4 ms·

Honestly the regulation and legal challenges are cakewalks for the 'Apple Apple' -- however, for the Apple that generates cashflows to service stock buyback deb

Honestly the regulation and legal challenges are cakewalks for the 'Apple Apple' -- however, for the Apple that generates cashflows to service stock buyback debt, you're correct, quite challenging. I like to think of this as Steve checking in with Tim's mother about how much he works -- i.e. Tim will arrive at the most 'correct' answer, but at a long term cost... these financial buy backs are technically brilliant, but how much organizational fatigue is created focusing on these initiatives? [Edit] To finish the thought: these buybacks create an organization that makes Apple+ and services their primary initiatives, rather than focusing on documentation, and focusing on the circle of life of their current offerings (killing some products in favor of focus in others, moving the personal computing industry into the next great creation generation).

klelatti 5y ago
Not sure I fully understand what you’re saying here but the buybacks are simple to execute. If actually argue they are brilliant by Tim Cook - if all that cash was still on the balance sheet they would end up using it on bad M&A etc. This way they stay focused.
- anonymouse008 5y ago
  > If actually argue they are brilliant by Tim Cook - if all that cash was still on the balance sheet they would end up using it on bad M&A etc. Dividends vs. Buybacks are two totally different types of financial engineering. The first accretes in a well-understood, and manageable way, while the second nebulously meddles in a multi-factor way, one by creating a float constraint (these shares are usually treasuried on the company balance sheet), and two a demand inflator through the company coffers entering the market chatter. Both dividends and buybacks are monsters that require regular feeding to keep tame; however, the buyback monster is arguably way more frightening if it becomes angry in the current hedge (option) everything world, compounded by reducing float. That's just the first decision. The second decision to fund (and accelerate) the buyback process through debt is again financially brilliant, but at the levels Apple used to finance the buybacks (and has continued the process) - is confusing to a long term strategy. What's the plan? How does hitting the debt-buyback wheel affect one's demeanor? Just keep securizsiting on the cash cows? When picking New Product A with 2 year useful life, one time revenue injection vs. a monthly fee service that is probably already tackled by our users (developers) quite well, which do we bias towards? What about finally loving up on PWAs? What happens when people look at our 2.5trn market cap, fueled in a large way by these buybacks, and think why not spread that wealth around? It invites every armchair quarterback (hello, mirror) to tell you how to run the company's very visible success... it's operationally brilliant, but not all that aware of the next generation of customers and leaders. If this sounds interesting, I'll fully flesh out a longer form explanation at some point. Tying this back to the point, the anti-trust cases are the most important decision we will make as a species for the next 100 years. To my novice mind, these are simply avoided (and corrected) by understanding the current motivations of Apple and what should really change... i.e. 'why do we really need to do these buybacks? Is this really the best stewardship to our long term business success (helping people make the best stuff, period.)?' The upcoming regulatory challenges will directly tell the solution makers, most of us on HN, how and where to participate, and if we must reinvent the wheel because the first one lost its way a bit and became too golden, that's a sad loss.
concinds 5y ago
Apple buys their own shares back because they believe they’re undervalued, fundamentally. So it's a bargain. There's also only so many profitable R&D projects they can invest in, and the rest of the money can be better allocated by the market. This is all finance 101 that Tim Cook is familiar with. Stock buybacks are a stupid idea for airlines (high fixed costs, heavily economy-dependent cash flow), but a fantastic idea for Apple.
- klelatti 5y ago
  That’s not quite right - they don’t have to believe that they’re undervalued rather that they are at least fairly valued. Share buybacks aren’t a stupid idea for Airlines either. If they have too much cash on the balance sheet better to return cash to shareholders as a one off in a tax efficient way rather than pay a regular dividend that they have to cut when the economy turns down.
  - concinds 5y ago
    > Share buybacks aren’t a stupid idea for Airlines either. If they have too much cash on the balance sheet better to return cash to shareholders as a one off in a tax efficient way rather than pay a regular dividend that they have to cut when the economy turns down. That's what they thought, and what they did, and then they needed a bailout. Companies that don't save for a rainy day deserve to be wiped out.
    - anonymouse008 5y ago
      This exactly

klelatti 5y ago

Not sure I fully understand what you’re saying here but the buybacks are simple to execute. If actually argue they are brilliant by Tim Cook - if all that cash was still on the balance sheet they would end up using it on bad M&A etc. This way they stay focused.

anonymouse008 5y ago
> If actually argue they are brilliant by Tim Cook - if all that cash was still on the balance sheet they would end up using it on bad M&A etc. Dividends vs. Buybacks are two totally different types of financial engineering. The first accretes in a well-understood, and manageable way, while the second nebulously meddles in a multi-factor way, one by creating a float constraint (these shares are usually treasuried on the company balance sheet), and two a demand inflator through the company coffers entering the market chatter. Both dividends and buybacks are monsters that require regular feeding to keep tame; however, the buyback monster is arguably way more frightening if it becomes angry in the current hedge (option) everything world, compounded by reducing float. That's just the first decision. The second decision to fund (and accelerate) the buyback process through debt is again financially brilliant, but at the levels Apple used to finance the buybacks (and has continued the process) - is confusing to a long term strategy. What's the plan? How does hitting the debt-buyback wheel affect one's demeanor? Just keep securizsiting on the cash cows? When picking New Product A with 2 year useful life, one time revenue injection vs. a monthly fee service that is probably already tackled by our users (developers) quite well, which do we bias towards? What about finally loving up on PWAs? What happens when people look at our 2.5trn market cap, fueled in a large way by these buybacks, and think why not spread that wealth around? It invites every armchair quarterback (hello, mirror) to tell you how to run the company's very visible success... it's operationally brilliant, but not all that aware of the next generation of customers and leaders. If this sounds interesting, I'll fully flesh out a longer form explanation at some point. Tying this back to the point, the anti-trust cases are the most important decision we will make as a species for the next 100 years. To my novice mind, these are simply avoided (and corrected) by understanding the current motivations of Apple and what should really change... i.e. 'why do we really need to do these buybacks? Is this really the best stewardship to our long term business success (helping people make the best stuff, period.)?' The upcoming regulatory challenges will directly tell the solution makers, most of us on HN, how and where to participate, and if we must reinvent the wheel because the first one lost its way a bit and became too golden, that's a sad loss.

concinds 5y ago

Apple buys their own shares back because they believe they’re undervalued, fundamentally. So it's a bargain. There's also only so many profitable R&D projects they can invest in, and the rest of the money can be better allocated by the market. This is all finance 101 that Tim Cook is familiar with. Stock buybacks are a stupid idea for airlines (high fixed costs, heavily economy-dependent cash flow), but a fantastic idea for Apple.

klelatti 5y ago
That’s not quite right - they don’t have to believe that they’re undervalued rather that they are at least fairly valued. Share buybacks aren’t a stupid idea for Airlines either. If they have too much cash on the balance sheet better to return cash to shareholders as a one off in a tax efficient way rather than pay a regular dividend that they have to cut when the economy turns down.
- concinds 5y ago
  > Share buybacks aren’t a stupid idea for Airlines either. If they have too much cash on the balance sheet better to return cash to shareholders as a one off in a tax efficient way rather than pay a regular dividend that they have to cut when the economy turns down. That's what they thought, and what they did, and then they needed a bailout. Companies that don't save for a rainy day deserve to be wiped out.
  - anonymouse008 5y ago
    This exactly