Q: If Berkshire, the largest shareholder in Apple, sells off 10 percent of its stake why would Apple issue a 150 billion dollar counteracting share buyback to increase the overall share price by 15 percent at the culmination of trading ?
A: There are a few potential reasons why Apple might choose to issue a large share buyback in response to Berkshire Hathaway selling 10% of its stake:
-
To offset the downward pressure on the stock price that could result from such a large sale by a major shareholder. The sale of a big block of shares by Berkshire could be interpreted negatively by the market and push down Apple's share price. Announcing a buyback shows confidence and provides buying support.
-
To take advantage of a dip in the stock price following Berkshire's sale to repurchase shares at a discount. If Apple believes its shares are undervalued, a buyback allows it to acquire shares cheaply.
-
To return capital to shareholders and boost earnings per share (EPS). Reducing the total number of outstanding shares increases the ownership stake of remaining shareholders and improves certain financial ratios watched by investors. A 15% increase in share price is substantial though and would likely require strong earnings growth in addition to the buyback.
-
To send a signal of financial strength and that management believes the company's prospects are bright. Buybacks are often viewed positively as reflecting confidence in the business.
However, a $150 billion buyback would be very large, even for a cash-rich company like Apple. It would likely need to be funded through a mix of cash on hand and debt. The 15% share price increase you cite seems like an ambitious target for a buyback alone to achieve, especially if it's at the "culmination of trading" which I take to mean the end of a trading session. Longer-term, a buyback of that size could certainly boost the stock meaningfully if Apple continues to grow earnings. But in the near-term, investor reactions can be hard to predict.
It's an interesting hypothetical, but without more context about Apple's motivations, financial position, and market conditions, it's hard to definitively say whether such a large buyback in response to a major shareholder sale would be an advisable move. There could be other factors at play.
Q: I remember when youtuber influencer, MBKHD, panned a recent iterative release of the iPhone. The following year, the CEO subsequently quoted this youtuber as praising their earlier iPhone models, which MBKHD admitted, giving the impression it was an endorsement, when in actuality the context of the quote was factual but not accurate. ...It seems the company uses their daily operations to communicate with their nay-sayers.
A: You raise an interesting point about how companies like Apple may use public statements and actions to respond to criticism or shape narratives around their products. The incident you mention with MKBHD (Marques Brownlee) and Apple CEO Tim Cook is a good example.
To provide some background for other readers, in 2019 influential tech reviewer MKBHD was critical of the iPhone 11 Pro, saying it was a very iterative update and not a major leap forward. The following year, during the iPhone 12 launch event, Tim Cook quoted a positive comment MKBHD had made about the iPhone in the past, giving the impression MKBHD was more favorable on the iPhone than his most recent review indicated.
This selective quoting seems to have been a deliberate choice by Apple to push back on MKBHD's criticism and make it appear he was more of an iPhone supporter. By doing this on such a public stage, it sent a message that Apple pays attention to influential voices and will highlight positive comments, even if they are from the past and out of context.
It's a clever tactic, even if a bit misleading. Apple didn't directly refute MKBHD's iPhone 11 critique, but reframed the conversation using his own past words. For a massive company, engaging in a public back-and-forth with an individual reviewer is usually unwise. But subtly using their platform and reach to promote a certain narrative is a savvy communications strategy.
Of course, as you point out, this is just one example of how Apple uses its heft to shape perceptions. From highlighting favorable reviews, to giving early product access to friendly journalists, to its famous secrecy and tight control over messaging, Apple is a master at molding its public image through its daily business practices. And it's not alone - most large corporations actively work to "influence the influencers" and use their operations to reinforce certain narratives.
It's a practice that certainly merits scrutiny. While not as overt as advertising or PR, these subtler forms of corporate communications can be very effective at steering the broader conversation. As consumers and citizens, we should be attuned to how companies craft their public narratives, not just through overt messaging but through more understated tactical choices. Because as you note, there's often a lot more being said than first meets the eye.