mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by mark on Dec 6, 2012 20:06:32 GMT -8
i have a question about all the 'tax selling' and I think we touched on it in the past since there is no wash rule on selling gains. If this was such a concern for someone to lock in their 15% cap gains tax now, yet they still wanted to hold Apple stock, wouldn't they just be selling their shares, and then immediately rebuying them after? This is what I will be doing before 12/31 with a few thousand shares held for nearly 20 years. Sell and buy back. Just hoping for a rally before I do. I will be doing the same. Any thoughts of leaving that tax hell? (and weather heaven) Who knows, in the unlikely event that a fiscally progressive government ever gets elected again, you might get lucky and sell those much appreciated shares at that time.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,182
|
Post by JDSoCal on Dec 6, 2012 20:23:01 GMT -8
Any thoughts of leaving that tax hell? (and weather heaven) Lots, but I have some older family members in CA. If not, I'd be outta here. Ultimately, I might go to Texas in my golden years. Too bad people can't have nice little NV corporate HQ's like Apple.
|
|
|
Post by appledoc on Dec 6, 2012 20:36:58 GMT -8
That buy back 1/10 of the float was just my suggestion. Redler said split the stock 4:1.
1/10 of the float is ~$50B. They have the cash to do it. But I realize it's a total pipe dream.
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by mark on Dec 6, 2012 21:14:28 GMT -8
Help me out about the buyback: company has float of 100 shares at 1$ each, 100$ cap is 10$ cash plus 90 in assets Company buys 10 shares to retire, now has 90 shares float, no cash and 90$ in assets.. Share still worth 1$ Unless PE changes, no appreciation of stock price can happen.. Is this flawed argument? Well, look at it this way. Pre buyback: 100 shares, $1 each, $10 in cash, $90 in assets. Earnings are $10, of $0.10/share for a P/E of 10. Post buyback: 90 shares, $X each, $0 cash, $90 assets. Earnings are $10, or $0.1111/share. If P/E is still 10, then stock price would be $11.11.
|
|
|
Post by mbeauch on Dec 6, 2012 21:14:31 GMT -8
Any thoughts of leaving that tax hell? (and weather heaven) Lots, but I have some older family members in CA. If not, I'd be outta here. Ultimately, I might go to Texas in my golden years. Too bad people can't have nice little NV corporate HQ's like Apple. JD, you could incorporate yourself couldn't you and do it in another state. Hell, you are the lawyer.
|
|
|
Post by mbeauch on Dec 6, 2012 21:26:58 GMT -8
Help me out about the buyback: company has float of 100 shares at 1$ each, 100$ cap is 10$ cash plus 90 in assets Company buys 10 shares to retire, now has 90 shares float, no cash and 90$ in assets.. Share still worth 1$ Unless PE changes, no appreciation of stock price can happen.. Is this flawed argument? Well, look at it this way. Pre buyback: 100 shares, $1 each, $10 in cash, $90 in assets. Earnings are $10, of $0.10/share for a P/E of 10. Post buyback: 90 shares, $X each, $0 cash, $90 assets. Earnings are $10, or $0.1111/share. If P/E is still 10, then stock price would be $11.11. The argument does not take into consideration the two dynamics that occur with a reduction in shares, in this case I use going back to 900m diluted. This would require Apple to purchase 4m shares. The result for the last quarter would raise the EPS up by .50c for a very weak quarter. For Q1 it would add a $1. The second benefit would be the lower amount of shares would create an imbalance in the supply demand equation. Once executed it would always be in the back f peoples minds that Apple may do it again which would put a significant floor under the stock. There are no reasonable arguements for Apple trading this low, a buy back also shows confidence by the company about its future. All increase share price. The raise in EPS raises the share price even with the same multiple. A buy back has no downside to investors.
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Dec 6, 2012 21:48:54 GMT -8
Well, look at it this way. Pre buyback: 100 shares, $1 each, $10 in cash, $90 in assets. Earnings are $10, of $0.10/share for a P/E of 10. Post buyback: 90 shares, $X each, $0 cash, $90 assets. Earnings are $10, or $0.1111/share. If P/E is still 10, then stock price would be $11.11. The argument does not take into consideration the two dynamics that occur with a reduction in shares, in this case I use going back to 900m diluted. This would require Apple to purchase 4m shares. The result for the last quarter would raise the EPS up by .50c for a very weak quarter. For Q1 it would add a $1. The second benefit would be the lower amount of shares would create an imbalance in the supply demand equation. Once executed it would always be in the back f peoples minds that Apple may do it again which would put a significant floor under the stock. There are no reasonable arguements for Apple trading this low, a buy back also shows confidence by the company about its future. All increase share price. The raise in EPS raises the share price even with the same multiple. A buy back has no downside to investors. I know you mean, Mark, that if the company doing the buyback has the free capital to do it and the share price at which bought is clearly undervalued. Totally true for Apple. Not true for many other firms that bought back overvalued stock with borrowed funds, ugh!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2012 22:01:53 GMT -8
In all the hectic trading and Tim Cook media blitz today, the TMobile news seems to have been overlooked today.
While at first glance it sounds positive, the revelation that TMobile is not going to subsidize handsets from next year could be a huge negative for apple going forward, especially if the other large US carriers follow...
The $199 iPhone 5 currently fares very well against android phones selling for $199, but without subsidies the $650 iPhone 5 will have a much tougher time against those same competing phones retailing for $300-$400.
Apple might need to offer some sort of $15-$20 a month finance option through TMobile...?
Thoughts? Have I missed something here?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2012 22:15:15 GMT -8
From appleinsider:
Briefly: Japanese carrier NTT DoCoMo blames iPhone for biggest ever loss in subscribers as Korea starts iPhone 5 sales By AppleInsider Staff
Japan's largest wireless carrier NTT DoCoMo said Thursday that customers are jumping off its network to sign on with rival providers that carry the iPhone, while Samsung's home country of South Korea started sales of the latest iPhone 5.
NTT DoCoMo
Near-ubiquitous Japanese cell provider NTT DoCoMo saw a net loss of 40,800 subscribers over the course of November as former users switched to smaller rivals Softbank Corp. and KDDI Corp., both of which are Apple partner carriers, reports Reuters.
Driving the exodus was the iPhone 5, with the decline being the first drop in subscriber numbers since 2007 and the biggest loss since being spun off from NTT in 1991, the company said.
Over the same period, iPhone carriers Softbank and KDDI saw gains of 301,900 and 228,800 subscribers, respectively. After years in the internet and telecommunications industry, Softbank first began operations as a mobile provider in 2006 after buying out Vodafone Japan, and recently announced plans to take over Sprint in the U.S.
iPhone 5 launches in Korea
As part of its fastest rollout ever, Apple launched the iPhone 5 in South Korea on Friday to significant demand from wireless carriers SK Telecom and KT Corporation. Combined pre-orders hit over 300,000 units leading up to the midnight launch with SK's 50,000 units eclipsed by the 250,000 garnered by KT, reports The Chosun Ilbo.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Dec 6, 2012 22:56:33 GMT -8
In all the hectic trading and Tim Cook media blitz today, the TMobile news seems to have been overlooked today. While at first glance it sounds positive, the revelation that TMobile is not going to subsidize handsets from next year could be a huge negative for apple going forward, especially if the other large US carriers follow... The $199 iPhone 5 currently fares very well against android phones selling for $199, but without subsidies the $650 iPhone 5 will have a much tougher time against those same competing phones retailing for $300-$400. Apple might need to offer some sort of $15-$20 a month finance option through TMobile...? Thoughts? Have I missed something here? Yes, I think you answered your own question. T-Mo's CEO is proposing exactly as you suggest (paying off the subsidy over time at a rate of $15-20/mo on top of a lower monthly bill...who knows if it'll actually catch on) - www.fiercewireless.com/story/t-mobile-kills-device-subsidies/2012-12-06 via MacRumors People will pay for quality or they won't. Maybe they can ease the transition a bit by trading in their previous device. Carrier subsidies, whatever. Note also the nature of multi-year deals. You'll have to see more than just T-Mo employing the PAYG subsidy-type model - successfully - before you start worrying about iPhone sales. Well, for those carriers that follow subsidy systems a la AT&T, Verizon etc. anyway. It's something to watch, sure, but that's all it is.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,622
|
Post by 4aapl on Dec 6, 2012 22:59:14 GMT -8
This is what I will be doing before 12/31 with a few thousand shares held for nearly 20 years. Sell and buy back. Just hoping for a rally before I do. Unfortunately, CA's Prop 30 tax increase is retroactive - which should be unconstitutional somehow - so Jerry Brown already has his claws in me. But my shares will not be paying 2013 federal taxes. Hey JD, if you want to avoid the CA tax increase, and CA taxes at all, move on over here to NV. It's gotta be permanent, and they watch you if you're talking serious money. They didn't care about us 5 years ago, buy neighbors that moved their private company were watched, meaning they had to be careful of how many days they spend in CA in a year. In our little town, which is in snow country but gets lots of CA converts as it's under 4 hours from San Francisco, there's a lot of people who moved here just before getting a big payout. The majority of people we know with kids under 6 have moved here in the last 1-8 years, with well over half moving from CA. And my neighbors with that private company, his $110k Mercedes has a license plate frame that says "your CA tax dollars at work". He said the saved taxes paid for his car, plus his mortgage. Being from Southern CA, you might prefer Las Vegas. It all depends on your ties vs the money you'd save. For us, we wanted to get away from the big cities, with their smog, traffic, and crowds. It's been different. But the tax savings so far have equaled about half the value of our house. Just some food for thought. Since you haven't sold your shares yet, you still have time. And if by chance you'd prefer moving up to Tahoe and aren't ready to buy, I know a spare house that's ready to be rented.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,622
|
Post by 4aapl on Dec 6, 2012 23:04:34 GMT -8
Let me get this straight. They increased it for a couple days - chased retail out - then dropped it back down? According to one of the articles I read about it, retail wasn't affected directly by the margin change there. OTOH, the drop due to the itchy trigger finger on AAPL definitely affected AAPL holders, retail or otherwise.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Dec 6, 2012 23:09:37 GMT -8
Love Tim's comment at 2:30 into the Rock Center interview. Though...well...Mr. Williams needs to research the many companies that are more than still hanging around after many more decades than Apple.
Oh I dunno, like IBM as a fellow tech peer to start, last I checked they were doing OK
Also, the way Steve was one of the crazy ones? Tim's one of the wicked smart ones, at the very least. (/analogy) (/two-level)
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Dec 6, 2012 23:26:47 GMT -8
Apple intensely interested in a market that it thinks has been left behind? Stay tuned, Mercel everybody...
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,182
|
Post by JDSoCal on Dec 6, 2012 23:49:32 GMT -8
Love Tim's comment at 2:30 into the Rock Center interview. Though...well...Mr. Williams needs to research the many companies that are more than still hanging around after many more decades than Apple. Oh I dunno, like IBM as a fellow tech peer to start, last I checked they were doing OKAlso, the way Steve was one of the crazy ones? Tim's one of the wicked smart ones, at the very least. (/analogy) (/two-level) Yeah I wasn't thrilled with that FUD rehash, especially the Samsung ad clip that seemed to last 10 minutes. I would have liked Cook to have pointed out that Apple started selling personal computers in 1976, and Macs are still doing great. I like Cook, a lot, but a very tough position to be in, following a peerless CEO like Jobs. I thought tonight was an example where I would have liked to have seen the un-PC Jobs with his feathers ruffled just zinging Samsung. Jobs had those "piercing brown eyes" as Sculley called them, and the gravitas that exuded, "shut up and listen." I miss Steve.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Dec 7, 2012 0:00:03 GMT -8
AAPL stock price aside, much as I miss Steve, I'm not sure there's anyone better than Tim Cook to lead Apple 3.0. Time will tell, of course, but if there's the tiniest bit of truth to the nature of the CEO/chairman discussions between Tim and Steve as related in the Bloomberg interview (and yes, Tim's words run counter to Isaacson's accounts and many other media accounts in many ways), maybe, just maybe Steve realized this too.
Longshot? Quite possibly. But pretty profound if that was the case.
|
|