, not 10 million shares) to Apple on a specific date in the future. It's also possible that this investment house is using various strategies to hedge that position. No way to know for sure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2015 10:59:14 GMT -8
Oh, the almighty market that is now price-efficient and knew all about the $50B? I was hoping for $30B -- it surprised me that it was $50B. Too bad Apple didn't give us a better earnings report -- Mr. Market wouldn't have been disappointed in it, selling AAPL off since then. Ok, there's no way to win. Everything is rigged. Sell everything and stash all your cash under the mattress. I really don't understand the daily incessant whining. Take advantage of the inefficiency of the market. Yes, Apple is significantly undervalued and has been for years. Yet I've still made a ton of money from it, along with many others on this board. If you can't figure out how by now then maybe it's not for you. Is it really something to get so upset over on a daily basis? I admit I've been frustrated the last couple of days but I can't imaging feeling like that constantly. Follow Apple instead of an AAPL - it'll lower your blood pressure. P.S. $50B over two years, with $190B cash in the bank and annual net income around $50B? Completely unsurprising to me. It's a lot of money, but in the context of Apple's cash hoard and earnings, it's not huge. I'm sure my blood pressure is lower than yours but thanks for your concern. Take responsibility for your own double-speak -- on the one hand Mr. Market priced in the buyback; On the other, the market is inefficient. Sheesh. If my whining bothers you, feel free to honor me by using the ignore button.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2015 11:06:39 GMT -8
There's a reason companies go public: more capital by at least an order of magnitude than exists in private equity. Cheers to the longs. That's an argument for initial capitalization -- we're way past that milestone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2015 11:19:08 GMT -8
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by mark on May 7, 2015 11:30:34 GMT -8
There's a reason companies go public: more capital by at least an order of magnitude than exists in private equity. Cheers to the longs. That's an argument for initial capitalization -- we're way past that milestone. I'm not so sure about that. For example, would Apple be able to borrow $40+B at such good terms, in various locations around the world, if it weren't a public company with publicly available and audited financials, and a very wide following of its performance? Probably not. Capitalization is more than the IPO and follow-on equity offerings.
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on May 7, 2015 11:33:22 GMT -8
4 different uses of the stock widget on DASHBOARD: 1)Shows $ change in value of security click on the red or green button 2)Shows total market value of security click on the red or green button 3)Shows % change in value of security 4)PLUS if you click on the stock itself, a new YAHOO finance page will open on your MacBook related to the stock clicked.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2015 11:46:46 GMT -8
That's an argument for initial capitalization -- we're way past that milestone. I'm not so sure about that. For example, would Apple be able to borrow $40+B at such good terms, in various locations around the world, if it weren't a public company with publicly available and audited financials, and a very wide following of its performance? Probably not. Capitalization is more than the IPO and follow-on equity offerings. Generally correct, but you're conveniently overlooking the reason why they're borrowing here: to repurchase shares without repatriating foreign earned income and triggering a domestic tax bill.
|
|
|
Post by archibaldtuttle on May 7, 2015 11:49:44 GMT -8
Here's a question we used to debate- would AAPL shareholders have been better off holding their cash and Apple doing no buybacks? Now that we're a year+ into the buybacks, it might be worth revisiting.
I remember pre-buyback, the market generally valued Apple at about 5x cash. With 191 billion in cash, and 90 billion already spent on buybacks, it seems like the market is valuing Apple's cash at even less than 5x. At 5x their cash, adding back in the amount they've spent, we'd be over a trillion valuation, no?
Of course that assumes the market would have kept valuing the company at 5x cash...
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,635
|
Post by 4aapl on May 7, 2015 11:52:41 GMT -8
4 different uses of the stock widget on DASHBOARD: Just like the stock app in iOS, though I don't know if clicking on the stock would open up a quote page on Yahoo. I used this constantly to check pricing and news on AAPL and others (oil industry) this ski season. Hmmm, 5 days later, and AAPL is back right where it closed last Thursday. It was $125.3, I think. Interesting. That's got to squish volatility a bit. And I bet some big players managed to find a way to make some nice money off of it. I'm still trying to wrap my head around someone making money off of that May 22 130 position of ~60k Calls and Puts for a synthetic stock. Just like the May 1st one that was at 125. There's something there, though it might just be a way to get a general move while knocking out some of the premium, along with a willingness to buy a large chunk at these levels. Hmmmm, it would take $780 million to buy those shares. Interesting.
|
|