|
nebby posted:edit: buyback program is doubled. this will be the lede in the financial press I bet (along with "met expectations") and the stock will pop since now Cook's back has broke wrt returning capital to investors. Einhorn got a bit of a victory. It makes me nervous that this could mean one of two things: caving to investor pressure, or they don't know what else to do with the money. Either not good. Hopefully Tim clarifies on the call. We've known they don't have anything to do with that money for a long time, and honestly I thought they did have plan for that money it would scare me shitless. A 50 to 150 billion acquisition would be like burning money while bogging management down in a complex merger. Its not a bad thing that they don't have a project that costs 100 billion, R&D for smart phones is just not that expensive. Also the stock is cheap as gently caress so if they think they can maintain this income for a bit they should be buying at this level. If they did throw billions into R&D they would end up with microsoft type R&D where they burn money working on projects that go nowhere. They have plenty of money to research anything they want, give the extra back to the shareholders. If I gave microsoft 10 billion dollars no strings attached you think they would make a better operating system or they would go and buy another Skype? If I gave them 30 billion would their OS be a lot better next year? Probably not the development and improvement of Windows isn't really limited by their capital same with iOS.
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:03 |
|
|
Buyback means nothing to share price, it only artificially boosts EPS. The fact that they are burning cash on financial gimmicks tells you they have nothing better to do with it and it has otherwise served no strategic purpose. It also met analyst expectations which were expecting numbers to justify the current valuation. I still think those of you who are expecting the price to go up to $600 again are going to be disappointed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
nebby posted:Yeah this makes sense. Also it is a pretty bullish sign if you interpret to mean that Apple itself thinks its stock is underpriced.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:What the hell happened?! Last I saw it was up to 426 :/ He also said Apple has a new product line in the pipe, no time disclosed obviously.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:Buyback means nothing to share price, it only artificially boosts EPS. The fact that they are burning cash on financial gimmicks tells you they have nothing better to do with it and it has otherwise served no strategic purpose. Having 150 billion earning 2% in Tbills tells you they have nothing better to do with it. The buybacks of Cisco in the early 2000s and NFLX were gimmicks this is not. To a longer term investor its exactly what I want. I own the stock and therefore feel it is a good investment, they have too much cash so why not use it to increase my share of the company. If they were to pay it in a dividend I would buy more AAPL with it but pay taxes so this is better as long as the stock is reasonably valued. Had they poured 50 billion into in in 2010-2012 my share of the earnings would be much much higher but instead they got 2% interest. IBM has been doing well over the past 5 years because of strategic buybacks at low stock prices, their total income hasn't risen that much but each shareholder has a larger % of it. They bought back 41 billion over the past 5 years. Bigntasty fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Apr 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
If they poured $50bn in 2012 the shareholders would have gotten screwed since they would have paid almost double the price per share. I mean if you feel that earnings will pick up significantly in the long term then a buyback is beneficial to your investment goals. However, don't make the mistake in thinking this buyback will somehow inherently boost share price. That is all I am saying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:If they poured $50bn in 2012 the shareholders would have gotten screwed since they would have paid almost double the price per share. Yeah if they poured it all in at the top lol. I think it would be a good use of money even if their income stays flat at this price level.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
Hi stock thread, I have a couple of questions I'm hoping you guys can help me out with. First: I bought a small number of shares in a small company many years ago. That company went bust. I still have 20 shares of it in my TDAmeritrade account. At some point it seems like I ought to close that position so I can realize the loss on my taxes. But, it seems dumb to pay a $10 fee (or whatever it is these days) to sell 20 shares of a stock worth 0.0001/share or whatever. Is there a clear way to just close a position for a worthless stock for free? Second: I'm considering a small position (maybe a hundred bucks) in a stock that trades on the TSX Venture Exchange (in Canada). TDAmeritrade lets me buy it apparently, but lists it as a "grey market" stock. I don't really understand how this works. Is there added risk (on top of the inherent risk of the company/security) from buying a stock this way, rather than having some kind of brokerage access directly to the Canadian exchange? Thanks in advance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
The market treats AAPL like a baseball dad treats his son. In contrast, look at the royal reception NFLX had to its earnings the other day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 00:44
|
|
|
Your first profit is a very proud moment for a dad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Hi stock thread, I have a couple of questions I'm hoping you guys can help me out with. This may help on the first question. On the second, its tough to tell without a ticker but its possible it'd be less liquid than if it were listed on a larger exchange. Its $100 though, so who cares.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
Apple looks incredibly tempting on every fundamental level, but I'm still scared to buy in with next quarter's guidance because the market expects miracles or something. If it's still $400 or less after next quarter's results I'm in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
R.A. Dickey posted:This may help on the first question. Hmm. OK, so, I bought 100 shares of ROBV on feb 6, 2002 $1.14/share. ROBV was subsequently de-listed from NASDAQ and became ROBVE. At some point, it had a reverse stock split 5/1 (so that's why I now only have 20 shares), and even later it became RVSI, went bankrupt, and became RVSIQ. Ameritrade lists it as having no value, so I assume that means it's worthless. But, when exactly did it become worthless? I'm... not entirely sure. Some time in/after 2004, I think. Ameritrade can't seem to give me anything about the basis, probably due to age and/or the large number of symbol changes. Based on my reading of your link, it may be too late for me to claim a loss. It's only $114, of course, so I'm only willing to jump through maybe one or two modest-sized hoops to get a $114 write-off on my taxes. If it's going to be any more work than that, gently caress it. Regardless, anyone know how to get TDAmeritrade to make it disappear off my portfolio forever? quote:On the second, its tough to tell without a ticker but its possible it'd be less liquid than if it were listed on a larger exchange. Its $100 though, so who cares. Should I give the ticker? I don't want to be accused of pumping a penny stock, I gathered from the OP that we're not supposed to name these things here. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Apr 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
LLCoolJD posted:The market treats AAPL like a baseball dad treats his son. In contrast, look at the royal reception NFLX had to its earnings the other day. Netflix is growing like gangbusters, is a prime acquisition target, and has a market cap of $12b. Pretty much the exact opposite of Apple which has slowing growth, can't find acquisition targets with its money, and has a market cap of $400b.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
Netflix is NOT an acquisition target. AAPL's QOE is so much better. They are at different stages. Smartphone market is entering maturity and is becoming a replacement driven business. Can we please get over it? Netflix trades off of subscriber growth, eventually their multiple will crash like a Ponzi scheme.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 03:56
|
|
|
Anyone have any more recent after hours numbers for aapl? Google's cut off at 8. And if recent history were to be repeated...NFLX would buy ABC, not the other way around. edit: ah, google. http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/aapl/after-hours-chart Down to 398. Sink, bitch! pr0k fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Apr 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
Cool I was right about them tapping the debt market. Apple's making the right moves on capital allocation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 06:26
|
|
|
cremnob posted:Cool I was right about them tapping the debt market. Apple's making the right moves on capital allocation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 07:13
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Should I give the ticker? I don't want to be accused of pumping a penny stock, I gathered from the OP that we're not supposed to name these things here. Totally fine to give tickers. Look at all of us talking about AAPL. It's only not okay to say "hey guys I think you should all buy latest and greatest stock XYZ, tell all your friends."
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 13:15
|
|
|
Well I got my rear end handed to me on that one. For future reference, when I *think* someone is reporting before the open...make goddamn sure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 14:36
|
|
|
pr0k posted:And if recent history were to be repeated...NFLX would buy ABC, not the other way around. What does NetFlix need with a network? It's not likely that Disney would be selling either, so it's way more likely that Disney or NewsCorp would acquire them, since neither has a decent streaming platform outside of Hulu, and they know it's a competitive vulnerability to Universal and Sony.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
Dunno, I was just thinking about AOL buying time-warner.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
I liked this thought from Felix salmon:quote:But conservative investors, who like slow-growing stocks with high dividends, are constitutionally uncomfortable with the volatility inherent in the tech world. And technology investors, who are happy taking that kind of risk, want to see substantial growth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
And its over...closed out of the last three(of 14) positions I opened doing some balance sheet analysis back in Oct. 2012. In simulator I made 21.6% but really only because I went big on OMX at ~7.75 and out at 10. More realistically I would see ~11%, which isn't that bad, SPY made 8.5% in that time. Good thing is most the stocks my algo picked up were under $10 so there was flexibility. Problem is figuring out when to pull out(I have targets but how long do I sit on my hands and wait?) Either way, I'm glad I scanned through security analysis and I think everyone can benefit from the chapters on a companys finances. Keeps the idle hands from looking for the next big thing each earnings quarter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
alnilam posted:Totally fine to give tickers. Look at all of us talking about AAPL. Alright. Well, I'm looking at Epicore BioNetworks. I like their prospectus, I like their products and what they do and their potential for growth (I think aquaculture in particular is a long-term growth industry), and their share price is attractive for a micro-position. The symbol is EPCBF. I found this stock through the following screening: Sector, Industry & Sub-Industry Biotechnology Revenue Growth/Loss (Last 3 Years) Growth ≥ 1.00% EPS Growth (Last 5 Years) ≥ 1.00% P/E Ratio (TTM) 0-20 That screen gives just four results. I was looking for small biotech with actual selling products and revenue growth; EPS growth and a positive P/E suggests it's not one of those pie-in-the-sky biotech hopefuls that runs at a loss trying to get to stage III trials with their heartbreaker miracle drug. Those things sometimes pay out and mostly don't, in my experience, so I've decided to focus more on microcaps that are demonstratively viable but have strong potential for growth or acquisition. But I've never bought a stock that wasn't traded on one of the major US exchanges before, and I don't know if I should know something in particular before doing so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
pr0k posted:Dunno, I was just thinking about AOL buying time-warner. This stuff interests me to no end, so forgive the needless informative reply; The AOL Time-Warner merger was about AOL being able to syndicate Time-Warner's publishing content as well as an attempt to break into broadband (they also bought up a few DSL and satellite providers). For the time being, NetFlix is a distribution platform, not a content source. Basically, right now the major media conglomerates are trying to complete their integration puzzles. This means movement towards co-ownership of content and distribution (and ultimately the pipes, but that's a different conversation). So looking at ABC-Disney, for example: Content: 1) Major film studio (e.g. Walt Disney Pictures) 2) Minor/Niche film studio(s) (e.g. Pixar) 3) Television studio (e.g. Touchstone Television, ABC Studios) Distribution: 1) Terrestrial broadcast (e.g. ABC) 2) Cable distribution (e.g. The Disney Channel, ABC Family, etc) 3) Web/On-Demand streaming distribution (e.g. ABC.com, Hulu) Some studios are still playing catch-up on this strategy. Newscorp, for example, doesn't have a web streaming platform outside of Hulu. Compare that to Sony, which has Crackle, but no broadcast network in the US. So there's a pretty short list of companies that are on the prowl for their missing pieces, either through internal development or acquisition. They can keep trying to build their own web-streaming platforms, but somewhere in their strategic planning department they've run the numbers on acquiring one, they're just waiting for them to go on sale. So in my estimation, Netflix is an acquisition target for: Newscorp Viacom Disney TimeWarner I think the smart money is on Disney, given how cozy they've been getting, e.g. they inked a deal which will give Netflix the exclusive streaming rights for all of Disney's content (Disney, Walt Disney Animation Studios, Pixar Animation Studios, Marvel Studios, Disneynature films, and LucasFilms). Which is huge, $300 million per year deal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
I wonder if it'd matter to Disney that Netflix's revenue model is different from some of the ones you mentioned. That is, most(?) of the other online content streaming models give away the content for free or nearly-free but make money on advertising, including unskippable commercials during stream-only programs that you cannot (or aren't supposed to be able to) download. The TV networks that let you watch their shows on their websites pretty much have to do it this way, because it's how they sell their shows in the first place. I guess HBO Go is one exception; you pay a subscription for HBO, you can also stream their shows commercial-free and uninterrupted. I think iTunes lets you buy content a la carte, and watch commercial free, but you don't pay a subscription? Netflix makes its money on subscriptions, and lets you watch programs uninterrupted, similar to HBO Go, but has a much larger catalog of content. I think the revenue model does matter, because of the way TV networks acquire and pay for shows.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I wonder if it'd matter to Disney that Netflix's revenue model is different from some of the ones you mentioned. Well, HBO doesn't do commercials because HBO has never done commercials. I'm not sure if they even have an ad sales department. Broadcast TV and radio have ads because they can't discriminate between paying customers and non-paying customers (well, unless you're the BBC and you have the resources of the government available to send out roving detector vans to root out households that didn't pay the licensing fee). When you think about it, there's no good reason for why there are commercials on any cable channel. Like, at all. Except of course for companies that want to have their cake and eat it too or, less cynically, to lower the price of access to customers. I also don't think that Disney needs to be too worried about changing their revenue model for web, or even changing Netflix's revenue model. Remember, they're a major partner in Hulu, and they successfully navigated the change to the premium model there. It's also totally plausible to someday see "This Netflix Streaming Presentation is Brought to you With Limited Commercial Interruption by Carnival Cruises" bam thwok fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Apr 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
Is Hulu considered a success? I thought it was a massive failure that they're desparately trying to unload.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
I think most cable networks rely pretty heavily on their advertising revenue in addition to the affiliate fees they charge operators. I can't imagine they'd be able to drop advertising and recoup that money in increased affiliate fees. The operators would just drop them with the possible exception of a few select networks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
Yeah the Hallmark Channel and the Lifetime channel and HDN so on can't charge very much to carriers, because the number of customers who'd call up Viacom or ATT or Comcast and upgrade to a premium package to get those specific channels are miniscule. They have to be very cheap and that means they have to have commercials. It's less excusable for channels like Comedy Central or Nickolodian, because they have much higher demand and viewership. But ultimately it's down to "they run commercials because they can, and it's unlikely they'd make more money by not doing so". I love comedy central but I doubt many people would pay $16/month extra just to get it, like they do for HBO or a sports package or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
Hey, where is that forex guy? Did he die yet?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
Harry posted:Is Hulu considered a success? I thought it was a massive failure that they're desparately trying to unload. I think they want to unload not because it's a failure, but because a JV between three of the big media companies was never going to work when each was individually conspiring to undermine the others. NBC Universal built their XFinity app side by side with their stake Hulu. And if you're a Comcast subscriber, you may have noticed that on-demand has gotten pretty good lately (as in no more 4-week lag for new episodes of shows to appear, more HD options, etc). But I think it's also been a pretty solid performer, i.e. turning a profit now, which it wasn't before, while growing revenue and subscribers. Also, their IP alone is valuable since they have a software platform that can serve HD video to at least as many platforms and devices as Netflix, Amazon and iTunes do. I'm pretty confident that one of the partners will eventually buy out the others. If NBC is building their own, and Disney buys Netflix, that would leave Fox/Newscorp. edit Leperflesh posted:Yeah the Hallmark Channel and the Lifetime channel and HDN so on can't charge very much to carriers, because the number of customers who'd call up Viacom or ATT or Comcast and upgrade to a premium package to get those specific channels are miniscule. They have to be very cheap and that means they have to have commercials. It all comes down to bundling. Right now those channels that could not sustain themselves but for the affiliate fees negotiated by their parent company using the flagship channels as leverage (the ESPN Classics of the world get by on the strength of ESPN). The question of the future becomes not whether those channels are in demand, but whether those channels add perceived value to the parent's offerings. In the future, those channels probably aren't going to be able to survive, with ads or not. Time-shifting and streaming are ensuring that. bam thwok fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Apr 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
Harry posted:Is Hulu considered a success? I thought it was a massive failure that they're desparately trying to unload. It was considered a success until it was inevitably bastardized by the big media companies and is a shell of it's former self. Still it used to be great Turkeybone posted:Hey, where is that forex guy? Did he die yet? what do you mean?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
e: ^^^^ I think he's referring to the Forex guy that was going to make 100% annualized returns, no problem.Leperflesh posted:I wonder if it'd matter to Disney that Netflix's revenue model is different from some of the ones you mentioned. You have to pay a subscription for Hulu Plus too, and it still runs commercials. (The same loving commercials over and over and over and over and aagaekhgkdhga  )
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
Yeah, that guy. I've been in and out; end of the semester bullshit time and all that. My one nice win recently was naked puts on GS that got assigned at 140, and then had a nice little boost right after.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
SouthShoreSamurai posted:You have to pay a subscription for Hulu Plus too, and it still runs commercials. (The same loving commercials over and over and over and over and aagaekhgkdhga Well if you watch the same show over and over again, yeah. I don't think they change their ads for episode one of a series versus episode 5. Though gently caress me if that's not a spectacular idea. Charge premium rates for episode one the same way you would for a big premiere or show during primetime, and charge lower rates as you get viewer attrition.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
bam thwok posted:Well if you watch the same show over and over again, yeah. I don't think they change their ads for episode one of a series versus episode 5. Though gently caress me if that's not a spectacular idea. Charge premium rates for episode one the same way you would for a big premiere or show during primetime, and charge lower rates as you get viewer attrition. Watching a series is the only thing HuluPlus is good for. I think Hulu and Netflix should charge premiums to offer better services though. Hulu should charge extra per month to have no commercials and Netflix should charge extra to have streaming of new releases as soon as the DVD's are available. I bet tons of people would pay for those services, but the question is how much would they have to charge to turn a profit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
bam thwok posted:It all comes down to bundling. Right now those channels that could not sustain themselves but for the affiliate fees negotiated by their parent company using the flagship channels as leverage (the ESPN Classics of the world get by on the strength of ESPN). The question of the future becomes not whether those channels are in demand, but whether those channels add perceived value to the parent's offerings. In the future, those channels probably aren't going to be able to survive, with ads or not. Time-shifting and streaming are ensuring that. I wonder about flagship channels too though. I think things would have to look substantially different for ESPN to go without advertising. They pay out a ton of money for TV rights to broadcast sporting events. If they were to rely on affiliate fees alone, I don't know that it'd cover it. It would be interesting to do the research, although both sides are secretive about affiliate fees.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:03 |
|
|
bam thwok posted:So in my estimation, Netflix is an acquisition target for: Here is the problem with a content distributor buying Netflix...why would any of their competitors want to do a deal with Netflix anymore? I think the whole model collapses. Microsoft has enough CASH ON HAND to buy Netflix 4 times over, and it's something they should've done a year ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 04:08
|
|