Apple Shareholder Meeting: No Dividend or Stock Split, Majority Vote Requirement for Directors

[henrystar]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

I knew there wouldn't be a stock split. Doing so would have been a bad move imho.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it! I love my AAPL just the way Steve left it. Don't mess with it! Oh, yes, in time, ... sure.... of course. But we are headed for the Moon and don't get us off course!

 

[IJ Reilly]

Cook: no dividends, we only have one hundred billion dollars.

Probably well over $100B as we speak, since it was $97B at the end of December and the rate of free cash accumulation at that point was nearly $1B a week.

In fairness, Cook simply was not prepared to announce anything at the stockholder's meeting. It would have been shocking if he did. But he said recently that the board is discussing it. So that's a lot more than Steve would allow. That tells me it's more a matter of time, and how much -- not if.

 

[Swift]

One trillion is the new one hundred billion and you're
not going to get there by tossing money around.

"Hey, let's charge the cultists $1.29 for ringtones
on music they already own and how about two
new adaptors for the iPaid 3 to work properly?
A couple of bucks for the slaves to make them
and we'll put $50 Apple stickers on them. Magic.

Know what? Apple has gotten the prices DOWN. The bands and the networks had conspired to keep the price of ringtones much higher, including by making the purchase only for a certain amount of time. Like that 8-bit tune from Judas Priest to be your ring? Fork over another x.xx for another six months. Apple still gives you a ringtone maker in iTunes, so if you buy a song, you can put 30 seconds of it on your iPhone. No charge. I don't mind $1.29 a ringtone, because they mix it and cut it better.

 

[tom vilsack]

great non moves!

i rem a few years back microsoft split there shares and gave a one time div of 3-4 dollars...and we all know how well that worked out!

nothing wrong with having 100+ billion on hand...it allows apple to pivot on a dime if said teck changes direction,can buy into any company that might poss a future challenge (wish they would buy arm holdings),protects them from rainy day.

a div would send the wrong message,it' turns apple from being a teck growth company into a boring div play and thus money managers might bail looking for other growth engines

a split also does nothing but allow big hedge funds to play more games (as we even saw last week with rise 25+...that was pure hedge funds nothing more) and this is something apple should guard against.

once again apple makes the rules and doesn't listen to wall street taking heads...well done!

 

[Swift]

The hell with the shareholders

A company does not belong to the shareholders but the creators and the users primarily. What exactly does Apple get from the stock market except good PR and big bonuses when execs cash in? What have shareholders gotten out of their investment? Well, going from about $12 to $513 last I heard. That's big profit. That's enough for you, people who only put their money in. The company belongs to the creators and the users, not to the stock market.

You want Apple $1,000? Wait a bit, and stop being greedy and wanting to cash the company in for fast profit. When shareholders actually start running the ship, it's going to hit an iceberg any minute. Shareholders' short-term profits mismanage corporations.

 

[IJ Reilly]

The problem with the MSFT dividend wasn't the dividend, it was the lack of earnings growth to follow. The dividend worked out fine for stockholders, as it does for any stockholders who prefer to make more money rather than less.

Splits affect nothing.

----------

A company does not belong to the shareholders but the creators and the users primarily. What exactly does Apple get from the stock market except good PR and big bonuses when execs cash in? What have shareholders gotten out of their investment? Well, going from about $12 to $513 last I heard. That's big profit. That's enough for you, people who only put their money in. The company belongs to the creators and the users, not to the stock market.

You want Apple $1,000? Wait a bit, and stop being greedy and wanting to cash the company in for fast profit. When shareholders actually start running the ship, it's going to hit an iceberg any minute. Shareholders' short-term profits mismanage corporations.

Yikes. Somebody needs to read a basic book on equity investment.

 

[Mal]

LOL at someone thinking Family Guy is a "controversial" TV show. Reminds me of my cousin's family in Pennsylvania thinking The Simpson's was evil trash when it's the most religious show on any major network during prime time. One of my friends is a huge lover of Family Guy and he started his own church!

Something doesn't have to be wrong to be controversial. The mere fact that a significant number of people find it to be controversial (which is in fact what the show's creators strive for) is enough to make it controversial, by the very definition of the word.

Incidentally, I love Family Guy.

jW

 

[ben123456]

A company does not belong to the shareholders but the creators and the users primarily. What exactly does Apple get from the stock market except good PR and big bonuses when execs cash in? What have shareholders gotten out of their investment? Well, going from about $12 to $513 last I heard. That's big profit. That's enough for you, people who only put their money in. The company belongs to the creators and the users, not to the stock market.

You want Apple $1,000? Wait a bit, and stop being greedy and wanting to cash the company in for fast profit. When shareholders actually start running the ship, it's going to hit an iceberg any minute. Shareholders' short-term profits mismanage corporations.

uh what? shareholder means you own a share of the company a share is a part of something, they work for the shareholder technically.

correct me if some parts are incorrect but I'm pretty sure there not

 

[cire]

A company does not belong to the shareholders but the creators and the users primarily. What exactly does Apple get from the stock market except good pr...

This is totally untrue. Shareholders ARE the owners of a company. That is what being a shareholder and the selling of stock is all about. Please study basic finance and economics before you generate your opinions, let alone present them to the world.

As a consumer I MAY be a stakeholder (a term of dubious intent), but I have no rights of ownership or possession. When you hear people talk about stakeholders, understand they are attempting to undermine property rights and move de facto ownership from the real owners to those THEY believe are more deserving.

 

[lichteda]

Mac Pro Refresh

When! I've got the bucks to move... but not until the next refresh...

 

[IJ Reilly]

uh what? shareholder means you own a share of the company a share is a part of something, they work for the shareholder technically.

correct me if some parts are incorrect but I'm pretty sure there not

It's literally a share of the company's total equity.

Technically, the board of directors works for the shareholders because in theory they are elected by the shareholders. In reality, corporations have found ways to mute the voices of shareholders in corporate governance matters over the years, leaving all of the real ownership power in the hands of the largest stockholders, the CEO, and the board. This has resulted in all sorts of structural corporate governance problems, such as interlocking boards of directors, compensation abuses, and a lack of independence. The trend in recent years has been to correct some of these abuses and make the boards of directors more responsive to the stockholders.

Without the equity markets, companies like Apple can't exist. The money to create the company came from investors in the very first place, and without the ability to trade their equity shares on the open market, the initial investors aren't going to cough up the cash.

----------

This is totally untrue. Shareholders ARE the owners of a company. That is what being a shareholder and the selling of stock is all about. Please study basic finance and economics before you generate your opinions, let alone present them to the world.

Kind of. You are an investor, a holder of an equity share. It survives as long as the current equity does. If the company reorganizes under bankruptcy, the company may very well continue to exist, but your equity value as a stockholder will be wiped out (usually).

 

[kingtj]

I have to agree here ....

I'm as anti-censorship as they get, but there seems to be a constant push in society to regard broadcast content with an ever increasing amount of violence, sexual references and/or adult language as "non controversial".

There's got to be a middle ground someplace, where you respect the fact that on the whole, most U.S. families aren't comfortable letting our pre-teen kids view some of this stuff.

I'm a big fan of animated series like Futurama, The Simpsons, South Park and Family Guy, but these are especially insidious from the standpoint of younger kids being drawn to animated features. They're trained that the animated material is the content made for them, and it's approved for their viewing automatically. All of a sudden, you've got these adult-oriented cartoons on prime-time TV and as soon as they get sight of one, they're going to fight to watch it. (They've got the cute characters, colorful content, fun music, etc. etc.)

At the end of the day, I absolutely believe it's the PARENTS' job to control what kids view on TV at home. It's not a responsibility we should place on the shoulders of the networks or the content providers. But that doesn't mean we should act like all of this content is perfectly healthy for kids to watch. It also means, IMO, the networks would at least be doing parents a favor if they put this stuff in later evening time-slots (which they often do already).

To join you off topic for a moment. Simpsons and sometimes Family Guy make me laugh, but there is absolutely no way I would ever let my children watch them. Does that make them controversial?

 

[JHankwitz]

Cook: no dividends, we only have one hundred billion dollars.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. The value of my stock has increased over 60% in the past 6 months. That sure beats a 3 or 4% dividend. Too bad you missed out.

 

[IJ Reilly]

If you don't like it, don't buy it. The value of my stock has increased over 60% in the past 6 months. That sure beats a 3 or 4% dividend. Too bad you missed out.

It isn't a matter of "missing out." Dividends are additive to stockholder value, not subtractive.

 

[JHankwitz]

Owning a movie/music studio would be pointless for Apple. They need the content those studios provide for their services and have no need to get into the content creation/ownership side of things and complicate the matter.

You're so right. Apple is primarily in the content distribution and hardware to present content business.

 

[Schizoid]

Hi Tim,

Would it be possible to loan us about $100 Billion, just until the end of the week, there's a possibility you may not get it back though...

Your's sincerely

Christine Lagarde.

p.s. release some new Macs already!

 

[Joshwawilson]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A406 Safari/7534.48.3)

A company does not belong to the shareholders but the creators and the users primarily. What exactly does Apple get from the stock market except good PR and big bonuses when execs cash in? What have shareholders gotten out of their investment? Well, going from about $12 to $513 last I heard. That's big profit. That's enough for you, people who only put their money in. The company belongs to the creators and the users, not to the stock market.

You want Apple $1,000? Wait a bit, and stop being greedy and wanting to cash the company in for fast profit. When shareholders actually start running the ship, it's going to hit an iceberg any minute. Shareholders' short-term profits mismanage corporations.

Thats quite insightful, I'm only 18 but already a shareholder and user for life

 

[neonzebra]

I'm as anti-censorship as they get, but there seems to be a constant push in society to regard broadcast content with an ever increasing amount of violence, sexual references and/or adult language as "non controversial".

There's got to be a middle ground someplace, where you respect the fact that on the whole, most U.S. families aren't comfortable letting our pre-teen kids view some of this stuff.

I'm a big fan of animated series like Futurama, The Simpsons, South Park and Family Guy, but these are especially insidious from the standpoint of younger kids being drawn to animated features. They're trained that the animated material is the content made for them, and it's approved for their viewing automatically. All of a sudden, you've got these adult-oriented cartoons on prime-time TV and as soon as they get sight of one, they're going to fight to watch it. (They've got the cute characters, colorful content, fun music, etc. etc.)

At the end of the day, I absolutely believe it's the PARENTS' job to control what kids view on TV at home. It's not a responsibility we should place on the shoulders of the networks or the content providers. But that doesn't mean we should act like all of this content is perfectly healthy for kids to watch. It also means, IMO, the networks would at least be doing parents a favor if they put this stuff in later evening time-slots (which they often do already).

Why does everyone seem to forget about the V-chip? Every TV/cable-box/sat reciever sold in America gives parents the ability to block stuff they might not want their kids to see.

 

[Andronicus]

If you don't like it, don't buy it. The value of my stock has increased over 60% in the past 6 months. That sure beats a 3 or 4% dividend. Too bad you missed out.

If you really do have stock you really should research a little and understand how a dividend works.

 

[Nungster]

Long time shareholder here, glad to hear the news although don't think anyone in the investment community would be suprised.

Slow and simple occasional deep in the money calls & weekly bull put spreads, amazing gains

Same here! LOL when a 450 strike was "deep"

 

[rtdunham]

Owning a company that has WiMax or WiFi capability would be insane though. I try to imagine if the iMessage deal and call to call technology on Apple platform like Jobs wanted could happen. I would so rather give Apple my money for internet, wifi, cell services then AT$T, or Verizon et al...

You'd communicate more clearly if you used a word (or words) other than "insane", which has numerous (and diametrically opposed) meanings. Are we to guess...?

 

[firewood]

A company does not belong to the shareholders but the creators and the users primarily.

Apple Computer, Inc. was sold by its creators to the shareholders starting from back when it first took investments from Markula, Rock and others, thru when it IPO'd in 1980.

When you buy something (a pair of jeans, 1 share of AAPL, or whatever) it belongs to you, not to the people who made it.

What belongs to the users are the products they buy. No stock, no company ownership.

 

[nylonsteel]

re original article

i'm glad they did nothing foolish

take your time aapl

cash is king

your helping my cash pile too

 

[rdowns]

Why does everyone seem to forget about the V-chip? Every TV/cable-box/sat reciever sold in America gives parents the ability to block stuff they might not want their kids to see.

Kids refuse to teach their parents how to use it.

 

[xionxiox]

Kids refuse to teach their parents how to use it.

That was a good one.