But the thing is, Apple received capital from shareholders when they went public. That is why it is termed as "giving money BACK to shareholders."
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Issues Statement About Returning Cash to Shareholders
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But the thing is, Apple received capital from shareholders when they went public. That is why it is termed as "giving money BACK to shareholders."
If so were they Planters? Dry roasted?
Totally off topic
Snarky me but I read that comment and got hungry for some Planters dry roaster peanuts.
Just out of random curiosity of Business and Marketing. IIRC the first few times that I had Planters Dry Roaster peanuts was on airplanes and I don't recall them being available in stores at the same time?
Anybody else old enough to remember.
Was there an "Evil" Planters peanuts marketing conspiracy?
The whole thing sounds like a get rich quick scheme by Greenlight.
I'm a shareholder and have been for quite a while and I don't get a good feeling about this.
What happens after a dividend has been given.. the stock crashes again as people bail after a payout?
Sidenote: Recouping losses may work as an excuse for average traders like you and me, but day traders dump and add the stock multiple times a day, and there's no telling how little or much they've lost over the last several months. They love driving the stock down, then pumping it up and selling.. the waves are what they live for. My point is this sounds fishy.
I'm a shareholder and have been for quite a while and I don't get a good feeling about this.
What happens after a dividend has been given.. the stock crashes again as people bail after a payout?
Sidenote: Recouping losses may work as an excuse for average traders like you and me, but day traders dump and add the stock multiple times a day, and there's no telling how little or much they've lost over the last several months. They love driving the stock down, then pumping it up and selling.. the waves are what they live for. My point is this sounds fishy.
There was a time you bought shares in a company and that entitled you to a portion of the profits paid out every quarter. It was like an investment, and the profits were the interest.
At some point in the 70's-80's new companies started growing faster than their profits... So investors sold the stock to EACH OTHER for more than the quarterly interest was worth. At some point it became more of a "fashion statement" to have the stocks so bidding them up made everybody more money. Still
Take Apple's $600? Price and adjust for all the interest on those shares they DIDN'T PAY for 30 years.. That's why so much if the cash is counted as part of what the investors own.. If apple pays it out the next investor to own the stock owns a piece of a smaller pile of money.
Apple can't just "cash out" because of the taxes incurred on moving all those profits into US banks would take away a big piece. Investors would rather Apple sit on the money to fund R&D for the "chocolate factory" than pay TAXES on it. But now the pile is TOO big Apple cant possibly use that much even to reanimate/clone/portal Steve back and investors would like to buy things with their interest.
The thing is for a company like Apple, there is very little marginal utility of the cash horde past $40 billion or so. They spend very little on R&D, approx $2.5 billion/year right now. So unless they're planning to do some major acquisitions(Viacom?), that money sitting there simply ensures their continued existence but does not guarantee creating brand new markets since their competitors - Google, Microsoft, Samsung have more then enough cash to compete.
Apple could, and I say could, consider to lower the margin on their products a bit. From an average 27% to 15% or so. This will slow down the cash growth somewhat and will be of direct benefit to us customers: lower prices. Because when, this case Apple, a company admits is has too much cash and doesn't really know what to do with it, they charge too much for their products. They can because their customers don't ask questions, they just buy the goods.
tx, i also read up a bit on the matter. I see absolutely no value for Apple or its current stock holders in issuing preferred stock, Apple doesn't need the extra cash it would generate. Its more like a loan in perpetuity, good for growth company's that need cash but not as a vehicle to return money to shareholders.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13...ent-in-response-to-greenlight-capital-lawsuitcorrections said:
If Apple paid let's say $10 per share to shareholders, Apple's cash is going to drop by $10 per share, so the value of Apple's shares is going down $10 at exactly the same moment. No need for anyone bailing; the value goes down as the money leaves the company.
Alternatively, Apple could spend say $10 billion to buy back shares. Again, the total value of the company drops by $10 billion, but at the same time, the number of shares drops, so the value per share would stay the same.
Money can't create innovation. It can only buy existing innovation, talent that provides limited amounts. Paying more will not create innovation out of thin air.
Here's another comparison that might give one pause.
If AAPL's cash and investments were a mutual fund, it would be the 3rd largest in the United States, behind Vanguard Total Stock Market Index and ahead of American Growth Fund of America. Thus, they have more money to try to figure out how to invest than all but two of the mutual funds in the United States.
If AAPL's cash and investments were a mutual fund, it would be the 3rd largest in the United States, behind Vanguard Total Stock Market Index and ahead of American Growth Fund of America. Thus, they have more money to try to figure out how to invest than all but two of the mutual funds in the United States.
Step 2 of Apple's failure plan.
1. Maps
2. Get rid of cash
3. Continue to make the same products with spec bumps
4. Market saturated. No 'new' products.
5. Apple goes broke, gets bought out by some ****** chinese company or closes its doors.
1. Maps
2. Get rid of cash
3. Continue to make the same products with spec bumps
4. Market saturated. No 'new' products.
5. Apple goes broke, gets bought out by some ****** chinese company or closes its doors.
MS faced a similar situation 15 years ago.
I hope Apple thinks different and does something different.
Radically different.
I think Apple should split itself up.
----------
I remember hearing that at 650, 600, 550, 500, 450...
"Mortgage everything and buy all you can."
I hope Apple thinks different and does something different.
Radically different.
I think Apple should split itself up.
----------
Don't look now, but Apple will be back at $700 real soon.
I remember hearing that at 650, 600, 550, 500, 450...
"Mortgage everything and buy all you can."
You don't get it. The money Apple has is/was doing nothing. Above the cash they've used, their cash position has been entirely unrelated to their growth. If they can find a good use to over $100b in cash, go ahead. But they've demonstrated they can't, and companies with large cash positions are often thought to act a bit more reckless in acquisitions.
And LOL at broke relatives. The shareholders own the company. People keep saying it but so many people don't get it.
----------
How will getting rid of cash IT'S NOT USING contribute it any way to Apple "going broke"?
way to manipulate a falling stock into a quick burst of growth again so you can get out now with as much as possible before it continues its long decline.
I dont see apples stock doing anything other than heading down now that the iPhone an iPad are "also rans" in a market they are no longer innovating in, and i don't see the apple TVset, having the impact shock on the Television market that the iPhone and iPad had on their respective markets to boost apples stocks back to these levels again.
Unless apple unveil something as disruptive and innovate as the iPhone or iPad up its sleeve in the next year or so, that stock is not worth holding on to.
I dont see apples stock doing anything other than heading down now that the iPhone an iPad are "also rans" in a market they are no longer innovating in, and i don't see the apple TVset, having the impact shock on the Television market that the iPhone and iPad had on their respective markets to boost apples stocks back to these levels again.
Unless apple unveil something as disruptive and innovate as the iPhone or iPad up its sleeve in the next year or so, that stock is not worth holding on to.
It wouldn't generate any extra cash for aapl, just for shareholders. As I understand it, the rough proposal boils down to something like one share of preferred for every ten shares of common ($50B preferred yielding 4%=$2B/yr div). From a dividend standpoint, it's roughly a 20% increase in payout over present div (no big deal). The advantage to shareholders over a div bump is that could sell the preferred and pull @10% of their aapl investment out, (with taxes due to extent sale price exceeds allocated basis) but without impacting their longer term ownership interest in aapl's future growth. It sounds interesting so you have to wonder what the downside really is. I'm agnostic at the moment.
Sounds like you should buy Blackberry Limited (there's an appropriate name, though probably better than Research No Longer In Motion), msft (demand for the Surface is "off the charts", no really, still not on the charts), NOK (coming back any day, week, month, or year now, I'm sure), SSNLF (if you trust the Korean exchange and securities laws to accurately state sales, E&P, etc.), HTC, or GOOG (if you don't think people mind getting Scroogled). Better yet, still time to get in on Facebook for your 2013 tax loss.
Absolutely not. Cash is not factored into a stock price, no way, no how. Not. Liquid assets, in fact all company assets, are a complete abstraction to stockholders, since the stockholders have zero access to any of this unless the board pays some of it out in the form of a dividend. Conversely, when a board declares a dividend, this increases shareholder value in a tangible, measurable way. So, like many others, you have it figured exactly backwards.
That's it, more or less. The markets created the capital Apple used to built its business in the first place; the subsequent trading of those equity share made the capital market possible. In addition, Apple did not stop issuing shares with the initial IPO -- the company continues to issue stock grants and options to employees for compensation and retention. So this is another function of the equity markets.
Last edited:
While I am fairly pro-dividend, I believe what the poster was saying is correct. The exchanges, by tradition, adjust the price of a stock downward by the per-share dividend amount when it goes ex-dividend. The market may be rather poor at pricing cash and assets, but it's quite good at pricing dividends in.
But they don't do that by tradition or any other mechanism. The ex-dividend behavior of stocks is proof of what I am saying. Dividend-bearing stocks trade at a premium before the ex-dividend date and at a discount during the ex-dividend period. This is the markets pricing in the value of the dividend.
The primary measurement of stock valuation, PE, does not include cash or other assets. It doesn't factor in debt, either. Occasionally you will see someone doing a back-of-the-envelope ex-cash valuation for PE, but this number is really only meaningful if you're talking about a theoretical takeover price for the company. A takeover company will inherit the target's cash and/or debt, so the cash becomes a discount and the debt is added onto the takeover price. Ordinary stockholders aren't a party to assets or debt except to the extent that they influence earnings.
Yes, they do. "On the ex-dividend date, the stock price is adjusted downward by the amount of the dividend by the exchange on which the stock trades.
Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/07/dividend_implications.asp#ixzz2KKTwAPEY"
You can find citations for this everywhere. It might be lost in the daily up and down movement of the stock price - and for something like Apple almost certainly is - but the adjustment is there.