
Originally Posted by
GOB
A $110 billion hoard hasn't been dragging equity returns - $300B will just put a higher floor on the stock. I'm sure Apple's management is wise enough to recognize the point at which too much cash would drag returns and then deploy the cash in the most optimal manner. Given Apple's performance over the last decade, it's really silly to criticize management about what they do with their cash. Apple has their reasons for retaining the cash that they do, and paying out the dividend that they do. Sure they can afford a 5%+ dividend or a $75B buyback, but obviously they decided against it for good reasons. I won't question them too hard about it because:
1) Management is rewarding Apple shareholders with ridiculous gains as a result of their decisions
2) I don't know the inner workings of the company and what the cash may or may not be used for
3) Cash is king - it is never a bad thing to have a large amount of available cash
Your argument makes no sense. You would have said the same thing about Apple's venture into the mobile phone business - they should have stuck with high margin computers and iPods because they were doing very well in terms of getting high returns. After the iPhone, you would have been concerned about the iPad, because they were already getting high returns on equity. See the flaw? Apple is incredibly well run. If they decide to spend a large amount of capital for something you can bet they anticipate high returns on that expenditure. Apple does not get into capital intensive businesses if they don't provide exceptional returns or at the very least strengthen the foundation for their other business lines. That's why we have yet to see a TV from them and we won't until the margins make sense. It doesn't have to be 100B, it could really be any amount. You're playing all sides because of your bias against the company. On the one hand you say Apple is destined for low margins from commoditization, on the other you say they should be buying back their stock because they get high returns on their equity and on the other you say they should avoid big captial expenditure because they won't match up to the incredible returns Apple can get with their existing products. What??
No offense, but as I actually am a shareholder and have accurately projected the performance of the company thus far, I pay little attention to warnings from people who don't own shares directly, have been dead wrong over and over again and have clearly shown a deep lack of understanding of the company. See Katy Huberty for another example. There are so many people who just don't get it. I continue the discussion only for anybody else wanting to hear both sides of the argument.