Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:26 am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:45 am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:00 am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:36 am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:37 pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:41 am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:32 am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:29 pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:09 pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:47 am EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

Apple Buybacks: Still a Bad Idea
Back in December, I wasn't a fan of Apple buying back its stock. I'm still not a fan, despite the fact that Apple stock has dropped 40% since then and the fact that Arik Hesseldahl says that a buyback is a very good idea: "word of a buyback would probably give the stock price the kind of upward lift it needs," he says.
Um, needs? Why does Apple need a higher stock price? So that it can use its valuable stock as an acquisition currency? No, it can't be that, since a large part of Hesseldahl's argument is that Apple doesn't really have any major acquisitions on the horizon. Is it for the sake of Apple's most loyal shareholders? No: they're generally happy with Apple's long-term price appreciation. The main beneficiaries of a buyback would be the momentum traders who are exactly the kind of shareholders no company wants.
And I'm particularly unimpressed by this part of Hesseldahl's piece:
I found 295 companies on the S&P 500-stock index that have announced stock buybacks since the start of 2003, and they averaged a gain of more than 66% over five years. Gainers outnumbered losers by nearly 5 to 1, with the gainers improving their stock prices by an average of more than 150%.
Wow, the 295 companies averaged a gain of 66% over five years? That's exactly the gain that the S&P as a whole has had over the past five years! You'd almost think that buybacks made no difference at all!
As for the 150% figure, it seems extremely weird to me. Let's say that you started with six companies, all of which were trading at $100. Five of them increased by 150% to $250 apiece, and the sixth went bankrupt with all stockholders wiped out. You started with $600, and you ended with $1,250 - for a minimum gain of 108% over five years. Now square that with the 66% figure.
Now, all that said, I don't necessarily think that Apple should simply continue to accumulate cash for no particular reason except for the fact that it has historically paid no dividend. A modest dividend, tied to profits, makes perfect sense. A buyback, on the other hand, doesn't.
Comments
If you are commenting using a Facebook account, your profile information may be displayed with your comment depending on your privacy settings. By leaving the 'Post to Facebook' box selected, your comment will be published to your Facebook profile in addition to the space below.





