2%-3% dividend suggested as best use of Apple's $100B in cash

2456712

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 227
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post




    Dividends are so last century.



    Yup, and often the tactic of a company hitting a plateau (or even decline) and needing a gimmick to attract investors. Somehow, this is not how I perceive Apple.
  • Reply 22 of 227
    I understand the argument of don't fix something that is not broken. But, a 3% dividend @ $500 share ($15/share) would be about $14 billion dollars per year payout. Apple is projected to generate another $70+ billion in cash this year



    So, even if they did a 3% dividend, Apple cash balance could grow to: $100 + ($70- $14 dividend) = $156 billion by end of year



    Above all, Apple senior management needs to make sure they have the capital to execute their game plan. It's worldwide and it is on a massive scale, as they are essentially building out the world's computing and mobile platforms for the next 20 years. Only they really know the plan and the need for the cash
  • Reply 23 of 227
    Bad bad idea. As others have mentioned Apple needs the money to high the likes of Google and Motorola who are becoming patent trolls.
  • Reply 24 of 227
    As is often the case, many of the comments I read here are so stupid as to boggle my mind.



    Apple is a publicly traded company. The only appropriate action to take, with respect to that pile of case, is to use it in the way that stockholders want it to be used, in the best interest of the stockholders. There is virtually unanimous opinion among analysts, whose opinions closely reflect the opinions of stockholders, that Apple needs to pay a dividend. Given this, why would anyone assert that it would be stupid for Apple to pay a dividend? The only way it would make one whit of sense to argue otherwise is to come up with a better way to use the case. The only good alternatives are buying up other smaller companies that Apple uses as suppliers, and buying back some of their own stock. Both of these also make good sense, particularly since Apple stock is very likely going to continue to grow into the foreseeable future at the same rate that it has grown over the past three years.



    Consider the purchase of Cirrus Logic for example. This is an undervalued stock by most any reasonable measure. Its valuation is kept low because of fear that Apple could switch to another suppler for the hybrid audio chips. Were it for for that concern, its valuation at market cap would probably be 50% higher. As such, it is an obvious choice for purchase by Apple. The present market cap for Cirrus is 1.34 billion. Apple could offer a premium to existing shareholders, and buy it for between 1.5 and 2.0 billion, and it would not even make a dent in Apple's cash pile.



    It does not make any sense whatsoever for Apple to allow that cash pile to grow even larger than it already is. Paying a dividend makes perfect sense, and as such it would not make sense to not pay a dividend. Buying back more of their own common stock also makes perfect sense, and as such it would not make sense not to buy back some of their own stock. This action would increase the value of shareholder's investment. The sense I get here is that many people who spend time on this forum and who worship Apple do not even realize that Apple is a for-profit corporation, that exists for almost no reason other than the reason of making profit and rewarding investors financially. I get the sense that many of the people who come here and make comments are so naive and so removed from reality that they do not fully understand this. It also makes sense for Apple to buy up companies such as Cirrus Logic. It is a short-term investment that begins paying back right away, because Cirrus Logic is already a profitable company.



    All of you people who assert that Apple should not pay a dividend, or should not buy more of their own common stock, or should not engage in buying more companies such as Cirrus Logic, instead of simply asserting that these would be bad things for Apple to do, why don't you explain the reasoning behind your assertions?
  • Reply 25 of 227
    Can someone help me understand if paying dividends is a net benefit to investors and if so how. Seems to me that the value of a company's stock is directly related to the company's expected future near term value. So if Apple uses it's cash "hoard" to payout dividends, wouldn't that lessen the company's value and therefore slow the stock's appreciation, ultimately causing a net wash for the investor, since any gain made by virtue of the dividends would be balanced by the less rapid rise of the share value?
  • Reply 26 of 227
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    The best use of Apple's nearly $100 billion in cash and investments would be to issue shareholders a dividend yield of between 2 percent and 3 percent, a new analysis argues.



    Shaw Wu with Sterne Agee said in a note to investors on Friday that he believes it makes the "most sense" for Apple to pay a dividend to investors with its growing cash hoard. He thinks a yield in the 2 percent to 3 percent range would be "very attractive" for shareholders as well as employees.



    "The reason is that the company's strong cash flow should be able to fund this (which we estimate could be $75-$80 billion in the next four quarters vs. the $45.3 billion we estimate the company generated in the last four quarters)."



    In the company's most recent quarterly earnings report, Apple executives indicated they are "actively discussing" what to do with $96.7 billion in cash the company had as of the previous holiday quarter. Its stockpile of cash and reserves grew $16 billion in that three-month period alone.



    "We're actively discussing uses of our cash balance, and have no specifics to share," Apple Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer said. "In the meantime, we continue to be disciplined with cash, and are not letting it burn a hole in our pockets."



    Wu cited two of Apple's peers, Microsoft and Intel, which are components of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and are considered to be blue chip technology companies. Microsoft pays a dividend yield of 2.6 percent, while Intel's dividend yield in 3.2 percent.



    "The other positive outcome from paying a dividend is that it would bring in a new class of investors where funds that only invest in dividend paying stocks could now own AAPL shares," Wu said. "We believe this should help further stabilize its shareholder base."









    The analyst's research note comes ahead of Apple's annual shareholders' meeting, set to take place on Feb. 23. He admitted that the "exact timing is tough to predict" on when or even if Apple will begin issuing dividends to investors.



    Calls for a dividend have only increased as Apple's cash hoard has grown exponentially. But executives at Apple have long resisted investor pressure to dole out a dividend.



    Without a dividend, AAPL stock has soared to new heights as the company continues to deliver record breaking quarters. On Thursday, Apple's market capitalization grew so much that the company is now worth more than rivals Microsoft and Google combined.



    Sterne Agee has maintained its "buy" rating on AAPL stock, with a price target of $550.



    [ View article on AppleInsider ]



    Is it really that important they drive down their absurdly low P/E?
  • Reply 27 of 227
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleZilla View Post


    I think the best use of this money would be to buy up several hundred acres of former factory sites in the United States, move All production here, and slap 'Made in USA' stickers on every product box.



    Detroit is calling.



    You forget that in this context, "best" means "most profitable for Apple's owners".



    Apple makes more money if it uses Chinese labor. Apple makes the most money if it uses vendors who keep their costs pared to the bone.
  • Reply 28 of 227
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mcarling View Post


    Then we would have an even worse global overpopulation problem, faster deforestation, and an even worse environmental disaster. No thank you. People who cannot feed themselves should not be breeding.



    You sure are lucky you were born where you were.



    The main problem with that $30b quote is that it is total BS. Assuming it were true, there's that give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day thing.. . . Knowing that it isn't true, the UN is a corrupt organization that would waste more than that to feed a small part of the hungry, and the UN would never address or even acknowledge the actual causes of hunger in much of the world. Take North Korea for example. . . . most of the population is hungry but food aid just goes to the army. If that country were free, they wouldn't be hungry. There are plenty of countries that don't grow all their own food (England and Japan, for ex.), but they produce things people in other countries want and buy the food they need.
  • Reply 29 of 227
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 11,737moderator
  • Reply 30 of 227
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Red Oak View Post


    Above all, Apple senior management needs to make sure they have the capital to execute their game plan. It's worldwide and it is on a massive scale, as they are essentially building out the world's computing and mobile platforms for the next 20 years. Only they really know the plan and the need for the cash



    Let us hope that Apple management has the vision you ascribe to them. Their chief visionary is no longer with them.
  • Reply 31 of 227
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kaiser_soze View Post


    As is often the case, many of the comments I read here are so stupid as to boggle my mind.



    Apple is a publicly traded company. The only appropriate action to take, with respect to that pile of case, is to use it in the way that stockholders want it to be used, in the best interest of the stockholders. There is virtually unanimous opinion among analysts, whose opinions closely reflect the opinions of stockholders, that Apple needs to pay a dividend. Given this, why would anyone assert that it would be stupid for Apple to pay a dividend? The only way it would make one whit of sense to argue otherwise is to come up with a better way to use the case. The only good alternatives are buying up other smaller companies that Apple uses as suppliers, and buying back some of their own stock. Both of these also make good sense, particularly since Apple stock is very likely going to continue to grow into the foreseeable future at the same rate that it has grown over the past three years.



    Consider the purchase of Cirrus Logic for example. This is an undervalued stock by most any reasonable measure. Its valuation is kept low because of fear that Apple could switch to another suppler for the hybrid audio chips. Were it for for that concern, its valuation at market cap would probably be 50% higher. As such, it is an obvious choice for purchase by Apple. The present market cap for Cirrus is 1.34 billion. Apple could offer a premium to existing shareholders, and buy it for between 1.5 and 2.0 billion, and it would not even make a dent in Apple's cash pile.



    It does not make any sense whatsoever for Apple to allow that cash pile to grow even larger than it already is. Paying a dividend makes perfect sense, and as such it would not make sense to not pay a dividend. Buying back more of their own common stock also makes perfect sense, and as such it would not make sense not to buy back some of their own stock. This action would increase the value of shareholder's investment. The sense I get here is that many people who spend time on this forum and who worship Apple do not even realize that Apple is a for-profit corporation, that exists for almost no reason other than the reason of making profit and rewarding investors financially. I get the sense that many of the people who come here and make comments are so naive and so removed from reality that they do not fully understand this. It also makes sense for Apple to buy up companies such as Cirrus Logic. It is a short-term investment that begins paying back right away, because Cirrus Logic is already a profitable company.



    All of you people who assert that Apple should not pay a dividend, or should not buy more of their own common stock, or should not engage in buying more companies such as Cirrus Logic, instead of simply asserting that these would be bad things for Apple to do, why don't you explain the reasoning behind your assertions?



    What on earth makes you think analysts reflect the views of the stockholders? Nothing could be further from the truth. The directors are selected by the stockholders and they in fact represent them. Most analysts are not even shareholders. I am.



    Why don't I want a dividend?
    1. Apple would have to repatriate the money, losing a large portion of it to the US Government

    2. I don't want to pay anymore income taxes. A 3% dividend would devalue the stock by an equal amount and then I will get the added pleasure of paying capital gains tax. Thanks. A dividend is a lose/lose for all of us.

    Why not invest in Cirrus Logic. Who cares about Cirrus Logic. Right now Apple can make investments in places where they have money. They can't just spend the 100 bllion wherever the mood strikes them. I have no idea if Cirrus Logic makes any sense as a purchase for Apple.



    The problem Apple has is that the money is coming in very fast. In any cases it is coming in places they can not spend it without moving it. If they move it they will incur a large tax liability. A large part of it is waiting on a Western government to decide they want that money spent in their country. The buyback idea has some merit, but it still has the repatriation problem.



    Your post is long, but it is clear you have not really considered any of the issues around this. You claim others do not understand for-profit corporations. It is clear you do not understand the economics of a global corporation.
  • Reply 32 of 227
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MackyMoto View Post


    Can someone help me understand if paying dividends is a net benefit to investors and if so how. Seems to me that the value of a company's stock is directly related to the company's expected future near term value. So if Apple uses it's cash "hoard" to payout dividends, wouldn't that lessen the company's value and therefore slow the stock's appreciation, ultimately causing a net wash for the investor, since any gain made by virtue of the dividends would be balanced by the less rapid rise of the share value?



    The dividend is worse than that. It would drop the present value, reduce future growth, and create a tax liability for investors. Additionally, repatriating the cash to pay the dividend would incur a significant tax liability for Apple.
  • Reply 33 of 227
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MackyMoto View Post


    Can someone help me understand if paying dividends is a net benefit to investors and if so how. Seems to me that the value of a company's stock is directly related to the company's expected future near term value. So if Apple uses it's cash "hoard" to payout dividends, wouldn't that lessen the company's value and therefore slow the stock's appreciation, ultimately causing a net wash for the investor, since any gain made by virtue of the dividends would be balanced by the less rapid rise of the share value?



    Its very simple, a stockholder owns part of Apple, say a friend of yours asks you to invest in their company and says "I will make shitloads of cash but you'll get none of it". I don't know about you but I'd turn them down. You think the stock is high now? It would be through the roof if they paid a dividend.
  • Reply 34 of 227
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleZilla View Post


    I think the best use of this money would be to buy up several hundred acres of former factory sites in the United States, move All production here, and slap 'Made in USA' stickers on every product box.



    Detroit is calling.



    There are not enough unemployed people in the US to meet demand. The US also does not have enough domestic manufacturing to employ those workers on other lines during Apple's slack time. As they develop more different products, the second problem is certainly less of a problem. Moving all of their manufacturing here would also result in 100s of thousands of out of work chinese. Since the chinese will likely be the largest buyer of Apple products over the next 5 years, this makes little sense.
  • Reply 35 of 227
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


    Its very simple, a stockholder owns part of Apple, say a friend of yours asks you to invest in their company and says "I will make shitloads of cash but you'll get none of it". I don't know about you but I'd turn them down. You think the stock is high now? It would be through the roof if they paid a dividend.



    You apparently have never owned a stock.
  • Reply 36 of 227
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mcarling View Post


    People who cannot feed themselves should not be breeding.



    Good old privilege rearing its unfortunately ugly head.



    Serious question to the not despicable human being members of this site....why is it that some of the most horrible callous posters on most tech sites are also Apple fans? There is literally no correlation I can think of yet on many sites it exists almost as if it's a rule.



    Note, not being facetious I genuinely want to know. It's sad and I don't get it.
  • Reply 37 of 227
    If shareholders would be the arbiters of Apple’s policy, the share price would be much more than the $ 500 it is at now.



    The only people who can make a right decision are the Board. They are the ones with all the information of Apple’s long term plans and are acting in the best interests of the stockholders.



    There is more to Apple Inc than the shareholders. Think of the customers and the staff who are dependent on the success of the company.
  • Reply 38 of 227
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wovel View Post


    What on earth makes you think analysts reflect the views of the stockholders? Nothing could be further from the truth. The directors are selected by the stockholders and they in fact represent them. Most analysts are not even shareholders. I am.



    Why don't I want a dividend?
    1. Apple would have to repatriate the money, losing a large portion of it to the US Government

    2. I don't want to pay anymore income taxes. A 3% dividend would devalue the stock by an equal amount and then I will get the added pleasure of paying capital gains tax. Thanks. A dividend is a lose/lose for all of us.

    Why not invest in Cirrus Logic. Who cares about Cirrus Logic. Right now Apple can make investments in places where they have money. They can't just spend the 100 bllion wherever the mood strikes them. I have no idea if Cirrus Logic makes any sense as a purchase for Apple.



    The problem Apple has is that the money is coming in very fast. In any cases it is coming in places they can not spend it without moving it. If they move it they will incur a large tax liability. A large part of it is waiting on a Western government to decide they want that money spent in their country. The buyback idea has some merit, but it still has the repatriation problem.



    Your post is long, but it is clear you have not really considered any of the issues around this. You claim others do not understand for-profit corporations. It is clear you do not understand the economics of a global corporation.



    So you'd rather pay zero tax on zero income vs. capital gains on free money?
  • Reply 39 of 227
    pokepoke Posts: 506member
    How would this help them make great products?
  • Reply 40 of 227
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MackyMoto View Post


    Can someone help me understand if paying dividends is a net benefit to investors and if so how. Seems to me that the value of a company's stock is directly related to the company's expected future near term value. So if Apple uses it's cash "hoard" to payout dividends, wouldn't that lessen the company's value and therefore slow the stock's appreciation, ultimately causing a net wash for the investor, since any gain made by virtue of the dividends would be balanced by the less rapid rise of the share value?



    Investors know when Apple announces a dividend the share price will go up and that benefits investors and the corporation. Everyone wins if Apple announces a dividend this month. I'm a shareholder already and have patiently waited for it to be deemed the right time by Apple to pay a dividend. I believe this is the year. A stock that gives a dividend becomes a stock that many investment portfolios will want to acquire and that drives the share price even higher. So, the existing sharholders before a dividend announcement have the most to gain since they reap the dividend and the share price jump. And, since Apple's forecast is so profit peachy those new investors will reap the increase going forward too.

    An Apple dividend will be a win/win for everyone. Because the share price will reach $850 to $1000 within the next 2 years they also may do a stock split meaning if you've got 1 share worth $550 you'll now have 2 shares worth more than $225 each since that also increases trading activity and company worth.
Sign In or Register to comment.