Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Jan 29, 2016 3:15:12 GMT -8
Good morning everyone, GREEN as far as the eye can see this morning, including AAPL which is trading at $94.58 +0.49 (0.52%) Not much in the news: Mashable has Thousands line up in the rain for Guangzhou's new Apple store. Forbes Contributor Mark Rogowska has Apple's Plan To Hook You On iPhone Upgrades Is Slowly Being Revealed. I said there wasn't much in the news. Meanwhile in Amazon universe, our good friend and Forbes contributor Jay Somaney has Did Amazon Results Really Miss On Expectations? To be honest it's a trick question... there were no Amazon expectations. Don't worry, I'm here all week. Seriously though, for all of the hemming an hawing in the last few days weeks who would trade Apple's results for Amazon's? Would we prefer the share price were higher? Of course. In the meantime, take advantage of the sale price and buy more. BTFD. Have a great day. Let's make money.
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Jan 29, 2016 3:23:21 GMT -8
BTW, Max Pain is at $97 for the week. Perhaps it will pull AAPL up today.
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Jan 29, 2016 4:53:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by dreamRaj on Jan 29, 2016 5:56:15 GMT -8
None are biting the dust like AAPL but AMZN, TSLA, and NFLX are not flying either. Let's see where GOOG goes next week.
Btw, AMZN's fall today can't really be considered a fall. It ran up 9% yesterday before ER and it's down 10% today in pre-market. That's a net 1% down. And if AMZN history repeats itself, it'll be well over 600 again next week.
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Jan 29, 2016 6:08:40 GMT -8
With the BOJ's decision, why shouldn't Apple issue Yen denominated debt, convert it to dollars and buy as much AAPL as they can?
|
|
|
Post by dreamRaj on Jan 29, 2016 6:47:19 GMT -8
With the BOJ's decision, why shouldn't Apple issue Yen denominated debt, convert it to dollars and buy as much AAPL as they can? This would be the perfect timing. In fact, now IS the time to buy back no matter where they can raise a debt. And, they should let it be known so some confidence is regained. Remember the time when we fell from 550 to 500 after an April ER and the next week TC said they bought back 14 bln? That felt good. Now the number only needs to be a bit bigger to create an impact.
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Jan 29, 2016 7:08:26 GMT -8
With the BOJ's decision, why shouldn't Apple issue Yen denominated debt, convert it to dollars and buy as much AAPL as they can? I was thinking the same and wondering if any muppets at Goldman advised them. You would hope so.
|
|
|
Post by dreamRaj on Jan 29, 2016 7:29:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by dreamRaj on Jan 29, 2016 10:31:24 GMT -8
Bought 10 JUN 2017 120s for $4.90
I figure WS giving AAPL 100-105 as a "fair" value for a few months and with Apple generating about 75 bln in cash by June 2017, expecting to reach 120-125 by then seems reasonable.
Will double up if we fall lower after April ER and if prospects still look promising.
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Jan 29, 2016 10:46:57 GMT -8
Interesting that we're approaching $97. Perhaps Max Pain is a factor again.
|
|
|
Post by archibaldtuttle on Jan 29, 2016 11:06:56 GMT -8
Maybe sponge selling really was the bottom...
|
|
|
Post by sponge on Jan 29, 2016 11:15:44 GMT -8
Maybe sponge selling really was the bottom... I sold at 99. Check back with me this summer.
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Jan 29, 2016 11:16:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by sponge on Jan 29, 2016 11:30:51 GMT -8
Did Apple spend an average of $129 a share last quarter?
|
|
|
Post by nagrani on Jan 29, 2016 12:31:13 GMT -8
LOL - this market is on crack
|
|
|
Post by dreamRaj on Jan 29, 2016 12:36:04 GMT -8
LOL - this market is on crack Hopefully, you'll make good on those 127(?) calls That's if you've still held on to them.
|
|
|
Post by nagrani on Jan 29, 2016 12:36:40 GMT -8
Sold a long time ago.
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Jan 29, 2016 12:42:07 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by dreamRaj on Jan 29, 2016 12:49:22 GMT -8
Did Apple spend an average of $129 a share last quarter? At this point, 129 seems like they paid an awful lot per share. I read somewhere that Apple can start buying back after a 48-hour blackout period from the time of reporting. If true, some of today's upside could as well be them loading up.
|
|
|
Post by galleybob on Jan 29, 2016 13:02:20 GMT -8
Did Apple spend an average of $129 a share last quarter? At this point, 129 seems like they paid an awful lot per share. I read somewhere that Apple can start buying back after a 48-hour blackout period from the time of reporting. If true, some of today's upside could as well be them loading up. I thought it was $120 but either way what is the point of the buybacks if the price dropped to mid 90's. Didn't they just burn through billions of dollars for nothing. Am I missing something.
|
|
|
Post by CdnPhoto on Jan 29, 2016 13:34:24 GMT -8
At this point, 129 seems like they paid an awful lot per share. I read somewhere that Apple can start buying back after a 48-hour blackout period from the time of reporting. If true, some of today's upside could as well be them loading up. I thought it was $120 but either way what is the point of the buybacks if the price dropped to mid 90's. Didn't they just burn through billions of dollars for nothing. Am I missing something. Doubt it. AAPL wasn't over $120 for too many days last quarter.
|
|
|
Post by sponge on Jan 29, 2016 13:37:23 GMT -8
I thought it was $120 but either way what is the point of the buybacks if the price dropped to mid 90's. Didn't they just burn through billions of dollars for nothing. Am I missing something. Doubt it. AAPL wasn't over $120 for too many days last quarter. Look at The numbers. They bought $6 billion and 46.6 million shares.
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Jan 29, 2016 13:48:07 GMT -8
Doubt it. AAPL wasn't over $120 for too many days last quarter. Look at The numbers. They bought $6 billion and 46.6 million shares. Goldman Sachs = thieves
|
|
|
Post by ibuyer on Jan 29, 2016 17:40:35 GMT -8
Maybe sponge selling really was the bottom... I sold at 99. Check back with me this summer. Sponge, if you use Sept 2012 as your starting point, what is your return on your now closed positions? Just wondering if your long term view and many trading views and all the lessons learned from margin gate has resulted in. thanks.
|
|
|
Post by archibaldtuttle on Jan 29, 2016 17:53:16 GMT -8
I keep feeling the buybacks were a waste and Apple got scammed by wall st.
"Return cash to shareholders" was good marketing speak, but shareholders have just had their assets diminished by the buyback, not increased.
Yes, the buyback raised EPS but did it matter? PE range just went down to compensate.
If Apple had held onto the cash instead, it could have been marketed as "holding onto the cash for shareholders."
So you say that the share price would have been even less if they held the cash? I don't buy it. Apple would have a lot more cash per share on the balance sheet and Wall St would have a harder time forcing the stock to these crazy low levels.
Apple used to be valued at 5x their cash holdings (which was still ridiculously low). Those days are long gone of course.
Right now, AAPL has $39 net cash per share, at a cash valuation of about 2.5x. But without the buyback we'd have $58 per share in cash. Even if AAPL was valued at a ridiculous 2x cash on hand, the stock would be at $116. Does anyone really think Apple would be valued at less than 2x cash? If so, how much less?
|
|
|
Post by Apple II+ on Jan 29, 2016 18:04:25 GMT -8
I keep feeling the buybacks were a waste and Apple got scammed by wall st. "Return cash to shareholders" was good marketing speak, but shareholders have just had their assets diminished by the buyback, not increased. Yes, the buyback raised EPS but did it matter? PE range just went down to compensate. If Apple had held onto the cash instead, it could have been marketed as "holding onto the cash for shareholders." So you say that the share price would have been even less if they held the cash? I don't buy it. Apple would have a lot more cash per share on the balance sheet and Wall St would have a harder time forcing the stock to these crazy low levels. Apple used to be valued at 5x their cash holdings (which was still ridiculously low). Those days are long gone of course. Right now, AAPL has $39 net cash per share, at a cash valuation of about 2.5x. But without the buyback we'd have $58 per share in cash. Even if AAPL was valued at a ridiculous 2x cash on hand, the stock would be at $116. Does anyone really think Apple would be valued at less than 2x cash? If so, how much less? Why not less than 2x cash? It's possible that the market discounts the cash for reasons we can only guess at. It's possible that the "law of large numbers" applies to cash, too: the more cash, the greater the discount.
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Jan 29, 2016 18:20:26 GMT -8
I keep feeling the buybacks were a waste and Apple got scammed by wall st. "Return cash to shareholders" was good marketing speak, but shareholders have just had their assets diminished by the buyback, not increased. Yes, the buyback raised EPS but did it matter? PE range just went down to compensate. If Apple had held onto the cash instead, it could have been marketed as "holding onto the cash for shareholders." So you say that the share price would have been even less if they held the cash? I don't buy it. Apple would have a lot more cash per share on the balance sheet and Wall St would have a harder time forcing the stock to these crazy low levels. Apple used to be valued at 5x their cash holdings (which was still ridiculously low). Those days are long gone of course. Right now, AAPL has $39 net cash per share, at a cash valuation of about 2.5x. But without the buyback we'd have $58 per share in cash. Even if AAPL was valued at a ridiculous 2x cash on hand, the stock would be at $116. Does anyone really think Apple would be valued at less than 2x cash? If so, how much less? At this moment in time what you say is true, the buybacks have been ineffective. Question is will the buybacks benefit shareholders in the future? ?. I honestly don't know. Do we follow Oddball and ,"have a little faith, Crapgame.". Yes, I also saw Kelly' Heroes the other night, classic movie.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,183
|
Post by JDSoCal on Jan 29, 2016 19:11:46 GMT -8
Small to medium consolation, but nice close - @ HoD?
Let's hope it keeps up next week. Definitely need a drink or 10 tonite.
|
|
|
Post by Apple II+ on Jan 29, 2016 19:51:28 GMT -8
Look at The numbers. They bought $6 billion and 46.6 million shares. Goldman Sachs = thieves The ASR has an up front cost, but isn't Apple refunded the difference as shares are purchased by the investment bank? Disclaimer: What little I know about ASR's I learned from Above Avalon, e.g. "Apple will actually be able to take full advantage of its lower stock price by receiving cash back from the investment bank(s) in charge of the ASR." (http://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2015/9/3/apples-cheaper-stock-buyback)
|
|
|
Post by bloodylongaapl on Jan 30, 2016 5:36:36 GMT -8
From Luca on the call:
"We also launched our sixth accelerated share repurchase program, spending $3 billion and receiving an initial delivery of 20.4 million shares."
Highlighting mine. If $3B only bought 20.4m then PPS was close to $150. But it is only an initial delivery. Remainder to be delivered over time. This is how ASR's work.
|
|