Does Apple have $0 of treasury stock?
"Treasury stock is not really represented in the Balance Sheet as a ""Treasury stock"" line item in the assets.  Some companies will break out Treasury Shares as a line item in the ""Shareholders Equity"" heading of the balance sheet but Apple hides it in the ""Shares Issued and Outstanding"" counts under the ""Shareholders Equity"" heading.  As of the most recent Q2 2017 quarterly report There are 5,205,815,000 shares issued against 5,336,166,000 shares outstanding.  This indicates that Apple is retaining about 130,351,000 shares in treasury. On the Q1 10-Q you can see that Apple had 5,255,423,000 shares issued which indicates roughly 49mm shares were repurchased by the end of Q2.  You can roughly verify this by looking at page 18 of the Q2 filing in the summary of the share repurchase program.  Repurchased as part of an Accelerated Share Repurchase arrangement bleeds between quarters but from February 2017 through May 2017 there have been 17.5mm shares repurchased.  31mm shares were also repurchased on the open market in Q2.    The ""shares issued"" total is on a downward trend as part of Apple's share repurchase initiative that has been underway for the last couple of years."
"What does your comment have to do with my comment? You say ""Apple only designs stuff"" as if that has some bearing on their net worth. Right now Apple's stock is worth about as much as *Google and Microsoft combined*, and they're sitting on about 60B in *cash*. They are *extremely* wealthy. They could do absolutely nothing for a very very long time and still stay in business." "Two main points to answer this in my opinion. First, most people don't start with say half a million dollar to buy all the stocks they need in one shot but rather they accumulate this money gradually. So they must make many Buys in their lifetime. Similarly, most people don't need to withdraw all their investment in one day (and shouldn't do this anyway as it cuts the time of investment). So there will be many Sells. Performing a single buy or sell per year is not efficient since it means you have lots of cash sitting doing nothing. So in this sense, low cost indexing lets you quickly invest your money (and withdraw it when needed after say you retire) without worrying about commission costs each time. The second and most important point to me to answer this is that we should make a very clear distinction between strategy and outcome. Today's stock prices and all the ups and downs of the market are just one possible outcome that materialized from a virtually uncountable number of possible outcomes. It's not too hard to imagine that tomorrow we hear all iPhones explode and Apple stock comes crashing down. Or that in a parallel universe Amazon never takes off and somehow Sears is the king of online commerce. Another item in the ""outcome"" category is your decisions as a human being of when to buy and sell. If that exploding iPhone event does occur, would you hold on to your stocks? Would you sell and cut your losses? Does the average person make the same decision if they had $1000 invested in Apple alone vs $1M?  Index investing offers a low cost strategy that mitigates these uncertainties for the average person. Again here the key is the word ""average"". Picking a handful of the heavyweight stocks as you mention might give you better returns in 30 years, but it could just as easily give you worse. And the current data suggest the latter is more likely. ""Heavyweights"" come and go (who were they 30 years ago?) and just like how the other 450 companies may seem right now as dragging down the portfolio, just as easily a handful of them can emerge as the new heavyweights. Guaranteed? No. Possible? Yes.  Jack Bogle is simply saying low cost indexing is one of the better strategies for the average person, given the data. But nowhere is it guaranteed that in this lifetime (e.g. next 30 years) will provide the best outcome. Berkshire on the other hand are in the business of chasing maximum outcomes (mid or short term returns). It's two different concepts that shouldn't be mixed together in my opinion." No, this isn't possible, especially not when you're trading a highly liquid stock like Apple. When you put in your buy order at $210, any other traders that have open limit sell orders with the correct parameters, e.g. price and volume, will have their order(s) filled. This will occur before you can put in your own sell order and purchase your own shares because the other orders are listed on the order book first. In the US, many tax-sheltered accounts like IRA's have specific rules against self-dealing, which includes buying and selling assets with yourself, so such a transaction would be prohibited by definition. Although I'm not entirely sure if this applies to stocks, the limitation described in the first paragraph still applies regardless. If this were possible, rest assured that high-frequency traders would take advantage of this tactic to manipulate share prices. (I've heard critics say that this does occur, but I haven't researched it myself or seen any data about it) Let's say that you bought a share of Apple for $10. When (if ever) their stock sold for $10, it was a very small company with a very small net worth; that is, the excess of assets over liabilities. Your $10 share was perhaps a 1/10,000,000th share of a tiny company. Over the years, Apple has developed both software and hardware that have real value to the world. No-one knew they needed a smartphone and, particularly, an iPhone, until Apple showed it to us. The same is true of iPads, iPods, Apple watches, etc. Because of the sales of products and services, Apple is now a huge company with a huge net worth. Obviously, your 1/10,000,000th share of the company is now worth a lot more. Perhaps it is worth $399. Maybe you think Apples good days are behind it. After all, it is harder to grow a huge company 15% a year than it is a small company. So maybe you will go into the marketplace and offer to sell your 1/10,000,000th share of Apple. If someone offers you $399, would you take it?  The value of stocks in the market is not a Ponzi scheme, although it is a bit speculative. You might have a different conclusion and different research about the future value of Apple than I do. Your research might lead you to believe the stock is worth $399. Mine might suggest it's worth $375. Then I wouldn't buy. The value of stocks in the market is based on the present and estimated future value of living, breathing companies that are growing, shrinking and steady. The value of each company changes all the time. So, then, does the price of the stock. Real value is created in the stock market when real value is created in the underlying company. "This is an opinion, but I think it has more to do with the market's uncertainty about the long-term future of the company without Steve Jobs.  Apple hasn't released anything more than incremental upgrades to its existing product lines since Jobs passed, and while some people would argue about the Apple watch, Jobs played a significant role in its development prior to his death, so that doesn't really count. Whether you like or hate Apple, you had to admire Jobs' passion and creativity, and there's real question as to whether the company can sustain its dominance in the market without the Jobs vision over the long haul.  My guess is that the market is leaning slightly toward the ""no"" column, but only ever so slightly.  The company continues to deliver fantastic results, but how long will that last of their next products don't wow consumers the way previous ones have?  This skepticism manifests itself in a stock that trades at a lower P/E than it deserves to, but this is just my opinion.   I hope this helps. Good luck!" How is it possible that a publicly traded investment company's net asset value per share is higher than their share price? Wouldn't you (in theory) be able to buy the company and liquidate it to make a profit of (NAV/share - price/share)*number of shares, ignoring transaction costs and such?   I realize that since part of their portfolio is in private equity, NAV is hard to calculate and hard to liquidate as well, but it doesn't really seem to make sense to me. Would love some input.   The company I'm talking about in this instance is 180 Degree Capital Corp, but this isn't the first time I've seen this. This is an extremely simplified version and not necessarily accurate. C for example has $800b in cash and 10+% Tier 1 capital relative to other banks. Yes, they need to write down debt but the larger concern as opposed to bankruptcy by capital markets is equity dilution.   Both C and BAC need to raise equity capital due and, due to new leverage restrictions, will dilute existing shareholders so much that they will have difficulty matching previous EPS. Also, a lot of analysts expect thy aren't marking down assets enough (reducing that large Tier 1 buffer pretty heavily).   One of the primary reasons they issue smaller dividends relative to JPM is that dividends for systematically important institutions must be approved by the Fed now (Dodd-Frank). They can't issue a big dividend because the Fed says they aren't well capitalized enough.   To say they are bankrupt though shows a misunderstanding of bank balance sheets and how the FRB discount window works, though. "My question boiled down: Do stock mutual funds behave more like   treasury bonds or commodities? When I think about it, it seems that   they should respond the devaluation like a commodity. I own a quantity   of company shares (not tied to a currency), and let's assume that the   company only holds immune assets. Does the real value of my stock   ownership go down? Why? On December 20, 1994, newly inaugurated President Ernesto Zedillo   announced the Mexican central bank's devaluation of the peso between   13% and 15%.  Devaluing the peso after previous promises not to do so   led investors to be skeptical of policymakers and fearful of   additional devaluations. Investors flocked to foreign investments and   placed even higher risk premia on domestic assets. This increase in   risk premia placed additional upward market pressure on Mexican   interest rates as well as downward market pressure on the Mexican   peso.  Foreign investors anticipating further currency devaluations   began rapidly withdrawing capital from Mexican investments and selling   off shares of stock as the Mexican Stock Exchange plummeted. To   discourage such capital flight, particularly from debt instruments,   the Mexican central bank raised interest rates, but higher borrowing   costs ultimately hindered economic growth prospects. The question is how would they pull this off if it's a floatable currency.  For instance, the US government devalued the US Dollar against gold in the 30s, moving one ounce of gold from $20 to $35.   The Gold Reserve Act outlawed most private possession of gold, forcing   individuals to sell it to the Treasury, after which it was stored in   United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox and other locations. The   act also changed the nominal price of gold from $20.67 per troy ounce   to $35. But now, the US Dollar is not backed by anything, so how do they devalue it now (outside of intentionally inflating it)?  The Hong Kong Dollar, since it is fixed to the US Dollar, could be devalued relative to the Dollar, going from 7.75 to 9.75 or something similar, so it depends on the currency. As for the final part, ""does the real value of my stock ownership go down"" the answer is yes if the stock ownership is in the currency devalued, though it may rise over the longer term if investors think that the value of the company will rise relative to devaluation and if they trust the market (remember a devaluation can scare investors, even if a company has value). Sorry that there's too much ""it depends"" in the answer; there are many variables at stake for this.  The best answer is to say, ""Look at history and what happened"" and you might see a pattern emerge; what I see is a lot of uncertainty in past devaluations that cause panics."