The biggest Apple rumour in 10 years

[dirt_farmer]

The biggest Apple rumour in 10 years and not a word on it from Macrumors.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...-mulls-400bn-payout-to-shareholders-73nsx353w

Apple is considering literally paying shareholders cash bribes to please keep the stock price high.

This would be the most incredible pivot in Apple's strategy since Steve became interim CEO in 1997.

Rather than using their resources to invent world-changing paradigms while ignoring the share price, (Steve was never shy to tell investors he didn't care about the share price,) Apple is now using its' resources to directly fund keeping the stock price high while leaving the big innovation to other companies.

How is it possible that this isn't on the front page in giant red letters?

 

[TiggrToo]

The biggest Apple rumour in 10 years and not a word on it from Macrumors.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...-mulls-400bn-payout-to-shareholders-73nsx353w

Apple is considering literally paying shareholders cash bribes to please keep the stock price high.

This would be the most incredible pivot in Apple's strategy since Steve became interim CEO in 1997.

Rather than using their resources to invent world-changing paradigms while ignoring the share price, (Steve was never shy to tell investors he didn't care about the share price,) Apple is now using its' resources to directly fund keeping the stock price high while leaving the big innovation to other companies.

How is it possible that this isn't on the front page in giant red letters?

I thought they first muted this way back in February after an earnings call and it was a strategic move as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

 

[dirt_farmer]

I thought they first muted this way back in February after an earnings call and it was a strategic move as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

Yeah it would be strategic alright.

The conflict of interest is incredible: Tim and the other executives are compensated with stock.

And they can potentially vote to spend a fraction of a trillion dollars on an initiative that will produce zero innovation, zero sales, and zero competitiveness, but cause the stock price to go to the moon.

 

[TiggrToo]

Yeah it would be strategic alright.

The conflict of interest is incredible: Tim and the other executives are compensated with stock.

And they can potentially vote to spend a fraction of a trillion dollars on an initiative that will produce zero innovation, zero sales, and zero competitiveness, but cause the stock price to go to the moon despite flagging sales in every area of the business.

And, your point is...?

Apple can do what the heck they want; I didn't buy my Apple kit with the impression that Apple were somehow an altruistic company sent from heaven to fix the world. Nope, I knew they had more money than god stuffed away in multiple tax havens and they charged a huge markup on everything the sell.

If the result is the company falls apart and produces terrible stuff that no-one wants then so be it - not our job to tell them what to do.

 

[chabig]

Yeah it would be strategic alright.

The conflict of interest is incredible: Tim and the other executives are compensated with stock.

And they can potentially vote to spend a fraction of a trillion dollars on an initiative that will produce zero innovation, zero sales, and zero competitiveness, but cause the stock price to go to the moon.

You’ve got it backwards. When a dividend is paid, the price of the stock is reduced by the amount of the dividend.

 

[dirt_farmer]

And, your point is...?

Apple can do what the heck they want; I didn't buy my Apple kit with the impression that Apple were somehow an altruistic company sent from heaven to fix the world. Nope, I knew they had more money than god stuffed away in multiple tax havens and they charged a huge markup on everything the sell.

If the result is the company falls apart and produces terrible stuff that no-one wants then so be it - not our job to tell them what to do.

Not my job to tell them what to do as I am no longer a shareholder.

It's just that using their cash to juice the stock price is the exact opposite of using their cash to invent amazing products.

It potentially signifies that the company has done a 180 degree reversal on it's core values and corporate strategy.

Which is pretty significant when you consider that Apple is one of the most important, valuable, and influential corporations in the history of the world.
[doublepost=1525114215][/doublepost]

You’ve got it backwards. When a dividend is paid, the price of the stock is reduced by the amount of the dividend.

That is not even remotely true.

The share price is set by the markets, not by Apple.

Apple paying dividends would cause the shares to be in more demand and therefore more valuable to the market.

Maybe you are thinking of equity?

 

[mazzeri]

.

 

[C DM]

Looks like MR's article and discussion about this kind of thing is here: Apple Announces $100 Billion Share Repurchase Program