Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #58818 > unrolled thread

Apple (AAPL) stock split

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Apple (AAPL) stock split Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-23 20:15 -0400
    Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-23 21:55 -0400
      Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-25 15:57 -0400
      Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-26 09:51 -0400
        Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-26 20:16 -0400
          Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-26 20:54 -0400
            Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-26 21:55 -0400
              Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 10:53 -0400
                Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-27 16:37 -0400
                  Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-27 16:42 -0400
                  Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 16:54 -0400
                    Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split bknight@conramp.net - 2014-04-27 16:07 -0500
                      Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 17:15 -0400
                        Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-28 02:40 -0400
                          Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-28 16:42 -0400
                            Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-28 17:03 -0400
                              Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2014-04-29 19:17 -0400
                      Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-29 08:15 -0500
    Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-23 22:36 -0400
      Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-23 22:59 -0400
        Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-04-23 21:24 -0700
        Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-04-24 16:54 +0000
          Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-24 18:00 -0400
            Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-04-24 23:18 +0000
            Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-04-24 18:41 -0700
              Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-24 22:10 -0400
                Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-04-24 20:50 -0700
                  Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-25 00:35 -0400
                    Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-04-24 23:23 -0700
                      Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-25 05:04 -0400
                      Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split android <here@there.was> - 2014-04-25 11:26 +0200
                        Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-25 06:05 -0400
                    Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split xfile <nospam@nospam.com> - 2014-04-26 09:55 +0800
            Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-04-25 08:13 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#58818 — Apple (AAPL) stock split

I guess while on the one hand buying back stock, on the other they want 
to re-invigorate trading.

Apple will split the stock 7:1 in June.  Based on today's price, that 
would get it into the $75 region.  AFAICT they will remain the same 
class so you'll get 6 new shares for each one you own.

This will test the ceiling theory of stock prices.  (When in $500+ 
territory there is a reluctance to buy on the part of small buyers...)

(Note Google did a 2:1 recently - but created a new share class at the 
same time in a bid to retain Page/Brin control... nasty buggers).

Class A:  1 vote/sh
Class B: 10 votes/sh (a lot of these are Sergey/Larry owned).
Class C:  0 voter/sh.

You would keep your class A's and be issued the same number of class 
C's.  So your value remains par, but your voting power is cut.

-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#58822

On 14-04-23 20:15, Alan Browne wrote:

> You would keep your class A's and be issued the same number of class 
> C's.  So your value remains par, but your voting power is cut.

In the Google split, your voting power remained the same.  For one
original voting share, you get one voting share and one non-voting one.
As no new voting shares were issued, your ration of votes versus total
votes remains the same. (this was the goal of the operation).

Note that the non voting shares are now worth less than voting ones, so
the splits has resulted in a loss of value.

It should be noted that Google keeps issuing shares, so vote dilution
was a problem.

In the case of Apple, they are buying back stock, likely at a pace
faster than they are issuing it, so I would suspsect voting power is
increasing, so there is no need to start issuing non-voting shares.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58894

On 2014.04.23, 21:55 , JF Mezei wrote:
> On 14-04-23 20:15, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> You would keep your class A's and be issued the same number of class
>> C's.  So your value remains par, but your voting power is cut.
>
> In the Google split, your voting power remained the same.  For one
> original voting share, you get one voting share and one non-voting one.
> As no new voting shares were issued, your ration of votes versus total
> votes remains the same. (this was the goal of the operation).

The goal of the operation was for Sergey and Larry to not have their 
power diluted as more shares were issued.  It was not a simple stock 
split to merely cut the price and increase trading - but a new class 
added that does not have voting power.

Apple's split does not do this.

-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58911

On 2014.04.23, 21:55 , JF Mezei wrote:
> On 14-04-23 20:15, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> You would keep your class A's and be issued the same number of class
>> C's.  So your value remains par, but your voting power is cut.
>
> In the Google split,

You really have no clue.


-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58932

On 14-04-26 09:51, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2014.04.23, 21:55 , JF Mezei wrote:
>> On 14-04-23 20:15, Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>> You would keep your class A's and be issued the same number of class
>>> C's.  So your value remains par, but your voting power is cut.
>>
>> In the Google split,
> 
> You really have no clue.

Actually I do. For the Google split, the total number of voting shares
did not change. Existing shareholders (including Sergey/Larry) retained
the same number of voting shares as they did before the split, so while
dilution happened for equity, it did not happen for voting.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58934

On 2014.04.26, 20:16 , JF Mezei wrote:
> On 14-04-26 09:51, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2014.04.23, 21:55 , JF Mezei wrote:
>>> On 14-04-23 20:15, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>>> You would keep your class A's and be issued the same number of class
>>>> C's.  So your value remains par, but your voting power is cut.
>>>
>>> In the Google split,
>>
>> You really have no clue.
>
> Actually I do. For the Google split, the total number of voting shares
> did not change. Existing shareholders (including Sergey/Larry) retained
> the same number of voting shares as they did before the split, so while
> dilution happened for equity, it did not happen for voting.

Like I said.


-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58936

On 14-04-26 20:54, Alan Browne wrote:

>> Actually I do. For the Google split, the total number of voting shares
>> did not change. Existing shareholders (including Sergey/Larry) retained
>> the same number of voting shares as they did before the split, so while
>> dilution happened for equity, it did not happen for voting.
> 
> Like I said.


So, if i have no clue as you accume me, please enlighten me on what is
wrong with the above. As I am now owner of both the GOOG and GOOGL
shares, if I understood wrong what Google wrote to shareholders, I would
certainly like to know.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58941

On 2014.04.26, 21:55 , JF Mezei wrote:
> On 14-04-26 20:54, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> Actually I do. For the Google split, the total number of voting shares
>>> did not change. Existing shareholders (including Sergey/Larry) retained
>>> the same number of voting shares as they did before the split, so while
>>> dilution happened for equity, it did not happen for voting.
>>
>> Like I said.
>
>
> So, if i have no clue as you accume me, please enlighten me on what is
> wrong with the above. As I am now owner of both the GOOG and GOOGL
> shares, if I understood wrong what Google wrote to shareholders, I would
> certainly like to know.

Just do some research - it will be clear enough.


-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58950

On 14-04-27 10:53, Alan Browne wrote:

> Just do some research - it will be clear enough.
> 


So you are accusing me of being clueless, and you are unable to provide
a single correction to my statement on the Google stock split.

I did some research as I own some GOOG (and now also GOOGL) and of
course wanted to know what the implications were. And if you are unable
to point me to where my research was in error, how can I knew where I
allegedly erred ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58951

BTW, Mashable has article on Apple TV and its place within Apple.

Apple TV: The Little Hobby that Wouldn't Die.
http://mashable.com/2014/04/24/apple-tv-hobby/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58952

On 2014.04.27, 16:37 , JF Mezei wrote:
> On 14-04-27 10:53, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Just do some research - it will be clear enough.
>>
>
>
> So you are accusing me of being clueless, and you are unable to provide
> a single correction to my statement on the Google stock split.
>
> I did some research as I own some GOOG (and now also GOOGL) and of
> course wanted to know what the implications were. And if you are unable
> to point me to where my research was in error, how can I knew where I
> allegedly erred ?

If you did any real research, it would be as clear as spring water.

-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58954

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 16:54:52 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>On 2014.04.27, 16:37 , JF Mezei wrote:
>> On 14-04-27 10:53, Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>> Just do some research - it will be clear enough.
>>>
>>
>>
>> So you are accusing me of being clueless, and you are unable to provide
>> a single correction to my statement on the Google stock split.
>>
>> I did some research as I own some GOOG (and now also GOOGL) and of
>> course wanted to know what the implications were. And if you are unable
>> to point me to where my research was in error, how can I knew where I
>> allegedly erred ?
>
>If you did any real research, it would be as clear as spring water.

  Generally when this kind of response is given it means that one
doesn't have the answer.

If it was that clear why in hell don't you just tell us?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58955

On 2014.04.27, 17:07 , bknight@conramp.net wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 16:54:52 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2014.04.27, 16:37 , JF Mezei wrote:
>>> On 14-04-27 10:53, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just do some research - it will be clear enough.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So you are accusing me of being clueless, and you are unable to provide
>>> a single correction to my statement on the Google stock split.
>>>
>>> I did some research as I own some GOOG (and now also GOOGL) and of
>>> course wanted to know what the implications were. And if you are unable
>>> to point me to where my research was in error, how can I knew where I
>>> allegedly erred ?
>>
>> If you did any real research, it would be as clear as spring water.
>
>    Generally when this kind of response is given it means that one
> doesn't have the answer.
>
> If it was that clear why in hell don't you just tell us?

I explained the main point of the C class issuance (against A shares) 
which was not (like Apple's split) merely to make shares more 
accessible, but to avoid diluting Sergey/Larry's majority voting status 
with their B shares.  With that Mezei can go find out the truth of the 
matter.

-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58982

On 14-04-27 17:15, Alan Browne wrote:

> I explained the main point of the C class issuance (against A shares) 
> which was not (like Apple's split) merely to make shares more 
> accessible, but to avoid diluting Sergey/Larry's majority voting status 
> with their B shares.  With that Mezei can go find out the truth of the 
> matter.

Pray tell how my statement was "clueless". You isult me, yet we both
seem to  say the same thing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58991

On 2014.04.28, 02:40 , JF Mezei wrote:
> On 14-04-27 17:15, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> I explained the main point of the C class issuance (against A shares)
>> which was not (like Apple's split) merely to make shares more
>> accessible, but to avoid diluting Sergey/Larry's majority voting status
>> with their B shares.  With that Mezei can go find out the truth of the
>> matter.
>
> Pray tell how my statement was "clueless". You isult me, yet we both
> seem to  say the same thing.

1) I am not saying the same thing - you don't see how this class C
    issuance is a rig for Larry/Sergey's maintenance of power.
2) Simple math/logic should show you what is really going on.
3) I didn't say you were "clueless" - I said you don't have a clue.
    I was wrong about that.  You have all the clues - you're
    just not using them.


-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58992

On 14-04-28 16:42, Alan Browne wrote:

> 1) I am not saying the same thing - you don't see how this class C
>     issuance is a rig for Larry/Sergey's maintenance of power.

And you still maintain I am clueless when stating that the recent stock
split did not dilute voting power for all of existing shareholders, not
just Larry/Sergey ?


It is interesting that the voting shares have consistently traded at
higher value than the new non voting ones.



BTW, back to AAPL, it is interesting that they are going to borrow money
again to issue dividend since their US cash reserves are not very high.
And their irish piggy bank is bursting more than ever with over 130
billion bucks.

So despite Apple's plan to distribute $130 billion in value (dividend
and share buyback) to customers, its piggy bank is still growing.

I suspect Apple will, at one point, go to the US govt and threathen to
move its official HQ to Ireland if the USA doesn't make it possible to
import money back into the USA without being taxed to the hilt.

If Apple were to import say $30 billion and distribute it to
shareholders as dividends, should Apple pay tax to the USA govt
considering that shareholders will be paying tax on that dividend ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59020

In article <535ec235$0$10778$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> If Apple were to import say $30 billion and distribute it to
> shareholders as dividends, should Apple pay tax to the USA govt
> considering that shareholders will be paying tax on that dividend ?

Yes, because that's what the Internal Revenue Code requires.

-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
GOP delenda est!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59010

On 4/27/14 4:07 PM, in article kasql9t5bg1t327qiheu2anug6trdbbco0@4ax.com,
"bknight@conramp.net" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 16:54:52 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> 
>> On 2014.04.27, 16:37 , JF Mezei wrote:
>>> On 14-04-27 10:53, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Just do some research - it will be clear enough.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So you are accusing me of being clueless, and you are unable to provide
>>> a single correction to my statement on the Google stock split.
>>> 
>>> I did some research as I own some GOOG (and now also GOOGL) and of
>>> course wanted to know what the implications were. And if you are unable
>>> to point me to where my research was in error, how can I knew where I
>>> allegedly erred ?
>> 
>> If you did any real research, it would be as clear as spring water.
> 
>   Generally when this kind of response is given it means that one
> doesn't have the answer.
> 
> If it was that clear why in hell don't you just tell us?

You don't really know Brownie do you? He is the king of ambiguity and is
ALWAYS right - in his own mind, that is...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58827

Of interest in the Wall Street Casino Analyst teleconference:

Tim Cook mentioned a number of times the phenomenal success of the 4s in
developing countries and China. No mention of the 5c.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58828

Apple TV no longer "hobby".

Sales of over $1 billion are not considered a "hobby".

Apple continues to invest to make it better. (aka: admission that no
"revolution" is coming to Apple TV, it will be incremental).

In USA, Apple now supports HBO-Go app on Apple TV (authenticated access,
authenticates against your cable TV company, only those subscribed to
HBO on their TV can access HBO-GO via internet)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web