Also, I would think the dividend would do far more for the share price than the share buy back.
There must be a few funds that have dividend restrictions on what they can own that would love to get some of Apple's stock price growth into their numbers but can't because it doesn't meet their compliance rules.
I didn't assume the valuation was entirely cash/number of shares. However cash is a component of the value of the company and one that is very easy to evaluate.
Take the 100 shares at $10 company. Say it only has $200 cash on hand, which means $800 of the valuation is made up of other things. The calculation doesn't change at all - the company is worth $900 since it has $100 less cash on hand.
Now given markets aren't perfect and different companies can leverage cash to different extents it isn't actually going to be 1 for 1. But since we are only dealing with a small portion of the cash it will be close enough. If a company decided to use 95% of its cash to buy back shares it's not going to work the same since those small errors will magnify - but that isn't the case here.
And I meant for the shareholder for the tax liability - that seemed too obvious to need to state.
And when you get sued and a court orders you to pay $10,000,000 to some party you can now ask that uploader for the $10,000,000 and take them to court for it if they don't cought up.
Of course if they don't have $10,000,000 or the court doesn't consider your statement legaly binding or they are under a jurisdiction that won't enforce it then you are still liable for that $10,000,000 (or the part they didn't pay up anyway).
A share buyback shouldn't change the share price (though of course in practice...). It reduces the number of available shares but it also reduces the wroth of the company (it now has less cash) - by equal amounts.
If a company had 100 shares and a price of $10 and bought back 10 shares. Then there are now 90 shares, but the company has $100 less cash on hand. Before the buy back the company was valued at being wroth $10*100 = $1000. It should now be worth $1000-$100 = $900 - and there are 90 shares left so $900/90 = $10 is stil the share price.
It essentially works the same as a dividend payment, but reduces tax liability.
The main downside is that (like a dividend) it's an indication that Apple doesn't think it can generate better than market returns on the cash (since if it could that would be better value for shareholders than paying it out as a dividend/share buy back). But when you are talking about the amount of cash Apple has that shouldn't be news.
Take off and landing has a bunch of features that make is far more dangerous than the bulk of the fight (hardly exhaustive):
* There is a much higher density of planes in the air.
* You aren't 40000 feet up and hence there is less time to react to problems before you hit the ground.
* At takeoff you are using more of your engine power than in normal flight, giving a lower ability to apply more power in an emergency.
* 80%of accidents happen during takeoff/landing.
At 40,000 feet you have time to walk the length of the plane and tell each and every passenger to turn their devices off until whatever is being interfered with starts working again. During take off and landing you don't and there's a higher chance that some other emergency is happening at the same time.
Still it's a stupid rule, if it was really a problem they'd treat phones like they treat box cutters...
There is no irony or hypocrisy. New Jersey state law has a crime that the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not. Now it may be a stupid law, but it's hardly interesting that someone not under its jurisdiction isn't charged under it and someone who is is.
How you get from that to there's a grand media/justice system conspiracy to be biased and liberal I'm not sure, but whatever floats your boat.
You just said one ridiculous thing - that a guy who committed a crime on a military base in Texas should be charged under a New Jersey law instead of the death penalty offense he has been charged with - and used that as some evidence of coirts being too liberal. And then claimed you were talking about the media.
Now you claim you were talking about both liberal courts and a liberal media. But I'm still confused as to why you think New Jersey state law should apply to a guy in Texas under Federal jurisdiction. And expanation of how seeking the death penalty is more liberal than seeking a 10 year jail term would be good too.
And that's different than believing that when a country does things against their wishes (aka "evil things") the people deserve to suffer how?
I guess killing is only a subset of causing suffering, but that's just details surely. It's still harming the civilians for the actions of the government.
because the oil industry couldn't give a shit about what's down at 500km. They just want to know where oil is, and only the oil that is economically extractable in a reasonable time frame.
Surely the point is if an ipad costs the $500 and they can only loan it to one person at a time who pays them $25/month. Then it will take 20 months for them to break even on buying that ipad. Since there's shipping/etc ballpark it at 2 years.
I know the US doesn't, Australia doesn't, Canada doesn't, the UK doesn't. The euro doesn't (assuming we are using diameter as the size metric), Japan doesn't, Sweden doesn't, New Zealand doesn't, Singapore doesn't, Norway doesn't, India doesn't.
Though I'm a PC gamer - I own about 6 console games and usually just rent them...
Since I don't have enough time to play games like I used to and don't read magazines and so on I'm fine with buying the "game of the year" things for the games that kept their "good game" vibe long after the hype died. Heck I usually wait intil the game of year set with all the DLC has been out long enough to be half price.
But free to play ones stay free - with "micro" payments to make them actually fun often being required (especially for people who don't want to sink stupid amounts of time into them) rather than dropping to 25% of the release price.
Of course they are, it's all about reducing taxes. However, it does make up over half of the marketing costs - use production costs instead and they now spend more on research and development than on marketing.
of course 56% of those marketing dollars are "samples" according to http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/MJM/issues/v08n01/orig_articles/barfett.pdf. Which end up being drugs for uninsured poor people at the doctor's discretion, when I was uninsured and jobless in the US the doctor gave me samples of some antibiotics, for example.
super soldiers that make up the people who refused this and didn't geneticaly tamper with their children to produce smaller people decide to just take what they want from the leaf eating midgets?
Slashdot Mirror
A missile shield just means you need to buy more missiles in order to overwhelm it. Hardly a bad thing for the sellers of missiles.
Because there's no law stopping you from shooting down a passenger jumbo jet flying over international waters, right?
Also, I would think the dividend would do far more for the share price than the share buy back.
There must be a few funds that have dividend restrictions on what they can own that would love to get some of Apple's stock price growth into their numbers but can't because it doesn't meet their compliance rules.
I didn't assume the valuation was entirely cash/number of shares. However cash is a component of the value of the company and one that is very easy to evaluate.
Take the 100 shares at $10 company. Say it only has $200 cash on hand, which means $800 of the valuation is made up of other things. The calculation doesn't change at all - the company is worth $900 since it has $100 less cash on hand.
Now given markets aren't perfect and different companies can leverage cash to different extents it isn't actually going to be 1 for 1. But since we are only dealing with a small portion of the cash it will be close enough. If a company decided to use 95% of its cash to buy back shares it's not going to work the same since those small errors will magnify - but that isn't the case here.
And I meant for the shareholder for the tax liability - that seemed too obvious to need to state.
Sure you can.
And when you get sued and a court orders you to pay $10,000,000 to some party you can now ask that uploader for the $10,000,000 and take them to court for it if they don't cought up.
Of course if they don't have $10,000,000 or the court doesn't consider your statement legaly binding or they are under a jurisdiction that won't enforce it then you are still liable for that $10,000,000 (or the part they didn't pay up anyway).
A share buyback shouldn't change the share price (though of course in practice...). It reduces the number of available shares but it also reduces the wroth of the company (it now has less cash) - by equal amounts.
If a company had 100 shares and a price of $10 and bought back 10 shares. Then there are now 90 shares, but the company has $100 less cash on hand. Before the buy back the company was valued at being wroth $10*100 = $1000. It should now be worth $1000-$100 = $900 - and there are 90 shares left so $900/90 = $10 is stil the share price.
It essentially works the same as a dividend payment, but reduces tax liability.
The main downside is that (like a dividend) it's an indication that Apple doesn't think it can generate better than market returns on the cash (since if it could that would be better value for shareholders than paying it out as a dividend/share buy back). But when you are talking about the amount of cash Apple has that shouldn't be news.
Take off and landing has a bunch of features that make is far more dangerous than the bulk of the fight (hardly exhaustive):
* There is a much higher density of planes in the air.
* You aren't 40000 feet up and hence there is less time to react to problems before you hit the ground.
* At takeoff you are using more of your engine power than in normal flight, giving a lower ability to apply more power in an emergency.
* 80%of accidents happen during takeoff/landing.
At 40,000 feet you have time to walk the length of the plane and tell each and every passenger to turn their devices off until whatever is being interfered with starts working again. During take off and landing you don't and there's a higher chance that some other emergency is happening at the same time.
Still it's a stupid rule, if it was really a problem they'd treat phones like they treat box cutters...
There is no irony or hypocrisy. New Jersey state law has a crime that the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not. Now it may be a stupid law, but it's hardly interesting that someone not under its jurisdiction isn't charged under it and someone who is is.
How you get from that to there's a grand media/justice system conspiracy to be biased and liberal I'm not sure, but whatever floats your boat.
Wow, you stupid.
Is NJ part of Connecticut? No? Then why the fuck would you think a CT tax tweak would change anything for you?
If PC gaming technology halted how can your computer be a dinosaur?
Im not angry in the slightest.
You just said one ridiculous thing - that a guy who committed a crime on a military base in Texas should be charged under a New Jersey law instead of the death penalty offense he has been charged with - and used that as some evidence of coirts being too liberal. And then claimed you were talking about the media.
Now you claim you were talking about both liberal courts and a liberal media. But I'm still confused as to why you think New Jersey state law should apply to a guy in Texas under Federal jurisdiction. And expanation of how seeking the death penalty is more liberal than seeking a 10 year jail term would be good too.
Bullshit.
You didn't mention the media. You said the courts were too liberal.
Apparently you can't read your own posts.
Because it's significantly faster in terms of development time, or in terms of cost (having the less skilled, cheaper programmers work on it).
It's always been a case of write the critical stuff in C/C++. That's why languages like python and perl make doing so so simple.
Because Maor Hassan was charged under New Jersey law rather than under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, right?
And of course 10 years in jails is far far worse than the death penalty the prosecution in the Hassan case is going for.
Is it hard to be as stupid as you clearly are?
And that's different than believing that when a country does things against their wishes (aka "evil things") the people deserve to suffer how?
I guess killing is only a subset of causing suffering, but that's just details surely. It's still harming the civilians for the actions of the government.
because the oil industry couldn't give a shit about what's down at 500km. They just want to know where oil is, and only the oil that is economically extractable in a reasonable time frame.
Surely the point is if an ipad costs the $500 and they can only loan it to one person at a time who pays them $25/month. Then it will take 20 months for them to break even on buying that ipad. Since there's shipping/etc ballpark it at 2 years.
Of course loss leading is harldly a new strategy.
Does anyone follow that rule.
I know the US doesn't, Australia doesn't, Canada doesn't, the UK doesn't. The euro doesn't (assuming we are using diameter as the size metric), Japan doesn't, Sweden doesn't, New Zealand doesn't, Singapore doesn't, Norway doesn't, India doesn't.
Oh China does...
So a cheap and easy way of seeing which of your guys are free of suspicion and so have the best chance of a successful attack.
Which part of " FBI officials have requested a search warrant" do you think isn't about getting a warrant?
was it being ruled that they didn't have standing to sue - that assigning the right to sue but not the right to license/use the content doesn't work.
Surely, anyone buying what Righthaven owns also can't sue anyone?
Though given the ruling says they are the registered copyright holder I guess that mustn't have applied to everything?
Though I'm a PC gamer - I own about 6 console games and usually just rent them...
Since I don't have enough time to play games like I used to and don't read magazines and so on I'm fine with buying the "game of the year" things for the games that kept their "good game" vibe long after the hype died. Heck I usually wait intil the game of year set with all the DLC has been out long enough to be half price.
But free to play ones stay free - with "micro" payments to make them actually fun often being required (especially for people who don't want to sink stupid amounts of time into them) rather than dropping to 25% of the release price.
Of course they are, it's all about reducing taxes. However, it does make up over half of the marketing costs - use production costs instead and they now spend more on research and development than on marketing.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm
of course 56% of those marketing dollars are "samples" according to http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/MJM/issues/v08n01/orig_articles/barfett.pdf. Which end up being drugs for uninsured poor people at the doctor's discretion, when I was uninsured and jobless in the US the doctor gave me samples of some antibiotics, for example.
super soldiers that make up the people who refused this and didn't geneticaly tamper with their children to produce smaller people decide to just take what they want from the leaf eating midgets?