4 ms·

Actually a better way to think about it is that they are compensating their shareholders... That $77B that is now returned to shareholders can be spent on what

Actually a better way to think about it is that they are compensating their shareholders... That $77B that is now returned to shareholders can be spent on whatever those shareholders want. It isn't really Apple's money to begin with... kind of the issue with being a public company. Unless of course its shareholders would look at that investment as sound, which might be a stretch given Apple's lack of background in any of those fields (maybe carbon capture given they have a great understanding of their supply chain and could already be thinking of ways to reduce their energy impact)

lotsofpulp 5y ago
> That $77B that is now returned to shareholders can be spent on whatever those shareholders want. It isn't really Apple's money to begin with... kind of the issue with being a public company. Apple and its shareholders are the same entity when discussing “whose” money it is. If shareholders want it used to do buybacks, they vote for company leadership to do that. If they want dividends, they vote for company leadership to do that. If they want to invest in travel to Mars, they vote for leadership to do that. Saying Apple’s money belongs to shareholders is a meaningless statement. It belongs to the collection of shareholders as a whole, who have opted to elect in leaders to decide how to spend it.
- zeusk 5y ago
  Well. With such large firms, shareholders are quite a stretch of distribution. Voting proxies and the complexity of introducing a shareholder vote proposal quite drastically restricts the number of shareholders who can make stuff happen at these firms.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    That is how ownership in a public company works. The more you own, the more control you have. Before you purchase, you will know what percentage you will own and you have to predict if it will be enough to enable you to accomplish your goals. Or you have to make friends with other shareholders.
- megablast 5y ago
  > If shareholders want it used to do buybacks, they vote for company leadership to do that. Only if there is an option to do that.
SilasX 5y ago
>That $77B that is now returned to shareholders can be spent on whatever those shareholders want Well, 85% of the $77 billion, anyway.
Ottolay 5y ago
Why not use dividends then?

lotsofpulp 5y ago

> That $77B that is now returned to shareholders can be spent on whatever those shareholders want. It isn't really Apple's money to begin with... kind of the issue with being a public company. Apple and its shareholders are the same entity when discussing “whose” money it is. If shareholders want it used to do buybacks, they vote for company leadership to do that. If they want dividends, they vote for company leadership to do that. If they want to invest in travel to Mars, they vote for leadership to do that. Saying Apple’s money belongs to shareholders is a meaningless statement. It belongs to the collection of shareholders as a whole, who have opted to elect in leaders to decide how to spend it.

zeusk 5y ago
Well. With such large firms, shareholders are quite a stretch of distribution. Voting proxies and the complexity of introducing a shareholder vote proposal quite drastically restricts the number of shareholders who can make stuff happen at these firms.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  That is how ownership in a public company works. The more you own, the more control you have. Before you purchase, you will know what percentage you will own and you have to predict if it will be enough to enable you to accomplish your goals. Or you have to make friends with other shareholders.
megablast 5y ago
> If shareholders want it used to do buybacks, they vote for company leadership to do that. Only if there is an option to do that.

SilasX 5y ago

>That $77B that is now returned to shareholders can be spent on whatever those shareholders want Well, 85% of the $77 billion, anyway.

Ottolay 5y ago

Why not use dividends then?