Dividends per Apple Share

[dingdongbubble]

So I was wondering how much dividend a shareholder gets on every Apple share? And how often?

[Eraserhead]

There aren't any. The 2500% return over the last 5 years should be enough however ;).

[Much Ado]

None.

[dingdongbubble]

oh man. :rolleyes:

Keeping in mind that I dont live in the USA and I am not involved in shares, trading and investments and stuff, how can I purchase and later on sell apple shares?

[skunk]

If you are in the UK, try iWeb.

https://share-dealing.iwebsharedealing.co.uk

[IJ Reilly]

None.

Sad but true -- the last Apple shareholder dividend disappeared many years ago. They should declare one now, but there's no indication that they ever will.

[northy124]

How can I purchase and later on sell apple shares?

By using e*trade® (https://uk.etrade.com/e/t/uk/landingpage) or if you have $10,000 use Charles Schwab (www.charlesschwab.co.uk).

[Much Ado]

Sad but true -- the last Apple shareholder dividend disappeared many years ago. They should declare one now, but there's no indication that they ever will.

Yes, I think you mentioned in a previous thread that they could quite easily offer a dividend with the enormous reserves they've got, and without really denting the wallet.

Keeping in mind that I dont live in the USA and I am not involved in shares, trading and investments and stuff, how can I purchase and later on sell apple shares?

You could buy shares on the LSE (see:ACP).

[IJ Reilly]

Yes, I think you mentioned in a previous thread that they could quite easily offer a dividend with the enormous reserves they've got, and without really denting the wallet.

I'm not becoming tiresome on this subject, am I? ;)

Without rechecking my numbers, I believe I calculated that Apple could declare a very healthy dividend of $2.00 per share at a cost of around $1.5 billion. Considering that they're currently toting around $19 billion in cash on the balance sheet, that's not a huge hit by any means. When a company is sitting that much cash, to paraphrase Michael Dell, they should give some of it back to the stockholders.

[Eraserhead]

^^ So the 2500% growth isn't enough :p.

Personally, I think its worth them having as much cash as Microsoft, so that if Steve Ballmer finds an actual good buy Apple can bid on the company too.

[IJ Reilly]

^^ So the 2500% growth isn't enough :p.

Personally, I think its worth them having as much cash as Microsoft, so that if Steve Ballmer finds an actual good buy Apple can bid on the company too.

The cash is a byproduct of the growth. Paying out a dividend is way of rewarding investor patience. They get to share in the success without having to sell their investments.

Companies rarely use cash alone for major acquisitions, they use some combination of cash and stock. Microsoft had to finally admit that they were sitting on an embarrassing amount of cash, and declared a dividend.

[joeshell383]

Sad but true -- the last Apple shareholder dividend disappeared many years ago. They should declare one now, but there's no indication that they ever will.

Bottom line is Apple, flush with cash, yet dictated by SJ and a compliant board, is not an "investor friendly" company.

-In general, an aura of nonchalance in regards to investor relations (i.e. earlier this year when Steve said it was not his job to reassure/comfort/address investors after AAPL's massive slide)
-No recurring dividends
-No hint of large one time dividend a la Microsoft in 2004
-No stock buy backs
-No stock splits
-Not even a glossy annual report

Of course I believe Apple is "maximizing shareholder value", but they have yet (since the mid-90's) to give any actual cash back to investors.

Why should SJ and the rest of the board care? He knows the shareholders would never stand up to him or the board after Apple's recent success. He also knows, that he can claim he's not receiving any cash back from the company either with his $1 salary (of course that is ridiculous because one can assume there are many, many, personal expenses he can classify as business expenses that Apple pays for).

Where does this leave Apple? In great position for continued growth with ample cash and resources for new product development, acquisitions, and other large undertakings, yet at the same time a volatile stock that the market loves to play with because investors currently have no way to profit from AAPL other than flipping the stock.

[IJ Reilly]

I don't believe that splits or glossy reports are a useful measurement of investor friendliness, and I don't pretend to know the company's philosophy behind accumulating mountains of cash. I do believe that a growing wad of unused cash is indicative of a less than optimal management strategy which also sends a subtle, negative signal to investors. A dividend, even a one-time dividend, would be taken by investors as a sign of confidence by the board.

[akm3]

Keeping investors happy in the short term is a sure fire way to sink your company in the long term.

Apple has been a fantastic investment.

Apple remembers nearly going bankrupt, and having a $19 BILLION moat sure helps in case time gets lean again - you can't assume that because Apple has been doing unbelievably well lately that every quarter will be better than the last.

Apple has zero debt. This makes CFO's cringe because they want to 'put the money to better use'...however this adds risk. Apple is bulletproof with this moat.

Apple can buy almost any other company without blinking, if they want to (other than other ginormous behomeths like itself). They don't have to raise capital. They don't have to 'apply for a loan'. They can just write a check.

Apple can invest heavily in Research and Development (R&D) if they wanted to. They actually spend one of the lowest R&D budgets of the tech companies currently. The real product they sell is fantastic/must have design with mediocre components - but used in such a way it seems like it is magic, future technology.

Apple should continue to tell Wall Street to piss off and keep doing what works. The instant they start pandering to wall street, or changing what they are doing to make a good quarter, the magic of the business is destroyed.

[joeshell383]

I don't believe that splits or glossy reports are a useful measurement of investor friendliness

They are just simple, common examples of ways that companies can cater to investors that Apple does not currently take part in.

[IJ Reilly]

Keeping investors happy in the short term is a sure fire way to sink your company in the long term.

Possibly, but nobody is talking about short-term. Dividends are a long-term commitment to investors which reward investor patience and reduces volatility. They show confidence in the future. Sitting on huge and growing piles of cash with no clear plan to use it for growing the company can be viewed as a pessimistic signal from management.

They are just simple, common examples of ways that companies can cater to investors that Apple does not currently take part in.

I guess I don't care about glossy annual reports. Every one of them I get is tossed immediately. Splits don't really cater to anyone. In reality, most investors know that they are utterly meaningless.

[Sun Baked]

Apple, Inc. Competitor Dividend Policy
Apple’s main competitors in “Computer Hardware” include Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., Microsoft Corp., and Cisco Systems, Inc. Dell Inc. and Cisco Systems, Inc have no dividend policy, thus matching Apple’s dividend policy. HP on the other hand pays a dividend of $.08 every quarter. HP has been paying this same dividend since second quarter of 1998. Beginning 2005, Microsoft shifted from its annual dividends to quarterly dividends. And in September of 2006, Microsoft announced that it would increase its quarterly dividends by $.01 and pay $.10 quarterly dividends to its shareholders. The Quarterly Dividend Record date for Microsoft shareholders is November 16, 2006.

Close, might have changed for some of them.

[joeshell383]

I guess I don't care about glossy annual reports. Every one of them I get is tossed immediately. Splits don't really cater to anyone. In reality, most investors know that they are utterly meaningless.

Of course splits have no real impact, but they are usually viewed favorably.

It's nitpicking, my main point was that Apple is not "investor friendly". These two examples were at the bottom of my list, and were only used as supporting evidence to bolster the more relevant components of my conclusion.

[akm3]

Possibly, but nobody is talking about short-term. Dividends are a long-term commitment to investors which reward investor patience and reduces volatility. They show confidence in the future. Sitting on huge and growing piles of cash with no clear plan to use it for growing the company can be viewed as a pessimistic signal from management.


That is a good point, but I would argue that Apple DOES have plans for their money, but it might be somewhat less exciting then most would hope.

Either they do have some giant acquisition planned that nobody knows about (they are secretive, and tipping their hand by telling shareholders what they plan to do would ruin their ability to do effectively), or the other part of the plan is as I said before - building a moat so big and so strong that any economic downturn, bad judgement on product refreshes that harm sales, several major launches in a row that are duds, etc, etc won't harm Apple and they will 'live to fight another day'.

I liken it to people burned in the mortgage crises. When times were GOOD those that played very aggressively and bought too much house managed to get away with it and look like geniuses while home prices were rising. This is what investors want companies to do in good times. Run it razor thin, don't keep a 'rainy day fund' (it could be making more $$!!) etc, etc. But, when things go bad, these same investors get foreclosed on and lose their homes or have to declare bankruptcy. The more conservative people who bought an appropriate level of house that they can support then look like the geniuses.

Apple is positioned for the very, very long haul and as a long term investor, I prefer it that way. Yes, they might do better but the added risk isn't worth it, to me.

When I sell my shares in about 37 years, I'm confident they will have continued to appreciate and weathered whatever economic nastiness has taken down many of their competitors.

Finally, Apple is currently in a trendy, fad-dy cycle right now. When the 'Apple Wave' subsides, I want them to have gigantic bundles of cash to re-ingnite the next fad.

But I don't completely disagree with you, I think many people feel the way you do.

[IJ Reilly]

That is a good point, but I would argue that Apple DOES have plans for their money, but it might be somewhat less exciting then most would hope.

It isn't easy to spend $19 billion, even in a big merger/acquisition deal, which probably wouldn't be all cash anyway -- Apple has huge equity to trade in any such deal. To me, the cash hoard looks defensive, which isn't a good place for a corporation to be. Maybe they'll make some big investment to grow the company, something none of us expects. More likely, they'll just continue to stack it up in more and bigger piles -- which is anti-capitalism in motion. We shall see.

[balwx]

There last dividend was in 1995. I'm a proud, very proud shareholder. Lack of a dividend means nothing to me. I own a bunch of other stocks that yield 4-5% anyway. :)

[IJ Reilly]

Taking pride in owning stock -- I'm not sure I follow that concept. Put it this way, I'd be a happier Apple stockholder if I didn't need to liquidate any part of my investment in order to realize any gains. The longer I hold the shares, the harder it becomes to not sell any. This is what happens when a company refuses to offer any dividend.

[balwx]

If you sold for profit late in 2007 you'd be very happy. I take pride in all the companies that I am long. It certainly feels good to be rewarded for my investment. I have positions that are for long term also. In fact, late this past week, I unloaded some shares that just fell into long term capital gains (15%). :)

[IJ Reilly]

What you are suggesting is precisely what I am trying to avoid. My investments in AAPL are very long-term, to the extent where any sale would be essentially 100% taxable as capital gains. Apple is forcing me to sell and be taxed in order to realize any benefit for being a patient, long-term investor in the company. Considering the mountain of unused cash they are building up, I think this is a policy which grows more ridiculous every day.

[skunk]

I'm a proud, very proud shareholder. Lack of a dividend means nothing to me.What has pride got to do with it?

[balwx]

What you are suggesting is precisely what I am trying to avoid. My investments in AAPL are very long-term, to the extent where any sale would be essentially 100% taxable as capital gains. Apple is forcing me to sell and be taxed in order to realize any benefit for being a patient, long-term investor in the company. Considering the mountain of unused cash they are building up, I think this is a policy which grows more ridiculous every day.

I see. I don't quite understand when you say that you hold long term so any sale would be a 100% taxable gain. A gain is taxable whether its held for 5 minutes, or 5 years. Of, course that would be long term vs. short term rates. It's still 100% taxable. Apple doesn't dictate tax rates on capital gains, so to say they are "forcing" you to sell isn't quite the case.

[IJ Reilly]

I see. I don't quite understand when you say that you hold long term so any sale would be a 100% taxable gain. A gain is taxable whether its held for 5 minutes, or 5 years. Of, course that would be long term vs. short term rates. It's still 100% taxable. Apple doesn't dictate tax rates on capital gains, so to say they are "forcing" you to sell isn't quite the case.

The increase in value (sale price minus cost basis) is taxed as a capital gain. I bought the shares long ago, so my cost basis is negligible, almost nothing, meaning that any sale is almost pure profit. Apple is "forcing" me to sell to realize any gain from holding the shares.

[balwx]

"Apple is "forcing" me to sell to realize any gain from holding the shares."

So is any other company. Keep in mind the very low long term capital gains tax (15%). If a democrat takes office, we can be sure they will want to tax LT gains as ordinary income. That would be boat loads of extra money (sounds like you have alot of shares), delivered to the goverment if you sell during those years. Best of luck with your investment, sounds like your sitting on a nice pile!

[balwx]

What has pride got to do with it?

Just sayin' that I am happy with the amount of profit, I have made with this company. That makes me happy. :) In fact, I bumped up my stops on Friday pretty tight. Going to take some off if the stop loss hits. These shares just turned LT.

[IJ Reilly]

So is any other company.

No, not if they pay a dividend. As I said earlier, a dividend is a way for a company to reward investor patience. If the company is insecure about its future, doesn't have much cash on hand, or is carrying a debt load, then paying out a dividend doesn't make much sense -- but none of these things are true about Apple.

[balwx]

I do agree with your thoughts about dividends are rewards for investor patience. When Apple last paid a dividend in 1995, it was $.12 & the stock price was approx. 35.69. That's $.48/yr, which is a yield of 1.3%. Apple isnt much different than other companies in their industry here. Dell no div. 8b cash, Microsoft yield 1.4% 24b cash. According to Yahoo finance, the entire tech sector averages a yield of 2.1%. I would like a dividend too, as they can certainly afford one. I would be shocked if we saw one soon. I'm certainly not going to wait around for a 2% yield at the most.

I'll take a chart with some realized gains like this, than a 1.3% yield anyday. But that is what is great about investing, different thoughts. How would you feel paying ordinary tax rates on LT gains like the Dems have shown interest in? That's up tp 35% to the gov't.


http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=AAPL#chart3:symbol=aapl;range=5y;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0 ;logscale=off;source=undefined

[IJ Reilly]

Tech companies are notorious for not paying dividends to stockholders, if only because they are seen as growth investments. Still as these companies mature and their financial positions are secured, some of them do pay out. Declaring a 1% dividend would be so painless for Apple now, and it certainly would not hurt the share price. Ah well, I guess they are determined to build an ever-higher "hedge o' money." Against what, I could not say.

Not to turn this into a political discussion, but there is no easy answer to the question of how capital gains should be taxed. If a person is taxed at a far higher rate on their income for working than for investing, then I think the issue of what we reward is fairly raised. Nobody wants to pay higher taxes, but something has to be done to get us out of the fiscal debacle we are in, and we can't kid ourselves into believing that higher taxes aren't inevitable.

[balwx]

[QUOTE=IJ Reilly;5454024]Tech companies are notorious for not paying dividends to stockholders, if only because they are seen as growth investments. Still as these companies mature and their financial positions are secured, some of them do pay out. Declaring a 1% dividend would be so painless for Apple now, and it certainly would not hurt the share price. Ah well, I guess they are determined to build an ever-higher "hedge o' money." Against what, I could not say.

Well said. I agree 100%. I don't know off hand how many shares are outstanding, but it would be peanuts to them.

[IJ Reilly]

Currently, 881.62 million shares, so a 1% dividend would cost Apple about $1.6 billion.

[balwx]

Since we both have an interest in this company, what are your thoughts on the stock price going forward? Do you feel the new product pipeline is great enough to keep up these great growth rates?

[IJ Reilly]

I'm reasonably optimistic with some caveats. I don't think I've ever seen a company firing on all cylinders quite as reliably Apple has for several years running now. That said, they are in the consumer electronics business, which is a fickle one, and they could easily hit big bumps in the future (see: Sony). Essentially they need to keep pulling a new rabbit out of their hat about every third year, which they've done brilliantly in recent years. How long can they keep this up? That's the million-dollar question! Overall, I'd predict that over the next five years that they will do well, if only because they are now so entrenched in the market, but that they unlikely to be able to keep up the astonishing growth rate of the last five years.