Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Bankruptcy doesn't prove your point any more than it does mine. When you buy a share of a company, you're inheriting the consequences of both its assets and its debt. Shareholders should know full well that debtholders get first claim in a bankruptcy situation, and that will carry a certain risk factor (depending on capital structure, the specific industry, etc.). Assets don't just suddenly matter only at 100%, or any other specific threshold of ownership.

If EPS is all you need in valuing a company, explain Tesla, or any of the numerous other stocks with negative EPS. Valuation is largely based on expectation of future performance, and cash can potentially play a huge role. Cash can be used for new projects, acquisitions, buybacks, etc. EPS is obviously the single most important factor for well-established companies, but there are plenty other concrete examples which prove it's not everything.

When you buy shares you don't inherit any asset or debt consequences (if I understand what you mean by consequences). Simply said, you as a stockholder can't be held liable for any of the money the company has borrowed. Conversely, you aren't entitled to a scrap of their assets. You own a share of their earnings, which is why they are called shares. The only time debt comes into play for a stockholder is to the extent debt service has an impact on the company's earnings. The bankruptcy illustration does indeed prove my point. Equity holders are typically wiped out entirely in bankruptcy, and not because the debt holders come first, but because debt is secured against assets, and equity is secured only against earnings. The exceptions to this are few and far between.

I did not say that EPS was the only consideration. I said it was primary. Markets are constantly trying to value not current earnings but future earnings. Cash becomes an important consideration for an unprofitable company, such as Tesla, because once they burn through all the cash they can raise from investors and the bond markets without becoming profitable, they go bankrupt. Plenty of investors seem prepared to bet that Tesla will turn the corner before the well runs dry. That's how a money losing company can float a big market cap. But no matter how you express it, earnings will be the final word on the matter. And you can also be sure that if Tesla goes into bankruptcy the stockholders will get absolutely nothing.
 
When you buy shares you don't inherit any asset or debt consequences (if I understand what you mean by consequences). Simply said, you as a stockholder can't be held liable for any of the money the company has borrowed. Conversely, you aren't entitled to a scrap of their assets. You own a share of their earnings, which is why they are called shares. The only time debt comes into play for a stockholder is to the extent debt service has an impact on the company's earnings. The bankruptcy illustration does indeed prove my point. Equity holders are typically wiped out entirely in bankruptcy, and not because the debt holders come first, but because debt is secured against assets, and equity is secured only against earnings. The exceptions to this are few and far between.

I did not say that EPS was the only consideration. I said it was primary. Markets are constantly trying to value not current earnings but future earnings. Cash becomes an important consideration for an unprofitable company, such as Tesla, because once they burn through all the cash they can raise from investors and the bond markets without becoming profitable, they go bankrupt. Plenty of investors seem prepared to bet that Tesla will turn the corner before the well runs dry. That's how a money losing company can float a big market cap. But no matter how you express it, earnings will be the final word on the matter. And you can also be sure that if Tesla goes into bankruptcy the stockholders will get absolutely nothing.

By consequences I am referring to the fundamental relationship of finance. The definition of equity is assets minus liabilities--not earnings. Over any given timespan, equity is usually correlated with earnings, but not always, and they shouldn't be used interchangeably (as in Tesla's case; no earnings, yet huge equity). Shareholders are indeed the collective owners of the whole operation, debt, assets, and all, and share proportional financial responsibility for it. The possible exception is bankruptcy or litigation, and only because the laws of limited liability which are designed to protect shareholders/owners. Shareholders can only be held liable up to their particular amount of equity, and nothing further (which is why they typically do get wiped out, with debt outweighing assets, though they don't have to pay anything extra, either). I think we're discussing both sides of the same coin here, but it's interesting to see your take. I think I'm seeing it like a manager or lawyer, and you seem more like a pure investor.

You actually said it was factors 1, 2, and 3, which I took to mean the be-all-end-all. Primary would mean just factor 1, by definition. Anyway I think we agree on this point... that eventual earnings are the yardstick.
 
By consequences I am referring to the fundamental relationship of finance. The definition of equity is assets minus liabilities--not earnings. Over any given timespan, equity is usually correlated with earnings, but not always, and they shouldn't be used interchangeably (as in Tesla's case; no earnings, yet huge equity). Shareholders are indeed the collective owners of the whole operation, debt, assets, and all, and share proportional financial responsibility for it. The possible exception is bankruptcy or litigation, and only because the laws of limited liability which are designed to protect shareholders/owners. Shareholders can only be held liable up to their particular amount of equity, and nothing further (which is why they typically do get wiped out, with debt outweighing assets, though they don't have to pay anything extra, either). I think we're discussing both sides of the same coin here, but it's interesting to see your take. I think I'm seeing it like a manager or lawyer, and you seem more like a pure investor.

You actually said it was factors 1, 2, and 3, which I took to mean the be-all-end-all. Primary would mean just factor 1, by definition. Anyway I think we agree on this point... that eventual earnings are the yardstick.

The definition of equity for a stock in a public company is not quite the same as the general definition for finance. It is certainly conventional for stockholders to be described as the "owners" of the company, but again this ownership is little more than theoretical. As a practical and functional matter, stockholders have only as much access to the company's assets as the board of directors decides to give them. Pretty soon we could be talking about corporate governance but that's an entirely different subject.

You are right to say that a bankrupt company can be expected have liabilities exceeding assets (the working definition of bankruptcy), but the more detailed reason why stockholders nearly always get zeroed out in bankruptcy is more complicated. In reality bankruptcy is a cash flow issue, not one normally related to a company's less liquid assets assets (plant, equipment, intellectual property, etc.). So even if a company whose assets are spun off, broken up, and sold in bankruptcy make their creditors whole, the stockholders are probably still going get zonked. This will happen even if the company is reorganized in bankruptcy and carries on (see: GM). The only exception to this that I can recall is when K-Mart merged with Sears in bankruptcy. Apparently the court saw it as a merger and gave K-Mart stockholders some stake in the new holding company. That's the rare exception that proves the rule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Return Zero
The definition of equity for a stock in a public company is not quite the same as the general definition for finance. It is certainly conventional for stockholders to be described as the "owners" of the company, but again this ownership is little more than theoretical. As a practical and functional matter, stockholders have only as much access to the company's assets as the board of directors decides to give them. Pretty soon we could be talking about corporate governance but that's an entirely different subject.

You are right to say that a bankrupt company can be expected have liabilities exceeding assets (the working definition of bankruptcy), but the more detailed reason why stockholders nearly always get zeroed out in bankruptcy is more complicated. In reality bankruptcy is a cash flow issue, not one normally related to a company's less liquid assets assets (plant, equipment, intellectual property, etc.). So even if a company whose assets are spun off, broken up, and sold in bankruptcy make their creditors whole, the stockholders are probably still going get zonked. This will happen even if the company is reorganized in bankruptcy and carries on (see: GM). The only exception to this that I can recall is when K-Mart merged with Sears in bankruptcy. Apparently the court saw it as a merger and gave K-Mart stockholders some stake in the new holding company. That's the rare exception that proves the rule.

Yeah I see what you're saying about bankruptcy... the chapter that was filed (7 or 11 or whichever) would factor into the effect on equity, but generally you'd expect to lose everything.

Interesting point about equity having a different definition... I would say the difference has rather to do with the definition (read: valuation) of assets, not that of equity. That is, the market values a company's assets differently than an accountant would show on the balance sheet, for many obvious reasons (projections, speculation, market vs. book, etc.). Equity in both cases is still going to end up being assets minus debt (in the case of stockholders, an expectation thereof, as we talked about with future earnings). Again, 2 sides of the same coin, I think.

And sure, owning 1 out of billions of shares gives you next to zero claim on the company. But it's not merely theoretical/conventional, either. You at least get proxy/voting rights, for instance. I would say your access to the assets and operations has more to do with your percentage of ownership. If you own 51%, you're going to have some serious sway in their leadership :D. Activist investors can make do with much less, of course.

BTW, thanks for the discussion; I'm not trying to be difficult, just to learn and to test what I've already learned. I'm relatively new to investing as you can tell, but I have some business background.
 
Isn’t this the largest dividend increase they’ve had in the last six years? I think around 16%.
Disappointed with the small bump in dividend. Yes Apple is one of the large dividend paying companies in total $ amount, however in overall yield they are pretty lousy (this kicks them up to 1.7% annual yield base on current price).
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.