Above Avalon Podcast Episode 179: Winning the Buyback Debate
After years of criticism, doubt, and questions surrounding Apple’s share buyback program, we are at a point where we can say with confidence that the buyback debate has ended and Apple was declared the winner. In episode 179, Neil goes over how the buyback debate began and why so many people underestimated Apple’s ability to both buy back shares and invest in its future at the same time.
To listen to episode 179, go here.
The complete Above Avalon podcast episode archive is available here.
Subscribe to receive future Above Avalon podcast episodes:
RSS Feed (for your favorite podcast player)
Apple Won the Share Buyback Debate
I receive many questions about Apple from Above Avalon readers, listeners, and members. In previous years, one topic has been far ahead of any other as a source of questions. Everyone wanted to know about Apple’s share buyback program.
Why is Apple buying back its shares?
Is Tim Cook trying to take Apple private?
Does buying back shares signal anything about Apple’s future product plans?
Why doesn’t Apple use cash to buy larger companies instead of buying back its shares?
Something interesting happened in 2020. I received far fewer questions about Apple’s share buyback program. To be precise, I didn’t receive an incoming question about buyback in nine months - from when the stock market put in a bottom in April 2020 to the start of 2021. What explains such a dramatic change? The Apple share buyback debate ended, and Apple was declared the winner.
How It Started
In the early 2010s, many on Wall Street viewed Apple as the iPhone company, and the iPhone was said to be “dead in the water.” A few activist hedge funds began circling around Apple shares due to their low valuation metrics relative to peers and the overall market. Apple was trading at a single digit forward price-to-earnings multiple – a valuation typically afforded to companies with little to no growth potential. On a free cash flow yield basis, Apple was priced like a junk bond.
In March 2012, after consultation with top shareholders, Apple announced it would begin paying a quarterly cash dividend and buying back shares. While Wall Street mostly applauded the move, Silicon Valley was convinced Apple had made a big mistake. Some thought Tim Cook was pressured into buying back Apple shares. Those who followed the “what would Steve Jobs do” doctrine were convinced that Cook had placed Apple on a path to ruin since Steve Jobs had famously viewed dividends and buyback as nothing more than distractions. At the time, none of Apple’s high-growth peers were buying back shares, which made Apple look even more like an outlier.
The primary concern held by those skeptical of Apple buying back shares was that by using cash to repurchase shares, Apple would have less cash to spend on capital expenditures (capex), research & development (R&D), and mergers & acquisitions (M&A). Said another way, some thought Apple was sacrificing its growth potential just to buy back shares.
Repurchase Pace
When looking back at Apple’s share buyback activity, one event stands out: passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Prior to U.S. tax reform, Apple was constrained in terms of the amount of cash that could be spent on buyback. The company was penalized for bringing foreign cash back to the U.S. to fund share buyback. As shown in the exhibit below, Apple kept share buyback to a $30 billion to $45 billion per year pace despite having more than $150 billion of net cash on the balance sheet. Following U.S. tax reform, Apple was able to repatriate its foreign cash at more attractive tax rates. Apple’s share buyback pace shot higher and has been trending at $70 billion per year.
Exhibit 1: Apple Share Buyback Pace (Annual - FY)
Judging Apple’s Buyback Program
Since beginning to repurchase shares in 2013, Apple has spent $380 billion to buy back 10.6 billion shares at an average price of $35.80 per share. It’s tempting to think that Apple’s share buyback has been a success because Apple shares are trading 265% higher than the average price management paid to repurchase shares. However, one cannot judge buyback’s effectiveness or success by merely looking at the current stock price. Apple retires repurchased shares so there aren’t unrealized gains on the balance sheet from previously repurchased shares.
Share repurchases aren’t meant to boost stock prices even though some management teams may strive for such an outcome. Instead, share buyback is a tool for removing excess cash from balance sheets. In the process, a wealth transfer event is possible as ownership is shifted from shareholders willing to sell shares back to the company to those shareholders not selling shares. This is one reason why share buybacks are not created equally. Some companies incorrectly think buyback is a way to solve a problematic business model or lack of future growth while other companies see share buyback as a tool for balance sheet optimization.
The Above Avalon Report, “Share Buyback 101: An Examination of Apple’s Share Repurchase Strategy” contains much more detail on the wealth transfer dynamic found with share buyback. The report is available exclusively to Above Avalon members.
By repurchasing shares, a company doesn’t face brighter future prospects or even a higher stock price. The list of companies with stock prices that declined precipitously once share buyback concluded is long. Accordingly, a share buyback program’s effectiveness cannot and should not be judged by a company’s stock price.
End of Debate
Consensus agreed that Apple was holding on to too much cash on the balance sheet. However, there were differing opinions as to what Apple should do to remove the excess cash. Some thought that Apple should go on an M&A shopping spree. Twitter? Apple should buy it. Tesla? Apple should buy it. Netflix? Apple should buy it. Others thought Apple should ramp R&D so that as a percent of revenue, its R&D spending would be in line with that of its peers.
Instead of pursuing questionable expenditures such as large-scale M&A, paying special dividends, or simply saying “yes” to every R&D project imaginable, Apple instead saw an opportunity to both manage its balance sheet to a net cash neutral position (the amount of cash equals the amount of debt) and simultaneously invest in its future.
Apple’s share buyback debate didn’t end because Apple shares traded above a certain level, Apple repurchased shares below intrinsic value, or the company’s cash levels declined below a certain threshold. Instead, the buyback debate ended because Apple was able to successfully demonstrate that it can pile cash into buyback at record levels while also investing in its future at the same time. With Apple’s share buyback pace remaining at record levels, the company has been able to ramp up R&D to record levels while continuing to fund capex and pursue intelligent M&A.
What Did People Get Wrong?
Why did so many people underestimate Apple’s ability to both buy back shares and invest in its future at the same time?
People overestimated the amount of cash Apple actually needed to run the business and invest in the future.
People underestimated Apple’s ability to generate free cash flow.
As a percent of revenue, Apple’s R&D has historically been lower than that of its peers. Instead of this reflecting Apple underinvesting in R&D, the lower percentage reflects Apple’s unique culture and approach to product development. A better approach to take when judging Apple’s R&D spending is to compare current expenditures to historical totals. Apple spent more on R&D in FY2020 than the total it spent on R&D cumulatively from FY2010 to FY2014.
Apple’s capex needs are less than those of its peers. Apple has a capex-light business model because the company doesn’t offer free services to billions of people with a monetization strategy revolving around ads. This results in less property, plant, and equipment requirements.
Turning to M&A, Apple isn’t interested in buying products and users – a strategy that would likely be met with failure given the difficulty found with assimilating a target’s culture. Instead, Apple uses M&A to fill asset holes in the form of accessing technology and talent. This lends itself to Apple pursuing smaller deals involving companies with less in the way of thriving business models (and premium price tags).
Based on my estimates, Apple requires $10 billion to $15 billion per year to maintain and invest in property, plant, and equipment, and pursue intelligent M&A. Meanwhile, Apple’s business model predisposes the company to superior free cash flow generation. In FY2020, Apple generated a whopping $71 billion of free cash flow. The lack of significant capex requirements means that a high percentage of its operating cash flow ends up being free cash flow. As shown in Exhibit 2, Apple’s free cash flow has been increasing over time.
Exhibit 2: Apple Free Cash Flow (Annual - FY)
Apple’s superior free cash flow generation, combined with its investment run rate, allows the company to return tens of billions of dollars of excess cash to shareholders each year. This isn’t cash that would have been better suited for more R&D, capex, or M&A. Instead, the cash spent on buyback ends up keeping Apple management more disciplined and focused on proper and intelligent spending.
Big Picture
Apple has become a leader in corporate finance strategy. Following Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon have each subsequently announced their own share buyback program. Not surprisingly, none of them faced the kind of pushback that Apple faced during the last decade with its own buyback. Instead, Apple peers were applauded.
Consensus was convinced that Apple was buying back shares at the expense of its future growth potential. In reality, Apple’s growth potential has improved as its well-funded product strategy has allowed the company to pull away with the competition. In just the past five years, Apple has grown the iPhone installed base from 570 million to a billion users, and Apple’s ecosystem growth momentum is building. Apple’s wearables business has grown to the size of a Fortune 130 firm. Apple’s Services business went from a $20 billion to a $54 billion annual revenue run rate. In FY2020, Apple’s non-iPhone revenue growth, one of the best measures of ecosystem expansion, was 16%. Once consumers enter the Apple ecosystem via the iPhone, they proceed to buy additional Apple products and services.
There are still some questions worth asking regarding Apple’s share buyback. For example, with Apple shares trading at premium valuation multiples to the market, what is management’s approach to the buyback pace? However, when it’s a question of whether or not Apple management can buy back shares while also investing in its future, the debate has ended and Apple was declared the winner.
Listen to the corresponding Above Avalon podcast episode for this article here.
Receive my analysis and perspective on Apple throughout the week via exclusive daily updates (2-3 stories per day, 10-12 stories per week). Available to Above Avalon members. To sign up and for more information on membership, visit the membership page.
For additional discussion on this topic, check out the Above Avalon daily update from January 14th.
Above Avalon Podcast Episode 167: A Stock Buyback Poster Child
Share buyback is one of a handful of tools that boards and management teams have to properly manage balance sheets. However, economic fallout related to the pandemic has led to a new round of criticism aimed at buyback. In episode 167, Neil discusses how Apple has become the poster child of responsible share repurchases. Additional topics include: Apple’s recent stock buyback activity, Neil’s expectation for Apple’s upcoming update to its buyback program, the latest criticism surrounding buyback, repurchasing shares in a pandemic, and the harsh reality found with stock buybacks.
To listen to episode 167, go here.
The complete Above Avalon podcast episode archive is available here.
Apple's $460 Billion Stock Buyback
Share buybacks have once again come under fire. Some companies that were recent buyers of their shares now find themselves in financial distress and seeking bailouts due to economic fallout from the pandemic. Set within this environment and backlash, Apple is scheduled to provide an update next week on its capital return program, including its share buyback program. The announcement will provide clues for how the poster child of responsible share repurchases is financially navigating the pandemic.
Buyback Pace
Since kicking off its repurchase program in 2013, Apple has spent $327 billion to buy back 2.5 billion shares at an average price of $131 per share. The following exhibit shows Apple’s buyback activity on an annual basis:
Exhibit 1: Apple Share Buyback Pace (Annual - FY)
The pickup in Apple’s buyback pace in FY2018 and FY2019 was due to U.S. tax reform and Apple utilizing cash that had been in non-U.S. subsidiaries. Last year, Apple spent $55 billion buying back 283 million shares (at an $194 average price) in open market transactions. Adding this total to $12B of accelerated share repurchases, Apple spent a total of $67 billion on share buyback. To put that total in perspective, it’s more than the market capitalization of 85% of the companies in the S&P 500.
Buyback Authorization
Every April, Apple’s board of directors, in consultation with management, assesses business trends, the operating environment, and Apple’s financial position, to arrive at an appropriate level of capital return (share repurchases and quarterly cash dividends).
The board has authorized seven consecutive increases to Apple’s share buyback program since the program launched in 2012:
2012: $10 billion buyback authorization
2013: $60 billion (increase of $50 billion)
2014: $90 billion (increase of $30 billion)
2015: $140 billion (increase of $50 billion)
2016: $175 billion (increase of $35 billion)
2017: $210 billion (increase of $35 billion)
2018: $310 billion (increase of $100 billion)
2019: $385 billion (increase of $75 billion)
At the end of December 2019, Apple had $59 billion of share repurchase authorization remaining. Assuming Apple bought back at least $10 billion of shares in FY2Q20 (January to March 2020), the company likely had somewhere closer to $50 billion of authorization remaining at the end of March. This means that without additional authorization, Apple would have about seven months worth of share repurchases remaining. Accordingly, there is a strong likelihood of Apple’s board announcing the eight consecutive increase in share repurchase authorization next week.
My expectation is for Apple’s board to announce a $75 billion increase to buyback authorization next week. This would allow Apple to continue buying back shares at the same pace that it has for the past 24 months. Such an authorization would bring Apple’s total repurchase authorization since 2012 to $460 billion. In order to add flexibility to such authorization, especially given the current environment, Apple will likely have more than 12 months to utilize the authorization. This means that if operating conditions continue to deteriorate over the next 12 months, Apple will have the ability to slow down its share buyback pace and run with a higher level of untapped repurchase authorization.
Although companies are not under obligation to utilize share repurchase authorization, Apple has approached its authorization differently. Many companies announce a new share buyback program in order to benefit from the near-term stock price bump often associated with the announcement. These companies never actually intend to utilize the full buyback authorization. Meanwhile, Apple has been an aggressive repurchaser of its shares, which require material increases in buyback authorization every year.
Buyback Criticism
In recent weeks, share buyback has once again been put under a microscope. The act of taking cash on the balance sheet to buy back shares from shareholders willing to sell is no stranger to criticism. Prior to the pandemic, the most recent uproar regarding buyback occurred during the U.S. tax reform debate as some felt it wasn’t right for companies to use repatriated cash to repurchase shares (and pay cash dividends).
With passenger airline travel coming to a near halt, the airliners find themselves in a dire financial situation. Delta is burning through $60 million of cash a day. The airlines were quick to seek U.S. taxpayer-funded bailouts in the form of grants and loans. The entire episode has left a bad taste in many mouths as the airlines had been aggressive share repurchasers. Instead of establishing some kind of rainy day fund, the airlines used free cash flow to fund share repurchases at prices significantly higher than current stock prices.
Past financial crises have also provided examples of share buyback gone wrong. Some insurers who were busy buying back their shares in 2007 ended up needing to issue shares at significant discounts not long after due to holding toxic mortgage investments. The gas and energy industry turned to share repurchases when oil was at $100 a barrel.
With each example, we have boards and management teams who felt it was prudent in good economic times to buy back their shares. It’s fair to ask if some of these companies used share buyback primarily to hide financial and business shortcomings elsewhere. Bad actors can utilize share buyback for near-term manipulation either through improper signaling to the market or financial engineering. Reducing the number of shares outstanding via buyback results in higher earnings per share figures and return on equity percentages, all else equal.
The Poster Child
And then there is Apple. A very good argument can be made that Apple has become the poster child of responsible share repurchases. The company has relied on its stellar free cash flow to fund share repurchases over the years. Prior to U.S. tax reform and Apple keeping cash generated outside the U.S. in foreign subsidiaries, Apple issued debt at roughly the same pace as foreign cash generation. This resulted in Apple having $285 billion of cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities on the balance sheet at the end of 1Q18. After two years of aggressive share repurchases, Apple’s cash total is now closer to $200 billion.
By funding buyback with free cash flow, share repurchases have had zero impact on the amount of cash Apple wants to spend on organic growth initiatives including R&D, M&A, and capital expenditures. Apple is using truly excess cash that it has no use for to repurchase its shares.
Partly to provide a buffer against adverse market conditions and to retain M&A flexibility, Apple is following a net cash neutral strategy which means that the amount of cash held on the balance sheet will eventually equal the amount of outstanding debt. Given Apple’s current debt holdings, this amounts to holding approximately a $100 billion cash cushion in the event of a rainy day. On top of that, given Apple’s unique capex-light business model, the company is able to generate tens of billions of dollars of free cash flow each year even with lower sales due to a global recession.
Since share buyback makes financial sense when repurchases are done at a share price that is less than a company’s intrinsic value, it is much harder to assess a buyback’s effectiveness, or the amount wealth transferred between shareholders selling and holding shares.
The Above Avalon Report, “Share Buyback 101: An Examination of Apple’s Share Repurchase Strategy” contains much more detail on the wealth transfer dynamic found with share buyback. The report is available exclusively to Above Avalon members.
In theory, management teams are in the best position to estimate their company’s intrinsic value. However, it’s easy to see hubris enter the situation with management teams overestimating their strengths while ignoring or downplaying weaknesses and risks. Since Apple is a design company tasked with making tools for people, having an inside view of the product pipeline plays a major role in estimating Apple’s intrinsic value. This may end up giving Apple management an advantage when it comes to assessing buyback’s effectiveness.
Buybacks and the Pandemic
The pandemic has changed the buyback discussion for every public company. Using Apple as an example, it’s not that the company’s intrinsic value, which reflects Apple’s cash flow generating capability in the future, has changed because of economic fallout related to the pandemic. Instead, market dislocations in credit markets have led to a renewed focus on liquidity and balance sheet preservation.
Apple has shown the willingness in the past to pause share repurchases based on adverse market trends. It is possible that Apple paused the buyback last month while credit markets were acting abnormal or the situation in China didn’t bode well for the rest of the world. However, given its stellar balance sheet, there likely is no company in a better position than Apple to buy back shares during a pandemic.
Harsh Reality
The harsh reality found with share buyback is that not every company should buy back their shares. While we can debate just how much of a financial cushion a company should keep in case of a pandemic or natural disaster, it’s much easier to say that overextending a balance sheet in order to buy back shares is unwise.
As the airline industry shows us, additional considerations that should be prioritized when assessing a share repurchase program are the company’s business model, ability to access capital in adverse market conditions, and difference between share price and intrinsic value. A company’s intrinsic value should reflect the sustainability, or lack thereof, of the future cash flow stream.
Share buyback is one of a handful of tools that boards and management teams have to properly manage balance sheets. While some companies have no purpose using the tool, others can benefit immensely from the same tool. Instead of simply casting off share repurchases as ineffective, inappropriate, or even dangerous, attention should go to assessing how a company is using share buyback.
Listen to the corresponding Above Avalon podcast episode for this article here.
Receive my analysis and perspective on Apple throughout the week via exclusive daily updates (2-3 stories per day, 10-12 stories per week). Available to Above Avalon members. To sign up and for more information on membership, visit the membership page.