|
Apple Dividend May Return Part of $98B in Cash
|
03-01-2012, 01:10 PM
IronMac wrote: There is no lower limit on dividends, other than zero, which is what AAPL pays now. Your argument seems to be that they have to pay a dividend of at least X% if they are going to pay a dividend. They can pay $0.01/share if they want.
03-01-2012, 01:37 PM
Bloomie's rag is making a major ASS-U-ME here. They obviously misunderstand the ethos of Apple.
03-01-2012, 02:23 PM
I am sure Jimmypoo will weigh in and enlighten us all soon enough *(:>*
03-01-2012, 04:36 PM
not gonna happen - at least not at the numbers that people have been throwing about.
The numbers have been between $5 and $10, and while they could easily do that ($10 is about $9 billion) there is no reason to do so. The "investors" they are supposed to be appeasing are the 70% institution held shares - and because the only way they can GET their appreciation out of Apple is by dividends or SELLING the shares, the papers are whining on their behalf for Apple to do so. And with, by the end of 2012, $145-150 billion in cash, if any investor wants to show Apple who is boss and cash out... Apple can let the people or other institutions who have been waiting for a drop pick up the excess, or Apple can buy back the blocks let go and sustain the price, since they clearly don't need the capital. 900 million shares out there, and 630 million of them are held by "institutions." That could range from banks, insurance companies and stock houses, to investment funds and retirement pension plans. The only ones who went into Apple with open eyes are the retirement pension plans (like CALPERS) - because the stock hasn't paid a dividend since 1995, and when it did, it was paying average, like others, in their case, of just 48¢ or 12¢ per quarter. If the "investors" wanted both HIGH GROWTH and DIVIDENDS, then they should have bought McDonalds - which has gone up 35% this year, and is among the highest paying dividend stocks - at $2.62 (65¢ per quarter). If someone wants a dividend paying stock in their portfolio for the same money, then they need to be looking at Altria or some other death causing stock like that. It's paying out $2, and if you have 1000 shares of that, for the past 15 years, you'd be getting $500 per quarter on that stock. If you've held 1000 shares of Apple for the past 15 years, you'd now have 4000 shares, and your lowest point investment would have gone from avg of $10 to 535. Would you rather have gained $2,000,000+ in liquidity? Or $60,000 in dividends + whatever the stock has done? The stock houses that are out there that sell Apple to "PEOPLE INVESTORS" sell shadow stocks. They place your order, take your money, and only until the day you request your certificate, do they actually pull one from their own vaults and transfer it to you (at which they HOPE they paid $10 or $100 for the shares they are now transferring to you) OR they have to go out on the open market and buy the shares - if they have none, but were simply doing as the typical company stock pension plan does, and pays you the equiv, and they must deplete their own cash hoard of $2,000,000 if you bought 1000 shares in 1996, and now you want the certificates. Nobody talks much about Lehman Brothers and exactly the mechanism that took them down, but this is part of the animal. Just calculate the potential value lost by a huge paper investment in Enron, vs. had they all been shadow investments bought at the higher prices. They could have easily cashed out the rapid demands for accounts, for those who bought at X and were selling at X minus 75%, but if they actually held the shares and were part of the 24-48 hour loss, (since this too, was an institution held darling, that I'm surprised hasn't yet had Jeff Skilling killed, or at least his weatherman brother machine-gunned in front of a map of the Canadian cold front heading in...) - then they wouldn't have the cash - and there'd be no buyers. So the only answer is to start throwing their other holdings on the market (as every other institution is doing) to obtain cash, and this is one of the major factors that kills the market. People are far more likely to weather a storm (since they aren't watching every penny of the stock like traders do, with built in buy/sell as well as constant analysis of their overall cash position in the market vs. need for liquid cash). There probably ought to be a regulation on the percentage permitted for institutions to hold the stock. You can see that when calls for Apple to buy back stock with the cash are made -- who is that going to serve? Only the institutions who hold the stock - who will get cash for their holdings, and now that the stock is again secure within Apple (which will have to be held for a long time to make up for the cash outlay) the prices will quickly bounce back protecting the rest of the institution held stock. For those looking for a truly great investment - now that I have a large format Epson and a friend who works at Crane Paper, I've begun printing these collectibles in both "pristine" and "folded" appearance. Inquire by PM for rates on 1000, 10,000 or 100,000 lots. Available in Extra Crispy Also Available in "Comfy Shoe" at a discount
03-01-2012, 06:01 PM
IronMac wrote: I don't think you realize how this all works. In the most basic sense, as a shareholder, we own part of Apple. Apple CANNOT do whatever it wants with the money. That money belongs to the stockholders ...who have given management the right and obligation to manage it for them.
03-01-2012, 06:17 PM
Jimmypoo wrote: ...The "investors" they are supposed to be appeasing are the 70% institution held shares...If you've held 1000 shares of Apple for the past 15 years, you'd now have 4000 shares, and your lowest point investment would have gone from avg of $10 to 535. Would you rather have gained $2,000,000+ in liquidity? Or $60,000 in dividends + whatever the stock has done?...There probably ought to be a regulation on the percentage permitted for institutions to hold the stock. You can see that when calls for Apple to buy back stock with the cash are made -- who is that going to serve? +100 Yet another masterful post, jimmypoo--you're on a roll.
03-01-2012, 06:25 PM
Article Accelerator wrote: Then where is your order for US Notes??
03-01-2012, 07:21 PM
Lux Interior wrote: There is no lower limit on dividends, other than zero, which is what AAPL pays now. Your argument seems to be that they have to pay a dividend of at least X% if they are going to pay a dividend. They can pay $0.01/share if they want. No, my argument is that for that low a dividend it's not worth the paperwork to do it. They might as well do a special dividend or go for share buybacks.
03-01-2012, 07:22 PM
Jimmypoo wrote: This would be why I keep coming back to MRF.
03-01-2012, 07:26 PM
Article Accelerator wrote: I don't think you realize how this all works. In the most basic sense, as a shareholder, we own part of Apple. Apple CANNOT do whatever it wants with the money. That money belongs to the stockholders ...who have given management the right and obligation to manage it for them. It can also be taken back. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
