Apple has invested $573 billion into this over the past 10 years. Can you guess what this is? Maybe R&D? Well, Apple spends about $6-7 billion per quarter on R&D.
So while that adds up to about $250 billion over a 10-year period, that's less than half of this other investment. Maybe they spent it on acquisitions? Well Apple only has two acquisitions that even crossed the $1 billion mark, beats and it until smartphone modem business.
So nowhere near $573 billion. Maybe they've just been hoarding a crap ton of cash? Well Apple has actually been decreasing their cash reserves consistently from over $100 billion down to just over $50 billion.
Okay then maybe it's the total value of all of Apple's assets? Well while Apple's assets do tower at an impressive $350 billion, it still falls over $200 billion short of $573 billion. But then if Apple didn't spend this money on R&D, acquisitions, cash reserves or investments, where the hell did such a ginormous amount of money go? Well it turns out that Apple's biggest bet over the past 10 years is actually stock by-vax.
That's right. Apple has spent $573 billion over the past 10 years on stock by-vax. For perspective, that's enough money to buy a Fortune 10 company cash.
In second place, we have a Microsoft who comes in at a measly $170 billion over the past 10 years or over $400 billion less. It looks like this disparity is only going to grow larger as Apple is simply doubling down. In fact, nowadays Apple is spending nearly $100 billion on stock by-vax every single year.
Assuming that this continues to increase, Apple will spend over a trillion dollars on by-vax over the next 10 years. This has sparked rumors regarding whether Apple is trying to go private. But more importantly, has raised concerns about whether this is healthy for the economy. Instead of investing this money into creating new products, creating new jobs, or even just storing it in cash or bonds where it can be lent out, Apple has decided to spend half a trillion dollars on inflating their stock price.
So here's the story of how a once-banded practice became so popular, and why companies are throwing it trillions at by-vax every single year. The reasoning behind why companies love stock by-vax is not rocket science. By purchasing shares from the market and the burning them, companies are not only adding demand to the market, but they're also reducing supply.
So thanks to basic supply and demand economics, this dynamic leads to stock prices going up. Aside from boosting the stock price, by-vax also boosts the benefits of being a shareholder.
For example, let's say that Apple had a total of 100 shares of stock, and that you owned 10 of them. This means that you owned 10% of the company, but what if Apple came in and eliminated 20 of the shares by buying them back? Well, you still only own 10 shares, but since the total number of shares has decreased to 80, you now own 12.5% of Apple.
This means that you'll now get 12.5% of the dividends, 12.5% of the voting power, and so on and so forth. So it's no wonder why companies and shareholders love by-vax, but the impact of by-vax on the economy is not so bright. This is why stock by-vax were banned for over 50 years up until 1981.
You see, the idea of companies buying back their own stock is by no means a new one. It's only natural that once a company runs out of external places to invest, they turn to investing in themselves. But ironically, the roots of by-vax actually trace back to times of despair as opposed to times of prosperity to the Great Depression.
A lot of activists who are not fans of by-vax like to claim that stock by-vax are what led to the Great Depression in the first place, but this is not true. The primary reasons for the Great Depression were simply excessive speculation paired with excessive levels of debt.
But while by-vax did not cause the Depression, the Depression did cause by-vax and by-vax only made the Depression worse. For obvious reasons, investors became frantic when the Dow Jones crashed 90% within a matter of three years.
They demanded that executives put up strong quarterly reports, increased dividends, and basically defied the economic situation. Understandably, this was simply not possible for most companies given the economic landscape. But what they were able to do was provide investors some solace through by-vax.
While this did not change the fact that most investors were down a ridiculous amount, it didn't sure that they could maximize the wealth that they did still have. So by-vax quickly became the go-to way to pander to shareholders during the depths of the Great Depression.
But this was terrible for the economy. To escape the Depression, America needed corporations to invest in employees, factories, and R&D. But instead, companies were spending the little money they did have on superficial avenue.
This went on for a couple of years until the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This legislation wasn't targeted at stock buy-backs specifically. In fact, it doesn't even mention buy-backs.
Rather, it was designed to prevent the Depression from happening again by putting some checks and balances in place. One of these checks and balances was that companies were not allowed to manipulate their own stock price. Technically, there was no mention of stock buy-backs, so that was more of a grey area, but no company was brave enough to test the SEC.
So the practice of stock buy-backs simply disappeared into oblivion. And it would have been great if it stayed that way, but that obviously wasn't the case. For the next few decades, no one even mentioned the idea of stock buy-backs.
The entire world wasn't recovery mode, both from the Great Depression and World War 2. America was also super focused on showing up the USSR with capitalism, so allowing corporations to inefficiently spend the reserves on buy-backs was out of the question. But as the stock market blew past its pre-depression highs and America landed people on the moon, Congress became a lot more relaxed.
They were no longer out to prove something. They had already come out on top. So now they were able to focus on personal gain, and what's the easiest way to make money as a politician? Well the answer is to align yourself with the richest business people and corporations around the world.
This coincided with yet another economic disaster, the inflation crisis of the 1970s. In the early 1970s, President Nixon would end the gold standard, meaning that US dollars were no longer backed by gold. This led to inflation spiraling out of control, the stock market stagnating and interest rates rising to a painful 19%.
So when President Ronald Reagan stepped in and suggested doubling down on capitalism, people were more receptive than ever. The logic was that capitalism is what saved America from the Great Depression and made America into a world power. So if we wanted to get back on track, we should just let capitalism do its magic. But that President Reagan would enact a slew of pro-capitalist legislation, now known as a Reaganomics.
This included things like slashing personal income tax from 70% down to 28%. Reducing corporate tax from 48% down to 34%, and easing regulations substantially. One of these regulation reducing moves was rule 10b-18, introduced by the SEC in 1982.
As you may have already guessed, this rule created a safe harbor for stock buybacks as long as companies abided by forced populations. These stipulations governed when, where, and how companies were allowed to buy back stock. But complying with these rules is actually completely voluntary.
As we previously touched on, the SEC never actually outright banned stock buybacks. So companies could still try to push the limits and buy back stock without following these stipulations. But given that they're pretty easy stipulations to follow, no one has really ever pushed the boundaries.
And with that, stock buybacks were officially legal once again. But the practice didn't catch on as quickly as you might expect. You see, back in the 1980s, value investing was way more popular than growth investing. And one of the key attributes that value investors were looking for was a strong and increasing dividend.
So whenever companies had extra cash lying around, they far preferred to just pay out larger dividends than buyback stock. Not to mention, companies used to have much more modest profit margins of 10-20%. So they couldn't meaningfully buy back a substantial portion of the company anyway.
But all of this would change with the rise of tech. Over time, the mentality of corporations and shareholders slowly shifted, and that this is beautifully documented by statements from the business round table, which is a coalition of top CEOs.
In 1981, this was the purpose of corporations as defined by these CEOs. Corporations have a responsibility, first of all, to make available to the public, quality goods and services at fair prices. There are by earning a profit that attracts investments to continue an enhanced enterprise provide jobs and build the economy.
But by 1997, this was the new purpose of corporations as defined by these CEOs. The principle objective of a business enterprise is to generate economic returns to its owners. If the CEO and the directors are not focused on shareholder value, it may be less likely the corporation will realize that value.
This probably sounds familiar, as this is a company's run today. The sole purpose of most companies and executives today is to serve shareholders as best as possible. So stock buybacks started looking more and more favorable.
But again, no company could afford to spend tens if not hundreds of billions on stock buybacks until Apple, or actually more specifically the iPhone. Apple didn't instantly turn to stock buybacks either though. For the first five years after the launch of the iPhone, they had plenty of expenses regarding scaling production, marketing and R&D.
But by 2013, Apple had achieved a pretty strong financial position, leading to their first stock buyback. Apple was by no means shy. It didn't start off with the modest one or two billion dollar buyback. They went straight for a tenet billion dollar stock buyback in 2012. And less than 12 months later, they would announce a record-breaking stock buyback of $60 billion.
And that was it. From then on out, Apple has been the undisputed king of stock buybacks, pouring in tens of billions into buybacks every single year. All of this brings up the question, is Apple trying to go private and is that even possible? Well with Apple's market cap ballooning to $2 to $3 trillion, it's becoming less and less possible. But in the late 2010s, it was very much possible. In fact, in 2017, Apple was on track to buyback 50% of itself by 2020.
So going private was not out of reach per se, but this was never part of the plan. You see, when Apple buys back shares, they're not putting the shares in some sort of company treasury. Rather, they're burning the shares and removing it from the supply. So the shares that Apple is buying back are basically being donated to all shareholders in proportion to their ownership. So with that being said, Apple is by no means going private and that is just a myth.
People are often critical of stock buybacks, but the reality is that stock buybacks are just the tip of the iceberg. The bigger underlying trend is that the entire purpose of corporations is shifting. Originally, the purpose of corporations was to create value in the marketplace while generating a respectable profit. But nowadays, the sole purpose of corporations is to serve shareholders no matter the cost. Stock buybacks are just one example of this trend, but thereby no means the only issue.
With that being said though, it doesn't seem like this trend will be changing anytime soon, because that's not in the executive's best interest. You see, as companies engage in stock buybacks, lobby for lower taxes, lobby for less regulation and maximize profits, shareholders are much more willing to pick executives more and more. In 1965, the average CEO was paid at 20 times the average worker at the company. Today, the average CEO is paid at 399 times the average worker at the same company.
So as long as this ratio keeps increasing, you can bet that Apple and every other company will continue betting big on stock buybacks. Did you realize how much Apple has spent on buybacks? Comment that down below. Also, drop a like if you think that Apple makes way too much money. And of course, consider checking out our Discord community, suggest video ideas and consider subscribing to see more questions that actually answered. Until then, I'm Hori, and I'll see you guys on the next one.