Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Feb 18, 2016 3:24:53 GMT -8
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Feb 18, 2016 4:10:56 GMT -8
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Feb 18, 2016 4:46:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by macglenn on Feb 18, 2016 6:12:03 GMT -8
I'm not sure if many people realize there is a plethora of advanced encrypted communication third party apps for any phone os or computer os that use unique encryption algorithms for each instance that no technology can recover or decipher. Apple IOS security is built for everyday people's protection, but not nearly the level nefarious criminals would rely on.
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Feb 18, 2016 7:47:13 GMT -8
Lets hope the FBI does not embarrass apple by asking Samsung to unlock the phone. That would not be embarrassing to Apple. I think Apple would then be seen as having taken the high road and Samsung would be hit with FUD....although when something involves Apple, the obvious is not necessarily the outcome as we all know all too well.
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Feb 18, 2016 8:44:27 GMT -8
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Feb 18, 2016 8:51:50 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by deasys on Feb 18, 2016 14:46:48 GMT -8
Lets hope the FBI does not embarrass apple by asking Samsung to unlock the phone. What would Samsung have to do with this and how would it accomplish what even Apple could only do with great difficulty?
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Feb 18, 2016 16:45:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by macwire on Feb 18, 2016 18:04:00 GMT -8
spy rsi on the hourly chart is right at that place where the market rolls over. Caution!
|
|
|
Post by nathanstevens on Feb 18, 2016 21:02:13 GMT -8
At the root. This argument is basically "Apple makes more money than they know what to do with." If you have a business plan that prints money at 40% margins and the market is only valuing it at a PE of 10 why not retire shares? On the flip side, if market is currently rewarding less profitable and lower margin business plans with much higher PE's why would you feel compelled to buy them? Everyone seems concerned that Apple is wasting money on a buyback at a PE range of 10-15. Why don't they see the irony in begging Apple to acquire other companies w/ PE's much higher?
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Feb 19, 2016 3:54:02 GMT -8
At the root. This argument is basically "Apple makes more money than they know what to do with." If you have a business plan that prints money at 40% margins and the market is only valuing it at a PE of 10 why not retire shares? On the flip side, if market is currently rewarding less profitable and lower margin business plans with much higher PE's why would you feel compelled to buy them? Everyone seems concerned that Apple is wasting money on a buyback at a PE range of 10-15. Why don't they see the irony in begging Apple to acquire other companies w/ PE's much higher? The argument isn't that Apple 'should' invest in anything, particularly things that do not meets its investment criterion. Rather, if there is not a productive use for the assets that can earn a comparable return, then Apple should return the assets to its owners. I look at it this way. Apple has been earning a paltry amount, we'll be generous and call it 2% on these 'stranded' assets while earning extraordinary returns in its employed assets. Unfortunately Apple earnings are the weighted average of the two. In other words these stranded assets are pulling Apple's earnings down. But let's take it a step further. Assuming the tax on these stranded assets would be 40% -- that would be a one time hit. If that allows the assets to be redeployed more profitably. If Apple can achieve returns approaching what Apple usually earns, then leaving them stranded for multiple years is the epitome of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Lastly, the inordinate size of Apple's stranded assets concerns me. Many others see it as well and are envious. This pile of cash will continue to tempt governments and others to develop creative ways to get a piece of it. In short, my conclusion is that the overwhelming majority of Apple's cash should have been repatriated long ago and redeployed productively through investments or returned to the shareholders. At the very least, these stranded assets should be invested to yield a much higher return.
|
|