Only 60%? You are naive[/quote]
And your open ended time frame started over 3 years ago shows no balls.[/quote]
I don't know about that?
But I will say, declaring an open time frame for a 60% + drop to happen is worthless.
You might as well say, because a massive drop in the market is likely to happen in your life time, you should invest accordingly for the rest of your life. I would expect nothing less from a "Cash is King" advisor.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Your comment is inaccurate, record stock buybacks have been financed by record corporate debt. Even your love child Apple.
Igy
If my statement is inaccurate, why did you just state essentially the same thing?
Knead 2 no wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Your comment is inaccurate, record stock buybacks have been financed by record corporate debt. Even your love child Apple.
Igy
If my statement is inaccurate, why did you just state essentially the same thing?
From what i've read, it's not that simple or direct, and holding corporate debt while doing stock buybacks is a smart move. A company can strategically enter into debt and still have ample cash reserves or holdings elsewhere (like in another country with more favorable tax laws). IT all has to do with the cost of borrowing, the cost of repatriating money, how much is still tied up in foreign holdings, and how to put extra capital to work while maintaining as much corporate flexibility as possible.
Of course that assumes your stock goes higher and the cost to refinance debt goes down or stays the same. Very similar to the homeowner that takes out a HELOC to buy a piece of rental property. Leveraged balance sheets be corporate or individual can have unhappy endings.
It seems that the recent tax laws changes make it less burdensome for companies to bring cash back into the U.S., making the use of debt less attractive. So, they may not need to refinance the debt. And i guess it doesn't happen overnight with the tax law change taking effect since the foreign cash assets may be tied up in foreign securities, treasuries, etc. that may take time to liquidate or mature or whatever. So, i don't think it has anything to do with the stock going higher or the cost to refinance, at least in the case of the cash cows like Microsoft or Apple. It has more to do with what were the costs to borrow, cost to maintain the debt, and how their cash reserves could be best put to use compared to the first two. So, i think this was done more in terms of finding the best ways to employ capital rather than out of financial necessity or buying a positive stock returns.
For 2017 MIcrosoft had dividend and interest income of $1.4 Billion and interest expense of ($2.2 Billon). Apple no longer innovates just relies on services revenue and financial engineering via stock buybacks.
MSFT cash and cash eqivalents = $132 Billion; liabilities = $168 Billion.
cool strategy here for apple:
"Services are the real next innovation for Apple, says Recode's Ed Lee
Ed Lee, Recode managing editor, discusses Apple's quarterly earnings report."
link:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Of course that assumes your stock goes higher and the cost to refinance debt goes down or stays the same.
Stock buybacks automatically increase the price of the stock. That’s the whole point.
seattle prattle wrote:
cool strategy here for apple:
"Services are the real next innovation for Apple, says Recode's Ed Lee
Ed Lee, Recode managing editor, discusses Apple's quarterly earnings report."
link:
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/05/02/services-are-the-real-next-innovation-for-apple-says-recodes-ed-lee.html
Would you really expect anything different from Recode? The hipster’s source for all that is technology and entertainment. What else is there?
Econ 101 wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Of course that assumes your stock goes higher and the cost to refinance debt goes down or stays the same.
Stock buybacks automatically increase the price of the stock. That’s the whole point.
Until it doesn’t. Leftovers of falling stock prices and leveraged balance sheet.
The truth is it is all for the benefit of corporate insiders who have sold the stock to who?
You!
Now you can move on to Econ 201.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
seattle prattle wrote:
cool strategy here for apple:
"Services are the real next innovation for Apple, says Recode's Ed Lee
Ed Lee, Recode managing editor, discusses Apple's quarterly earnings report."
link:
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/05/02/services-are-the-real-next-innovation-for-apple-says-recodes-ed-lee.htmlWould you really expect anything different from Recode? The hipster’s source for all that is technology and entertainment. What else is there?
it's not so much who said it as the content of the message. Services are a more stable revenue stream and are predictable and sustainable. The brought the predominant hardware to the forefront of each market, now they will control the distribution on an ongoing basis.
I think Apple makes good products. I am typing on an iPad; had a first generation one for about seven years until it died. I have an iPhone 5. Much of what is on the phone is useless in my opinion. Gadgets. I just disagree with the relevance and cost. Of course there and millions with their life on a iPhone. People driving while texting, walking out of elevators with their nose on their phone. Rather obnoxious and irritating. People don’t even look you in the face. Now talk about kids being given a phone. Poor parenting in my view. Not my world. Sad really.
Your post justifies what SP wrote.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Econ 101 wrote:
Stock buybacks automatically increase the price of the stock. That’s the whole point.
Until it doesn’t. Leftovers of falling stock prices and leveraged balance sheet.
The truth is it is all for the benefit of corporate insiders who have sold the stock to who?
You!
Now you can move on to Econ 201.
Complete nonsense. You have a lot to learn about the stock market and how they work. Good luck with your studies.
purple martin wrote:
Onliest wrote:
Only 60%? You are naive
And your open ended time frame started over 3 years ago shows no balls.
It really doesn't matter if it happens this year or five years from now.
The market collapse is coming and it will be a slaughter.
The Banks who caused the collapse of 2008-2009 were not punished but bailed out.
Next time will be far worse.
Keep whistling past the cemetery.
Dont matter wrote:
purple martin wrote:
And your open ended time frame started over 3 years ago shows no balls.
It really doesn't matter if it happens this year or five years from now.
The market collapse is coming and it will be a slaughter.
The Banks who caused the collapse of 2008-2009 were not punished but bailed out.
Next time will be far worse.
Keep whistling past the cemetery.
We all know it will crash. It always does. But that’s no reason to have spent the last few years living in a bunker. There’s money to be made and we are living in very prosperous times. I pity the ones who have missed out.
You should pity the investor that cannot avoid the decline since each share of stock must be owned by someone at each moment in time. That is something a financial asvisor should have figured out by now.