x PhoneArena is looking for new authors! To view all available positions, click here.
  • Home
  • News
  • Apple issues $17 billion in bonds, setting record, for dividends and stock buyback

Apple issues $17 billion in bonds, setting record, for dividends and stock buyback

Posted: , by Maxwell R.

Tags:

Apple issues $17 billion in bonds, setting record, for dividends and stock buyback
With $145 billion in cash sitting in the bank, one might wonder why one of the world’s most prosperous companies would issue debt to pay dividends to stockholders and finance stock buybacks to arrest the slide in stock price.

Apple announced a $100 billion cash return program to investors aimed at maintaining investor interest in the company while its stock cycles through a rather visible adjustment in value (it is down 37% in the past 7 months).

The reason why Apple is issuing debt instead of spending its cash is because the bulk of that cash is overseas, and the United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. If Apple were to transfer that money stateside to initiate the buyback and dividend program, it would get hit with a 35% tax.

Or, Apple can borrow the money by issuing bonds yielding between 0.5% and 3% rate and be able to write the interest off its taxes. It is an easy choice for the company to make. This $17 billion issue is the first of several that the company will offer and their duration will range from three years to 30 years. As far as bond sales go, this $17 billion set a new record, surpassing a $16.5 billion deal set by Swiss drug company Roche.

Bond sales like this are typically aimed at institutional investors, however, individuals can usually get a piece of the pie if they work with their financial advisors.

source: AP via Yahoo!

29 Comments
  • Options
    Close




posted on 30 Apr 2013, 21:04 4

1. 14545 (Posts: 1100; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)


LMAO. This just goes to show why we should scrap the whole "income" tax BS anyway. Just repeal the 16th amendment and move on. Sales(excise) taxes, and import taxes were all that were laid forth in the constitution....And they weren't wrong to begin with.

posted on 30 Apr 2013, 21:13 3

2. Dingy_cellar_dweller (Posts: 182; Member since: 16 Mar 2013)


Once Apple pay's its taxes its only 94 billion.

posted on 30 Apr 2013, 21:21 2

3. 14545 (Posts: 1100; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)


What do you mean "pays it's taxes"? Taxes are theft, and not something owed. If apple, google or whoever borrowed money, that is money owed. Taxes are not "owed". If the government was remotely intelligent, hahahahaha, then they would offer a these companies exemptions on bringing this money to the states. It's better it being spent here than elsewhere. Too bad our citizenry is too stupid to realize that.

posted on 30 Apr 2013, 21:29 3

4. Zero0 (Posts: 583; Member since: 05 Jul 2012)


Taxes are theft until you wake up and realize that there is no national defense, no highway system, and half the country is hopelessly impoverished. Even more so when you realize that I never made this comment because the Internet hasn't been invented.

As for the government's corporate welfare state, well what do you know, they're basically doing that. They're turning a blind eye to the tax-dodging tactics of multinationals, and they're directly subsidizing companies making 10, sometimes 11 figures of profit.

Never thought a phone site could get so politicized, but wow. Pretty incredible stuff here.

posted on 30 Apr 2013, 21:50 1

5. lyndon420 (Posts: 1715; Member since: 11 Jul 2012)


The majority of income tax goes to paying the interest owed on 'instant money' borrowed from the central bank by the government.

posted on 30 Apr 2013, 22:10

8. 14545 (Posts: 1100; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)


What are you talking about? Have you bothered to look into income taxes? 1.5 trillion dollars of taxes were paid in towards a 4 trillion dollar budget. Only 359 billion was owed specifically for interest. And if that's the argument you want to hit on, then maybe we should stop running deficits and start paying down that debt. Just a thought. A national sales tax could be implemented as well. Then you collect tax(theft) revenue from all people, whether they are earning income within the bounds of the law or not. Texas and Florida don't seem to have a problem with this method. Yet the states with "income" taxes are some of the ones in the worst financial situations. Lastly, don't even get me started on the BS that is the Fed. Or the fact that they buy bonds with imaginary money. If the fed was such an above board institution then they should have no issues with cracking open the books.....But they won't. That should scare the bejesus out of anyone.

posted on 30 Apr 2013, 21:59 2

6. 14545 (Posts: 1100; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)


No, all of those things can be provided at a charge through private industry. Ever heard of toll roads. So, lets be rational. We went almost 80 years before income taxes were first instituted after the civil war without a problem. Then went another 20 between 1895 and 1913, so it can, and has been down. The key to this entire puzzle are *income*. I never said to do away with the things that were actually provisioned for in the constitution.....You know, that stupid little document that founded the country. I am also not for corporate subsidies, but you would know that if you actually read what I wrote.....Instead of just saying "gubmit good", "mongo need government to survive".

Every one of your arguments has been debunked by mises and various other institutions.

"The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State."

Murray N. Rothbard

posted on 30 Apr 2013, 22:25 2

11. Zero0 (Posts: 583; Member since: 05 Jul 2012)


They can be provided. Just not well. Look at how the digital highway is being built. For most, slowly and monopolically. (Yes, I made a word. Deal with it.)

We went until the Civil War without an income tax, eh? Coincidentally, the pre-income tax era was also when our great nation was a slave state. The economy changed.

As for the Constitution, yes. It explicitly provides certain powers. They then conveniently left in another clause which allows anything necessary and proper. There's an argument that most (economic) actions taken by the government are necessary and proper.

As for Mises, economics is largely guesswork. Let's assume this, and ignore that. The fact of the matter is that economics is complex. For example, Mises assumed that private corporations will somehow always act in the best interest of society. And we all know that the Keystone XL pipeline was totally responsible; a private company would have stepped in to sell half the country clean water if there were a spill.

Don't get me wrong; I love the Constitution, but a lot of its economics are dated. The civil liberties stuff is cool (except one amendment gets a little stretched), but beyond that, times have changed. We live in a globalized and industrialized economy.

Now to address civil rights: people are corporations too. Where is my tax-free money?

posted on 01 May 2013, 21:12

20. 14545 (Posts: 1100; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)


Zero, if you want to debate then we will. I've bookmarked this page for 7 days from now. The next 7 days I have more going on than I can handle and I can't respond the way I would like to, so I would rather not respond until that time.

posted on 08 May 2013, 18:02

21. 14545 (Posts: 1100; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)


"They can be provided. Just not well. Look at how the digital highway is being built. For most, slowly and monopolically. (Yes, I made a word. Deal with it.)"

Huh? Are you joking? You want to blame the roll out of the "digital highway" on the free market? When the government, be it local muni's or the FCC, controls who can run certain area's. How is that a free market failure? Please explain.

"We went until the Civil War without an income tax, eh? Coincidentally, the pre-income tax era was also when our great nation was a slave state. The economy changed."

So this is the answer? We were a slave state and it just changed? What does that have to do with the free market? Also, you do know what income taxes were implemented after the civil war, right? The "economy" hasn't changed, just free labor "changed". That has nothing to do with taxes to help rebuild after an unnecessary war. (NO, THAT DOES NOT MEAN I AM FOR SLAVERY, IT MEANS THAT SLAVERY COULD HAVE ALMOST(if not entirely) BEEN ELIMINATED WITHOUT WAR. JUST LIKE EUROPE MANAGED TO DO). That is a straw man if there ever was one.

"As for the Constitution, yes. It explicitly provides certain powers. They then conveniently left in another clause which allows anything necessary and proper. There's an argument that most (economic) actions taken by the government are necessary and proper."

Wow, you have to be joking? So it's "necessary and proper" to give my money (via taxes) to some worthless single mother who keeps popping out babies because we reward her for being irresponsible? Or it's "necessary and proper" to give my money to AIG, GM, or any other numerous corps who begged for my money in 08? Give me a break. It was left out for a reason, they didn't believe that. Same reason they only allowed for excised taxes and duties in the constitution. If the government needed more money than that, they felt it was unnecessary. Have you read the Articles of Confederation? Read that, and tell me that they didn't intentionally leave that out. Almost no government action is "necessary" or "proper".

"As for Mises, economics is largely guesswork. Let's assume this, and ignore that. The fact of the matter is that economics is complex. For example, Mises assumed that private corporations will somehow always act in the best interest of society. And we all know that the Keystone XL pipeline was totally responsible; a private company would have stepped in to sell half the country clean water if there were a spill."

Yes, it is "guesswork", but it's educated guesswork. If something doesn't work, DON"T KEEP DOING IT. The GD lasted for 10+ years for a reason. This recession lasted 3-4 years for a reason. Yet, the recession of 1920 only lasted 18-24 months for a reason. It's not hard to see the common denominator. Engineering is complex, economics is not. Mises NEVER assumed that corps act in best interest for society. EVER.

posted on 08 May 2013, 20:39

25. Zero0 (Posts: 583; Member since: 05 Jul 2012)


-Internet:
How many companies are willing to drop multiple billions to roll out a network in this country? Take out permits, bring back child labor, and most of the country is still ruled by monopoly.
Then the same monopolies ask for deregulation in the form of not enforcing net neutrality. You want to smother the development of the Internet, you want to kill the next Google, the next Facebook? Drop net neutrality and watch it happen.
THERE is good government regulation for you. The free market can't save you if it costs tens of billions of dollars and the corporations could care less, because they have their own territory where they're charging obscene prices. Adding competitive markets isn't a help if you have to charge competitive prices.

-Changing economics
I'm not saying that you support slavery, merely that its illegalization was an example of economic shift. We aren't the same agricultural economy we were back then. We're not the same manufacturing economy we were a few decades ago. As the dynamics of the economy change, the regulation of it must follow. Right now, an income tax makes sense. People who make a lot of money (can afford taxes) don't necessarily spend a lot of money (to pay a lot of sales tax). People who don't make a lot of money (can't afford much tax) don't necessarily spend little (they take out debt and pay it later, hopefully).
If I recall correctly, there have been studies linking taxation with prosperity. Probably has something to do with how equalizing incomes will change spending habits.

-Necessary and Proper
A big part of the 2008 collapse has to do with deregulation. The deregulation of financial markets was the root of the collapse. Had the government stepped in and said "no predatory loans" or "these credit derivatives are getting out of hand," there would have been no bailouts because there would have been no collapse.

-Economic Complexity
And the 1950s was a period of economic boom despite the insane income tax rates. Go figure.
Economics is probably more complex than engineering. You can build a model of a building and put it in a wind tunnel. You can't build an economy of 50 states and 315,000,000 people and simulate that. While neither field has a definitive route to a solution, only one can actually test its hypotheses in a vacuum.

posted on 08 May 2013, 18:20

22. 14545 (Posts: 1100; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)


Corps always act in THEIR best interest, however it is in THEIR best *interest* is to do what is in the best interest for society if they want to be around for more than a couple of years. Which MOST corps do. In a *FREE SOCIETY* the corp would have had to clean it up. If you are harmed you have civil recourse. Nothing will change with that. So if a large pop is harmed they will be sued out of existence. I know that you people like to make this strawman out to be 10x what it really is. But it is the truth. No different than if I hit you with my car and don't have insurance. YOU STILL HAVE RECOURSE. You would still a loss that I would have to rectify.

"Don't get me wrong; I love the Constitution, but a lot of its economics are dated. The civil liberties stuff is cool (except one amendment gets a little stretched), but beyond that, times have changed. We live in a globalized and industrialized economy."

Lair, if you did you would never, EVER, say that one amendment get's a little stretched. (I can infer you mean the 2nd amendment.) And if it is, then you are completely wrong, as guns are the last line of defense for US, the people, AGAINST A GOVERNMENT NO DIFFERENT THAN CHINA. That's the last thing we have left to prevent us from being a complete police state, no different than the USSR 20+ years ago. We were, albeit it doesn't matter now, endowed with 3 fundamental rights; those are the rights of LIFE, LIBERTY, and PROPERTY. That means, what I earn is what I EARN. Not the government. The government is not entitled to a piece of my income. I don't ask for a 500billion dollar military budget, or a 750 billion dollar SSI budget that will be gone when I am old enough retire. I don't want, or need, any of this BS. It's useless. Everything we need could be paid for, less expensively, if we did it ourselves. Roads could be paid for and upkept by tolls and only tolls. Police, paid for yearly if you want the "protection". Fire, same. Schools....PAY FOR YOUR OWN RUGRATS TO GET AN EDUCATION. THAT"S NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY. Yes, times have changed, and in the global economy we would be in a very strategic position, for the good, without income taxes. We would be more competitive than any country in the world. If you feel different, please explain how. I would love to hear how you justify we wouldn't be.

Last,
"Now to address civil rights: people are corporations too. Where is my tax-free money?"

WTF are you talking about? The only thing I can make of this is you are talking about corporate subsidies? If so, CORPS SHOULDN"T BE GETTING SUBSIDIES. In a free market THEY ARE NOT GIVEN SUBSIDIES. Also, if you have a problem with it, GUESS WHO GIVES YOUR MONEY AWAY TO THESE CORPS? THE GOVERNMENT. Notice a pattern? Notice, you disagree with the theft of your income to pay someone else? Yeah, thank your lovely government, don't blame an imaginary free market for this. All problems have their root within government.

posted on 08 May 2013, 21:15

26. Zero0 (Posts: 583; Member since: 05 Jul 2012)


I lost this post to a crappy mouse and a backspace key. So you're getting the 0.1 version. Apologies in advance.

I already went through Keystone. Cleanup or not, it takes time, and people can't go more than 3 days without water.

I support background checks, along with 90% of America, which evidently is a minority in the Senate.. Enough of a barrier to make someone stop and think about what they're doing before obtaining the means to kill, so that they won't use it poorly.
Mainly, the solution is a public mental health system, but that's tax money, and you can't selectively pay into such a thing. If I pay for such a system and you don't, we're both safer because the guy who was on the verge of going murderous was talked down. You have no incentive to pay, because I am already willing to do so.

The military budget is way out of hand. Social Security is a wash, because the money gets put right back into someone else's pockets most of the time. It's just that we don't have everyone dying in poverty as they used to back in the day.

As for education, excellent. We've got the next Newton being undereducated, but screw it. 20th best wasn't bad enough, let's aim for 30th. It may not be your responsibility, but it's your potential gain. You spend a few more dollars a year, we produce more geniuses, you get cheaper stuff, you save a lot of dollars per year. It's a virtuous cycle. Not only are you richer, but the kid who was going to end up in poverty was able to do something for the world and become a success.
Furthermore: social mobility. America sucks at it, the countries with good education don't.

I don't know what that was. I'm guessing it was an attack on tax-free repatriation of money. If corporations are people, and I'm people, how come they get preferential spending treatment? But mostly, ignore it. It sounded neat late at night a week ago, and I have no idea what I meant by it.

posted on 09 May 2013, 19:05

27. 14545 (Posts: 1100; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)


First, keystone.

Sure, it's going to take time to cleanup regardless of government involvement. So I would rather the government not add to the problem. I mean you have progress and Congress. I'll take progress anytime.

Second, we have background checks. That bill is nothing but a farce. You can't walk into a gun store, or show and buy a gun without first going through one. Next, all these school massacres that have everyone all in tears and BS. Yeah, every one was a failing of the mental health system. Not a single one was a failing of the "background check" system. Please, read that bill. That was just a power grab. That bill made it where any gun, even legally obtained, if it didn't have a registration you could be jailed and made a felon. I don't personally own a gun, but I have quite a few friends who have had guns passed down from family members and due to the fact they didn't have registration on it, they could have been thrown in jail. FOR NOTHING MORE THAN AN INHERITANCE. Does that really seem right to you? PS, I'm all for donating money to a good mental health system, that way we can get some of these people that do go crazy and off people, the help they need. Speaking as someone with a mentally ill family member on both my side and, soon to be, wifes side of the family, I know all to well how worthless of a system this country has. But every time a mental hospital tries to open the doors, local towntards go nuts and say "not in my backyard". Furthermore, in all of these areas where guns aren't allowed, those are the area's where we have mass shootings. So I don't think it is an abundance of guns that is the problem, it is a lack of guns that is the real issue. (Keep in mind, I don't support the NRA, or the pubtards. Neither comes close to my belief system) Lastly, so lets say we make guns harder to get, and the government, already as overbearing and worthless as it already is, decides they feel we aren't entitled to the 1st, 4th, or 5th amendments, then what recourse do we have? If you take away the 2nd amendment, the next ones to go are the 1st, 4th, and 5th. Then we are no better than libya, china, or NK. I mean given the secrecy within government, we are barely hanging to what little bit of freedom we have left.

Yes, the military budget should be 1/100th of what it is now. But how can you say SSI is a wash? Really? Just because it that money is going to someone else to be spent, it's ok? They didn't earn that money, it's stolen from one person to give to another. If I stole from you, you would want me locked up. What's different when it's via "taxation"? Taxation is just the government taking from you, at the barrel of a gun, with no recourse on your part. If you don't pay taxes, you get locked up. (unless you are a leach, then you get free money for being a worthless POS.) Also, the last part of that paragraph is a complete and total exaggeration. People weren't just dying in the streets from proverty, no more than

posted on 09 May 2013, 19:24

28. 14545 (Posts: 1100; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)


People weren't just dying in the streets from proverty, no more than are today.

Next, our position in education has nothing to do with the amount of stolen money invested in it. It has to do with our youth not caring about education. You can have the best education in the world and it's all for knot if you don't have people who are willing and able to take advantage of it. We are getting a horrible return on our stolen "investment" in our broken education system. Not to mention corps and people alike line up to help pay for primary education. So just let them foot the entire bill. And let the idiots that couldn't care less about school LEAVE. Get rid of the stupid must be 16 rule. If you want to stop going to school at 10, sure. Be my guest. Its one less wasted education to pay for. Social mobility is all in what you make it. It has nothing to do with the government paying for education.

Lastly, corps should get nothing that you and I get. But this would be a non-issue if there were no income taxes. If we has an excise only system, then corps would not be able to buy themselves favors in the tax code like they can now. Just like we would save a whole crapload of money on not paying a bunch of jerkoff accountants that have an inferiority complex about the world. Ultimately, just please free your mind and realize that a "free market" isn't a big bad bogeyman. At the root of most all problems are the laws of unintended consequences. That's how the government operates. The government creates a problem, then fixes it by creating another problem. That's what keeps the government in business. Government is the opposite of everything that is right in the world. Heck, just look at gay people. What business is it of the government to be in marriage business? Why should they be the decider of who can marry, and who can't? If you want to marry a car, boat, goat, or whatever, that's between you and that other party. Not the government. We just need the government out of our lives.

posted on 09 May 2013, 20:28

29. Zero0 (Posts: 583; Member since: 05 Jul 2012)


I actually don't disagree with you as much as it sounds.

Your education philosophy is good. I ask only that everyone has the opportunity for a good education. The government shouldn't force anyone to take advantage. If one doesn't care, don't take my money.

I agree in part with your final paragraph. Particularly the last few lines (I am of the belief that marriage should only be legally recognized as a plain old contract; any two people can make a contract). A lot of the government's actions suck, but a competent government wouldn't make as many mistakes economically. Part of that starts with election reform, the other part is getting people to give a crap. People see a party name on a ballot and just check it off. How many people have any idea who their representatives in Congress are?
But therein is the root of the problem. People don't care. THAT is the only failing in the free market. Corporations get away with horrible actions, partly due to government support, but partly because few citizens care enough to take action. I WANT the free market to work. Giving the government more power is a slippery slope.

In my idea world, the federal government would be mostly a small national defense system. Health care and education would be provided by states (they're rights, as I see it). If you even the field with good education, Medicaid and other redistribution programs are worthless. Give people the means to succeed, and they should be fine without other people's money. Teach them to save, so they won't need a government safety net. In a perfect world, things such as the national parks could be preserved by states.
The issue is that we aren't there yet. I really do want a smaller government, but the country is not ready for it. It's not a quick or easy transition. For the time being, the best thing to do is to do a big government as best we can.

I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said that democracy doesn't work with an uneducated populace, no?

In any event, this debate has been (or will it continue to be?) a great exercise. I've learned a good deal about myself in the last week or so.

posted on 01 May 2013, 20:45

18. Michael Lyles (Posts: 8; Member since: 24 Sep 2010)


Stupid little document? Wow.

posted on 01 May 2013, 21:10

19. 14545 (Posts: 1100; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)


I guess I should have added in *sarcasm* so could understand the context.

:rollseyes:

posted on 30 Apr 2013, 22:02 2

7. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 6254; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)


They should gives the money too the retail workers. Not the greedy executives or investors who dont deserve all those cash

posted on 30 Apr 2013, 22:13 2

9. 14545 (Posts: 1100; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)


Huh? So if you put up capital you don't deserved to be rewarded for your efforts? But some ditz in high school deserves a 10/hr. raise? I hope you people that answer in this way don't live in the US. Because if you do, there is no hope left for saving the republic.

posted on 01 May 2013, 09:31

17. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 6254; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)


Im saying apple is a greedy company

posted on 08 May 2013, 18:22

23. 14545 (Posts: 1100; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)


I don't disagree, but what's your point? People are dumb enough to buy their overpriced devices. Don't blame apple for capitalizing on ignorance. Blame the ignorant for being.....Well, ignorant.

posted on 30 Apr 2013, 22:14 2

10. grahaman27 (Posts: 347; Member since: 05 Apr 2013)


when american small business grow up, they outgrow america. its sad... every single corporation migrates oversees because america hates corporations.

Business happens on american soil but the money is counted oversees.

posted on 30 Apr 2013, 22:38

12. roscuthiii (Posts: 1786; Member since: 18 Jul 2010)


The US has the highest corporate tax... also has some of the biggest loopholes with many industries paying far less in taxes.
My girlfriend's ex-husband incorporated his name; so yeah, his base tax rate starts off pretty high. Right up until he starts the write-offs and deductions and it winds up that he owes virtually nothing in taxes year after year. A few years ago he had the nerve to whine about having to pay at approximately a 5% rate. But hey, I guess that's a hardship for a guy that clears $5K/week, yes that's week.
To me, any corporation that is telling you they have to keep money overseas because the US tax rate is too high is lying to your face because of all the loopholes to take advantage of. If they're keeping it overseas, it's because they're doing something with it they don't want anyone to know about.

posted on 30 Apr 2013, 22:51 1

13. Gawain (Posts: 350; Member since: 15 Apr 2010)


Businesses do not pay taxes per se because they pass the burden through to the end customer. Fact.

posted on 01 May 2013, 01:35

14. GadgetsMcGoo (Posts: 163; Member since: 15 Mar 2013)


That is only assuming that profit margins are inflexible. You can pass on additional/new cost to your products but raise it too much and you won't get any customers and you go bankrupt.

posted on 01 May 2013, 02:53

15. Gawain (Posts: 350; Member since: 15 Apr 2010)


That assumes no such thing. When expenses to a business are increased, those costs pass through. Want to know why food prices have increased over the past four years? Higher petroleum costs equals higher fuel and fertalizer costs. A company might be able to take a point or two on margin, but the cost curve still goes up.

posted on 08 May 2013, 18:29

24. 14545 (Posts: 1100; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)


Yes, but they also, in an elastic demand market(IE, not food or commodities.) if they try to pass the cost on they will sell less of said product. So it's not nearly as simplistic as you try to make it. GMG is correct. You are talking about necessities, which carry an INelastic demand. IOW, consumption CAN"T decrease. Medical devices are the same way, people are going to get sick regardless of whether they want to or not. Pick up an econ book then come back and talk.

posted on 01 May 2013, 05:48

16. Furbal (Posts: 265; Member since: 22 Sep 2012)


yeap, medical device costs are an good example of this with the "affordable" health care act tax.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories