Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2014 14:47:38 GMT -8
THIS is the single most perplexing fact about AAPL, the stock vs. Apple, Inc. Institutional interest is PATHETIC at 61%. If Apple is actively buying its own shares, then isn't it in the company's best interest for the stock to be as cheap as possible? The only reason I could think of where having an undervalued stock price would be a problem is in employee retention. But I'm sure management would know if that was an issue. Other than that, what reason would Apple have to keep its stock price from going down? You better believe employee recruitment and retention is an issue via stock options. And no, I care much, much less about the # of shares Apple is able to buy back than the missing 26% institutional interest in Apple, Inc. (as compared to Google). And Apple pays a dividend! What do the institutions know that we don't? Or rather, is it because they're scared of AAPL's volatility because 40% of it is in the hands of retail money, comprised of gamblers, muppets listening to sell-side analysts, and the rest.
|
|
|
Post by mcharliem on Jan 9, 2014 15:00:01 GMT -8
Mercel, you know of employees who are choosing to work elsewhere because of the stock price? Everything I've heard and read suggests that Apple employees actually choose to work there knowing full well they could make more money elsewhere. While the jobs at Apple do pay well, I think across the board a similar job at Apple pays less than it does at Google or Facebook. So I don't see how these types of people would be greatly influenced by the value of some stock options.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2014 15:00:59 GMT -8
THIS is the single most perplexing fact about AAPL, the stock vs. Apple, Inc. Institutional interest is PATHETIC at 61%. If Apple is actively buying its own shares, then isn't it in the company's best interest for the stock to be as cheap as possible? The only reason I could think of where having an undervalued stock price would be a problem is in employee retention. But I'm sure management would know if that was an issue. Other than that, what reason would Apple have to keep its stock price from going down? Usually the point of a company buyback is to return capital to shareholders in an efficient manner. Company buys shares and then each of the remaining shares held by shareholders own a larger portion of the company, which theoretically means the remaining shares are each worth more. While Apple may be able to buy more shares at a lower share price, its contrary to its main buyback goal of returning capital to shareholders by way of increasing the price of the remaining shares. If apple blows through its entire budgeted $60 billion buyback and the share price hasn't moved (or its decreased) then I doubt Apple management will consider that a raging success, no matter how many shares they were able to buyback.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2014 15:09:54 GMT -8
Mercel, you know of employees who are choosing to work elsewhere because of the stock price? Everything I've heard and read suggests that Apple employees actually choose to work there knowing full well they could make more money elsewhere. While the jobs at Apple do pay well, I think across the board a similar job at Apple pays less than it does at Google or Facebook. So I don't see how these types of people would be greatly influenced by the value of some stock options. Yes, I think compensation is an important criteria by which employees choose their employer. I think it's naive to think otherwise, absent evidence to the contrary. Others have pointed to employee retention issues at Apple (e.g. Gruber, etc.). daringfireball.net/linked/2013/08/22/reuters-cook
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2014 15:10:51 GMT -8
If Apple is actively buying its own shares, then isn't it in the company's best interest for the stock to be as cheap as possible? The only reason I could think of where having an undervalued stock price would be a problem is in employee retention. But I'm sure management would know if that was an issue. Other than that, what reason would Apple have to keep its stock price from going down? Usually the point of a company buyback is to return capital to shareholders in an efficient manner. Company buys shares and then each of the remaining shares held by shareholders own a larger portion of the company, which theoretically means the remaining shares are each worth more. While Apple may be able to buy more shares at a lower share price, its contrary to its main buyback goal of returning capital to shareholders by way of increasing the price of the remaining shares. If apple blows through its entire budgeted $60 billion buyback and the share price hasn't moved (or its decreased) then I doubt Apple management will consider that a raging success, no matter how many shares they were able to buyback. +1. And there will be no point in doing more, either, apart from annual increases in the dividends and doing what's needed to avoid dilution from stock options to employees.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jan 9, 2014 15:28:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by mcharliem on Jan 9, 2014 15:37:16 GMT -8
Usually the point of a company buyback is to return capital to shareholders in an efficient manner. Company buys shares and then each of the remaining shares held by shareholders own a larger portion of the company, which theoretically means the remaining shares are each worth more. While Apple may be able to buy more shares at a lower share price, its contrary to its main buyback goal of returning capital to shareholders by way of increasing the price of the remaining shares. If apple blows through its entire budgeted $60 billion buyback and the share price hasn't moved (or its decreased) then I doubt Apple management will consider that a raging success, no matter how many shares they were able to buyback. +1. And there will be no point in doing more, either, apart from annual increases in the dividends and doing what's needed to avoid dilution from stock options to employees. I'll disagree with you guys here as well. I don't think Apple is going to judge the success of the buyback based on the share price of AAPL at the end of the buyback. I believe they'll judge the success or failure of the buyback based on the present value of all future earnings compared to the price they paid per share. It's a much, much, longer timeframe than just 2015 or 2016.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2014 15:52:50 GMT -8
Anyone know how many retail locations china mobile has?
I remember seeing a figure over 10,000 a while back, but can't get an answer from web searches.
10,000 stores might sound like a lot, but at that number its only 1 store for every 135,000 people in China.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2014 15:56:34 GMT -8
It's not even good for AH, sheesh. VERY impressive, I agree (if accurate). But yeah, if 28% held worldwide, that would approx. 5.2M Macs (WOW!), which is way higher than my 4.4M WAG, which I'm now going to bump to 4.6M units. Come on Tim: REVISE THE GUIDANCE AND BURN THOSE SHORT MOFOS DOWN TO THE GROUND.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jan 9, 2014 16:00:39 GMT -8
It won't hold worldwide I'm guessing, except maybe Japan? Definitely not Europe, which I presume is still in economic retrenchment mode consumer-wise. Probably not Asia/Latin America. I'll go with the highly arbitrary # of 15% YOY unit growth until I change my mind. Even at barely 10% growth, that's remarkable considering the recent past.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2014 16:02:30 GMT -8
I'll disagree with you guys here as well. I don't think Apple is going to judge the success of the buyback based on the share price of AAPL at the end of the buyback. I believe they'll judge the success or failure of the buyback based on the present value of all future earnings compared to the price they paid per share. It's a much, much, longer timeframe than just 2015 or 2016. I'll concede Apple was motivated by an interest in BOTH the short term and long term benefits of the buy back.
|
|
|
Post by mcharliem on Jan 9, 2014 16:18:14 GMT -8
I'll disagree with you guys here as well. I don't think Apple is going to judge the success of the buyback based on the share price of AAPL at the end of the buyback. I believe they'll judge the success or failure of the buyback based on the present value of all future earnings compared to the price they paid per share. It's a much, much, longer timeframe than just 2015 or 2016. I'll concede Apple was motivated by an interest in BOTH the short term and long term benefits of the buy back. The part in your previous post where you say "And there will be no point in doing more" seems to imply that the lower Apple's share price is at the end of the buyback, the less likely they are to do an additional buyback? I definitely think that runs counter to how Apple runs their company (being extremely diligent and patient). I think the lower Apple's share price is at the end of the buyback, the MORE likely it is they continue to buyback shares, not less.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,189
|
Post by JDSoCal on Jan 9, 2014 16:21:29 GMT -8
I love this quote right out of Samsung's PR dept: "Samsung executives have said the Galaxy S5 smartphone will hit stores by April. It follows the S4, a big-screen, feature-laden phone that emerged as the top rival to the once virtually unrivaled iPhone." The S4 a top rival of the iPhone? Says who? The S4 sold like cold cakes and Samsung just announced a horrible earnings miss because of it. NTT DoCoMo dropped it after like a month. Honestly, I am no fan of the SEC, but earnings releases by tech companies without real sales numbers are so meaningless, I don't see the point.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jan 9, 2014 16:22:51 GMT -8
It's the only one that even got close. Er, I think? No one knows how many S4 units actually sold. Meh, it's second place - "top rival" by default. (/sarcasm)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2014 18:04:44 GMT -8
I'll concede Apple was motivated by an interest in BOTH the short term and long term benefits of the buy back. The part in your previous post where you say "And there will be no point in doing more" seems to imply that the lower Apple's share price is at the end of the buyback, the less likely they are to do an additional buyback? I definitely think that runs counter to how Apple runs their company (being extremely diligent and patient). I think the lower Apple's share price is at the end of the buyback, the MORE likely it is they continue to buyback shares, not less. I've already conceded the long term aspect. However, you're stretching my point re: the short term. If, in fact, Apple's motivation was to buy back shares to improve share price (and to reduce dilution from employee stock compensation, etc.), and $60B doesn't do anything for the stock price (Apple's perception), then how could that not influence their motivation to do more. Making the case that buybacks reduces the dividend payout is a LONG term motivation. I'm not denying it. However, I think Apple is less inclined to keep spending their cash on a buyback if it's doing squat for the share price (e.g. the P/E continues to compress). One stated reason for the buyback was to reduce the dilution of the share count from stock option grants. The $60B does that and more.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jan 9, 2014 18:35:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Jan 9, 2014 18:36:52 GMT -8
Is it bothersome to any person here that they haven't filed an 8-k and yet we're all expecting them to knock the cover off the ball? Again, not that they have to but it would be playing within the new rules that THEY set. Everyone ok with that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2014 18:41:19 GMT -8
Yeah, just by a hair of my chinny chin chin, or 898M or 899M,
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jan 9, 2014 18:42:49 GMT -8
I'm not expecting Apple to necessarily knock the cover off the ball phoebear (yet - still working on my home game numbers). They can and have beat revenue guidance without a non-revision revision IIRC.
But you're right, Apple revised a month in advance last quarter (albeit in the context of a iPhone initial sales news release which would've made it hard for Apple to claim weak revenues).
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jan 9, 2014 18:43:45 GMT -8
Yeah, just by a hair of my chinny chin chin, or 898M or 899M, A stock split IS an option, if Apple wants to employ it... *looks up at big blue evil grin* That is one weird emoticon system. Hey, someone had to be the first to try it!
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Jan 9, 2014 18:45:33 GMT -8
I'm not expecting Apple to necessarily knock the cover off the ball. They can and have beat revenue guidance without a non-revision revision IIRC. But you're right, Apple revised a month in advance last quarter (albeit in the context of a iPhone initial sales news release which would've made it hard for Apple to claim weak revenues). The Mac number makes me scratch my head again about how rev can be less than 59.5 billion. And 897 million share count....hmmmmm. Mav, latest home game estimate ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2014 18:45:59 GMT -8
Is it bothersome to any person here that they haven't filed an 8-k and yet we're all expecting them to knock the cover off the ball? Again, not that they have to but it would be playing within the new rules that THEY set. Everyone ok with that? What's your definition of hitting the cover off Phoebes? Apple can still do it (next Sunday/Monday?), but I have no expectations. I DO think they had a great quarter but I don't think Apple wants to get in the habit of releasing 8ks. Also, note the last sentence in the last one filed in October, excerpted below: "The Company assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements or information, which speak as of their respective dates."
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jan 9, 2014 18:47:16 GMT -8
The Mac number makes me scratch my head again about how rev can be less than 59.5 billion. And 897 million share count....hmmmmm. Mav, latest home game estimate ? Not there yet. Working on TL;DR revenue scenario within guidance constraints though. Assuming Gartner didn't totally fly off the rails, seems pretty reasonable/conservative to say - US 28% growth - ROW 0% growth - 14-15% YOY unit growth overall, doesn't it Red?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2014 18:52:36 GMT -8
IDC is reporting Apple shipments declined for the Dec. qtr. 2013 compared to Dec. 2012. What the hell? Someone will have some "splainin' to do very soon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2014 18:54:37 GMT -8
IDC and Gartner can't both be right with U.S. shipments. Anyone able to qualify who's better?
|
|
|
Post by po1nt on Jan 9, 2014 18:56:58 GMT -8
Is it bothersome to any person here that they haven't filed an 8-k and yet we're all expecting them to knock the cover off the ball? Again, not that they have to but it would be playing within the new rules that THEY set. Everyone ok with that? I agree, IMO this is the main reason for the current sell off. no raised guidance -> no home run.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2014 18:59:07 GMT -8
The part in your previous post where you say "And there will be no point in doing more" seems to imply that the lower Apple's share price is at the end of the buyback, the less likely they are to do an additional buyback? I definitely think that runs counter to how Apple runs their company (being extremely diligent and patient). I think the lower Apple's share price is at the end of the buyback, the MORE likely it is they continue to buyback shares, not less. I've already conceded the long term aspect. However, you're stretching my point re: the short term. If, in fact, Apple's motivation was to buy back shares to improve share price (and to reduce dilution from employee stock compensation, etc.), and $60B doesn't do anything for the stock price (Apple's perception), then how could that not influence their motivation to do more. Making the case that buybacks reduces the dividend payout is a LONG term motivation. I'm not denying it. However, I think Apple is less inclined to keep spending their cash on a buyback if it's doing squat for the share price (e.g. the P/E continues to compress). One stated reason for the buyback was to reduce the dilution of the share count from stock option grants. The $60B does that and more. But when Apple announced the new 60B buyback on April 23rd, it was sitting at $408...it's now sitting around $540. So hasn't the buyback worked so far? Sure, it's not a 52 week high, but it's almost 30% higher than when the buyback was announced...certainly far from "doing squat for the share price".
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jan 9, 2014 18:59:09 GMT -8
No raised guidance >> _perception_ of no home run. But yeah, perception and sentiment are kinda running AAPL right now.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jan 9, 2014 19:01:19 GMT -8
IDC is reporting Apple shipments declined for the Dec. qtr. 2013 compared to Dec. 2012. What the hell? Someone will have some "splainin' to do very soon. They should have "press releases" from the past two years to refer to. Question is, does anyone want to put in the work...
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,189
|
Post by JDSoCal on Jan 9, 2014 19:06:02 GMT -8
It's the only one that even got close. Er, I think? No one knows how many S4 units actually sold. Meh, it's second place - "top rival" by default. (/sarcasm) In fairness, Steve Ballmer is Microsoft's second-best CEO evah.
|
|