It is the utter lack of substance.
Please explain. What are the benefits of Apple doing what Einhorn wants?
It is the utter lack of substance.
They will stil buy overpriced apple products so what about them?
How about giving the staff, including retail, a bonus. We never get bonuses, and in my store all we were got for christmas was a small bag of peanuts!
Please explain. What are the benefits of Apple doing what Einhorn wants?
Please explain. What are the benefits of Apple doing what Einhorn wants?
Giving money back to shareholders who can use it better than it going unused in a bank barely earning anything. That's it. Apple isn't using it, and they haven't needed to use it. How is this so hard to understand?
Can't help thinking Apple should put more money back into the government and other countries too. Sitting on that much money could seriously give a few areas the cash they desperately need. I'm sure Apple could stop tax increases alone!
----------
Surely Apple have enough money to lower their prices a bit? It seems silly still charging a lot more than similar products from other companies when they generate so much money. How about giving a bit back to the customers?
Since you allude to it, corporations have been larding away cash for years now. Their cash reserves continue to grow, and this is one of the reasons why our economy is sluggish and unemployment remains high. Apple is only one biggest offenders. The largest at this point, I presume.
Apple's products are only overpriced if you aspire to some day save enough from your meth lab to buy a double-wide.
To the rest of us, all personal computers are cheap. It's not like 1984 where a decent desktop PC could cost an engineer 25% of their annual income. Now a MacBook Air can be bought for less money than many engineers take home in a week.
Professionals are willing to pay for quality tools. That's why Apple notebooks are the tool of choice for journalists whose livelihood depends on their computers being reliable and supported.
Anything that can shield Apple from the crazy mood of the stock market is a good thing. Their value keeps going up and down because of a few insane people who keep writing stupid rumors and predicting out-of-this-world profits based on wishful thinking.
Hmm, even so, Apple products are still rather expensive. But it's all about demand, if people are willing to pay those prices, Apple have no reason to price them lower I suppose.
As an Apple shareholder, I have no interest in them paying out dividends. What would that be good for? For the amount paid out, the stock value will drop, so it's like fetching money from your bank account and thinking you have more money now because it's in your pocket. Every shareholder who wants to have some of "his" money is free to sell some stock. Whenever he wants. If they pay dividends, it will just waste some of my money by forcing me to pay taxes on them.
First, tell me what we are really debating here. Is it the possible use of preferred shares to pay a dividend to current shareholders, or the payment of dividends by any method? From what I am hearing, the latter is the real objection as we have seen argument after argument against the very concept of dividends, and very little discussion about the merits of using preferred stock as a dividend vs. ordinary dividends.
Just so we're clear, all Greenlight is saying is that Apple should not eliminate the issuance of preferred stock as a dividend payment option. Apple says that the proposed charter amendment doesn't actually do that. I don't claim to know the real answer to that question, but as a stockholder I am going to find out as much as I can before I vote my shares. Note that Apple isn't objecting to the concept of using preferred shares as a dividend. In fact they say it is being considered.
So, what are we really debating?
----------
I'm talking about Einhorn's means "to extract more value."
You clearly haven't read the comments for an against paying out dividends. Shareholders still want to invest in Apple, but they want money the money that is sitting there unused to invest in other things.
I'm talking about Einhorn's means "to extract more value."
You clearly haven't read the comments for an against paying out dividends. Shareholders still want to invest in Apple, but they want money the money that is sitting there unused to invest in other things.
As an Apple shareholder, I have no interest in them paying out dividends. What would that be good for? For the amount paid out, the stock value will drop, so it's like fetching money from your bank account and thinking you have more money now because it's in your pocket. Every shareholder who wants to have some of "his" money is free to sell some stock. Whenever he wants. If they pay dividends, it will just waste some of my money by forcing me to pay taxes on them.
investments are risky... Cash in the mattress isn't.
FluJunkie said:And to be frank, the money sitting in Apple's bank belongs to the shareholders. If they can make it grow well, then they should keep it, but right now, they're just letting it sit, earning very, very little. The shareholders can do more with it, and it's clearly not impeding Apple's ability to operate (hint: If they had a use for the money, they would have spent it).
And to be frank, the money sitting in Apple's bank belongs to the shareholders. ... (hint: If they had a use for the money, they would have spent it).
You have some reading to do.
Have you never heard of a savings account? A rainy day? The storm is brewing off in the distance.
Go do a Google search on investment. You'll probably see the word risk within the first paragraph. It's practically part of the definition. Do you think investments pay a return just because you're a nice guy/gal?
True, which is the problem with being a public company. If the shareholders are idiots, they can literally ruin the company.
Have you never heard of a savings account? A rainy day? The storm is brewing off in the distance.