Apple becomes most valuable firm of all time

Pudney said:
Growth and investment doesn't disprove holding the money is detrimental. It will be detrimental if spending the money would have meant that Apple were even bigger than they are now.
Click to expand...

That wouldn't prove anything on its own. You can expand to fast and you can spend to much money to grow a few percentage points, that undermines you in the long run.
 
Glaucus said:
They aren't withholding money to an extreme. Holding huge amounts of money does not mean they're holding on to it in the extreme. That would mean they are withholding money at the deter mental affect of the rest of the company. That is not happening. They are expanding, they are buying assets, they are spending loads of money. In no way are they holding into money to the deters mental affect of the company.
Click to expand...

They are holding back $110bn, how can that not be extreme?

I repeat, a company requires only the following cash equivalents:
a) working capital
b) planned capex

These two items include all your arguments about expanding and buying assets.

So, both (a)&(b) are much-much lower than what their cash reserves are. Since they are not announcing any major capex in the next few years, there is no need to hold on to the cash. If they had any major acquisition plans as you are alluding to, they would have discussed it. Companies of that stature and size do not operate in the dark nor do they leave their shareholders without such critical info. They would not need to specify what exactly they will do with it, but they could say that e.g. we are planning to spend $x bn in acquisitions over the next y years. That would make sense.

Btw, holding such amounts of equity IS detrimental to the company and its shareholders. Equity is typically more expensive than debt. So if they had some long-term plans they should probably return all the excess cash to shareholders and borrow money when it's time (Unilever issued bonds at under 1% coupons just recently!). Holding on to such cash is just plain illogical.

I'm not saying they should definitely invest it in something, but if they can't they must return it. The shareholders own the cash, they don't just own votes, they physically own a piece of that cash, each and every one of them. Also, it is the voters who vote the board in every year, so in effect they are approving/disapproving the direction of the company. Obviously they are not telling the CEO what to do, but they indicate their happiness (or lack of it) through their voting.

The problem apple is facing is that it's keeping almost all cash offshore, which means returning them may incur taxes (I think), thus acting as a disincentive at the moment. In sort, I'm not sure they have a good plan on what to do with it - maybe they are waiting for the government to give in the whole offshore fund taxing so that they can reintroduce it to the US. Who knows.
 
Capn' $qu!ff said:
Indeed ones that could do what you want better or even have abetter silver colour didn't think about those did you no just because it's an apple product it's that much cooler :rolleyes::p
Click to expand...

Nope. Why waste time endlessly over analysing. Live for the moment. Buy what you want for whatever reason you want. :p
 
They must return it. No they really don't.
You have no idea what their plans are, they wouldn't tell you for good reasons if they are aiming for big acquisitions. Every thing you say is simply nonsense.

And that voting, hasn't been for huge dividends. They dont have to do anything you say. There is no reason for them to pay it all back to shareholders, let alone MUST.
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
That wouldn't prove anything on its own. You can expand to fast and you can spend to much money to grow a few percentage points, that undermines you in the long run.
Click to expand...

And failure to spend money can also undermine you. I really don't see why that's hard to comprehend.

Aah well, at least Apple's board agreed with me that $100bn in cash reserves is too much.

Cook told the packed auditorium that Apple has invested billions in its supply chain, in its retail stores, on expanding its operations and on acquisitions. “We’ve actually spent a lot but we still have a lot,” he said. “And frankly speaking, that is more than we need to run the company.”
Click to expand...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieg...e-readying-products-that-will-blow-your-mind/

In fact that's why they have started the dividend, because retaining that level of cash is unneccessary. But feel free to consider the previous cash retention policy reasonable.
 
Apple board hasn't agreed with you at all. :confused:
He's actually said exactly what I've said.

They are investig but still have loads. They are giving dividends. But unlike you think there is no Must to give it all out in divedends.

How has anythin tou just posted support your view? It says exactly what I've been saying and goes against your assumption that they are withholding money from essential investment.

Failure to spend money can cause problems. But that's when you fail to spend it when needed. Again apple is not doing that they are spending. Again they are not withholding money to the extreme. They simply don't need to spend the money they have. That is a massive difference, to just not spending when needed.
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
Apple board hasn't agreed with you at all. :confused:
He's actually said exactly what I've said.

They are investig but still have loads. They are giving dividends. But unlike you think there is no Must to give it all out in divedends.

How has anythin tou just posted support your view? It says exactly what I've been saying and goes against your assumption that they are withholding money from essential investment.

Failure to spend money can cause problems. But that's when you fail to spend it when needed. Again apple is not doing that they are spending. Again they are not withholding money to the extreme. They simply don't need to spend the money they have. That is a massive difference, to just not spending when needed.
Click to expand...

Sweet Jesus at least bother reading mine and kgi's posts before replying.

Once you have read them, and actually read each part of it let me know and I'll consider replying again.

Just to give you a hint, we've both said companies should retain money for working capital and long term capital requirements before giving back to investors.
 
I have thanks anou comments do not match that off apples statement. Nore that of any comapny
It's you suing the words must, not me. There is no need to give it all or mostly away in diviedends, like you say must happen.
There is no need to heavily invest, they are allready doing that, what exact damage are they doing holding on to it? Oh wait nothing. As you assume they are withholding it whilst not spending it in essential areas.
 
Pudney said:
Then you have failed to understand what we've written.
Click to expand...

Not in the slightest.

You must give dividends. No you really don't.
Share holders own everything and in complete control. No they really don't, at least you corrected yourself on that latter on.

Where have I said anything which goes against the apple statement? I haven't. In fact it's supports exactly what I said. It does go against many of your points though about it should be invested.
 
Glaucus said:
And that voting, hasn't b en for huge div idennd s, so alpha inn. They. Do nt have to do anything you say. There is no reason for them to pay it all back to shareholders, let alone MuSt.
Click to expand...

Say what?

Normally I struggle through your posts as they are usually always littered with crazy typos and erroneous full-stops etc which make them hard to read but this one is beyond me :o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom