Does the CHIPS act have anything to do with making this happen?
It's funny to think that the supply chain gurus at Apple & NVIDIA may be doing the work of geopolitics in the service of just defending their bottom line from disruption.
It's funny to think that the supply chain gurus at Apple & NVIDIA may be doing the work of geopolitics in the service of just defending their bottom line from disruption.
I wonder to what extent you can get subsidies from both acts. I assume it shouldn't be a problem.
The choice was made decades ago on the alter of faux environmentalism to export the environmental cost of energy production to another nation so the EU could claim moral superiority in the climate change battle. Completely decimating domestic energy sources.
Well that is simply false.
Having morals and accepting hardship for standing up for them is not stupid. It's a principled stance most Europeans agree with. Governments need to step in and help whenever needed (with price caps for consumers, advantageous loans to businesses) to smooth it out, but it was that or appeasement, and we all know very well it doesn't work.
As if the US would have just kept buying 40% of its imported gas from Russia, were the roles reversed.
And they did that too: https://www.apple.com/environment/
I don't understand the fixation on this. Share buybacks strengthen the stock price of the company, which the company can leverage in the future to raise more capital if needed (by re-releasing new shares to the market). From that perspective, they are better than dividends.
Besides, right now, Apple isn't strapped for cash as they have around ~50 billion on-hand and could raise more if they wanted to. So Apple can still invest more in fab processes if that's what they want.
You are confused. A 100 dollar company with 100 shares outstanding, each worth 1 dollar, is not better able to raise capital than a 100 dollar company with 50 shares outstanding, each worth 2 dollars.
And even if it were a reverse stock split can convert the former to the latter.
"The most liquid stocks tend to be those with a great deal of interest from various market actors and a lot of daily transaction volume. Such stocks will also attract a larger number of market makers who maintain a tighter two-sided market."
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/liquidity.asp
In other words the more appetite for the stock, the more liquid the stock, and therefore the easier it is for a buyer to acquire the stock. This is presumably because stock market indexes will refuse to include an illiquid stock, meaning there will be less demand for the stock, and the stock price will drop.
Apple did a 4 for 1 stock split in 2020. Do you really think they screwed over their investors because you know something they don't about how stocks are valued?
This is kinda circular when you think about it. 'Strengthening the stock price' is just artificial scarcity, and incentivizes further financialization (by incentivizing borrowing with the stock as collateral) rather than simply distributing the profit or reinvesting it.
The data says their approach was correct.