or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Dr Millmoss

A big issue, one which I am seeing mentioned hardly at all, is that Microsoft is now positioning itself as both a partner with and a competitor to the OEMs. If the Surface products are any kind of success, this relationship is bound to chafe the backsides of their OEM partners. They had better be very careful about how they deal with the OEMs or they could find themselves back in hot water with the Department of Justice.
Estimated EPS * Estimated PE = Forecasted Stock PriceIt worries me more when they turn out as nice round numbers.
What you mean is, there's no point in discussing it when I cite sources and you totally ignore what they say.
First of all, no corporation pays the full 35% rate. The effective rate is usually much lower due to all the dodges and loopholes built into the tax code. Second, the tax rate they pay for repatriation is less the foreign tax paid. So what they'd pay would depend on where the money was earned.Thank you for grasping the scale. Few do, for some unknown reason. FWIW, acquisitions of public companies typically involve some sort of stock swap, so they are not usually totally...
Oh? Maybe you need to read the article. As it says very clearly, many institutional investors can't buy AAPL now because they pay no dividend. This means that the institutional investment market for AAPL is pretty much tapped out currently, but will open up to new customers if/when the company declares a divided. Perhaps this logic is just too straight forward for you to understand.
Both the cause and the effect are right there. Nothing is ever definitive but the evidence is very strong.
More than a billion a week, at least based on the Q1 2012 rate of accumulation. Last quarter they were net an eye-popping $16b. Probably this won't be repeated in Q2, but the rate is certainly accelerating so adding another $50b this year is very much in the realm of possibility. It's a gargantuan sum growing at a breakneck rate. So even an extremely generous 3% dividend would cost Apple less than a third of the additional cash they are likely to accumulate this year....
It's not misleading, it's simply incomplete. Many investment funds have rules requiring their holdings to pay dividends. They are not allowed to buy stocks which do not.
This is just plain bizarre reasoning. Please think about what you are saying. If Apple ever had to fund operations out cash reserves, then this would mean the company is losing money. Would you seriously want to be an AAPL investor if they went from being one of the most profitable companies on the planet to losing money?
New Posts  All Forums: