or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple closes at new all-time high as world’s largest company
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple closes at new all-time high as world’s largest company - Page 3

post #81 of 107
This whole discussion about how Apple should give something back has really helped me understand thinking in the US a bit better.

It seems that a lot of people believe that it's the role of companies to take care of them (help fund schools, etc). So now it makes sense to me why people don't feel government is important, don't vote, and would be happier to just get rid of government altogether and not pay any taxes.

When in reality, the goal of a company is simply to make as much money as possible. If being charitable is cheaper than advertising as a means to get people to buy their products, or if it provides them some other benefit which outweighs the cost, they'll do it. Otherwise they won't. Sure there are exceptions to the rule, but in general, that's the guiding principal of any business.

IMO, it's the role of government to balance private interests (re. profit) against things which are in the general interest of the public (access to good education, health care, decent city infrastructure, etc) through taxation or other means. So people really need to look to government for these things, not industry.
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #82 of 107
I have been using Apple products since the 1970s and despite a rocky time in the 1990's, they have and always will be in my opinion the most valuable company in the world. Their innovative style and trend setting ways have made them virtually impossible to compete with. Even with Steve out, the fundamental values that they began with will live on.

it doesn't hurt to have bought a boatload of stock at $9.25 when it was at it's lowest point. Thank you Apple for the nest egg!
post #83 of 107
deleted
post #84 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by XamaX View Post

Been saying for years - this company has unimaginable potential even for crazy fan boys like most of AI forum posters

It's like Cook & co says: even we are amazed.

Just brace yourselves - if there's no cataclysm, AAPL is going through the roof and I don't even have the guts to guess away where AAPL will be a year from now.

Challenge: any guesses? $600 anyone?

Agreed. No problem hitting $600 by the end of 2012. Even higher if they take their hobby to the next step...
post #85 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

This whole discussion about how Apple should give something back has really helped me understand thinking in the US a bit better.

It seems that a lot of people believe that it's the role of companies to take care of them (help fund schools, etc). So now it makes sense to me why people don't feel government is important, don't vote, and would be happier to just get rid of government altogether and not pay any taxes.

When in reality, the goal of a company is simply to make as much money as possible. If being charitable is cheaper than advertising as a means to get people to buy their products, or if it provides them some other benefit which outweighs the cost, they'll do it. Otherwise they won't. Sure there are exceptions to the rule, but in general, that's the guiding principal of any business.

IMO, it's the role of government to balance private interests (re. profit) against things which are in the general interest of the public (access to good education, health care, decent city infrastructure, etc) through taxation or other means. So people really need to look to government for these things, not industry.

Spot on!
post #86 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

You don't know much about why companies pay dividends, do you?
Hint... It's because they're not increasing in share value.
I'll take my 300% gains over little dividend payoffs any day.

This is prime example of a shibboleth.

Companies are in a position to pay dividends when they can't reinvest all of their profits in additional growth. It's got nothing to do with share value not increasing.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #87 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by orange whip View Post

Ever heard of the term ex-dividend? When a company pays a dividend the share price usually drops to reflect the fact that the company is worth less than it was before it paid the dividend. If they don't pay a dividend then in AAPL's case the value of the company increases and this is reflected in the market cap. Yes the PE ratio is dropping and on that basis yes a dividend may increase value to shareholders. But which other company would you have invested in over the last 10 years???

No. The effect you are describing is the modest tendency for investors to buy into a stock shortly before a dividend is declared and to sell after they collect it. The net effect is not measurable. The dividend itself does not have any impact on the market cap of the company. Not any. Zero, zilch, nada. None.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #88 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Even Krugman is on board now with a 50/50 chance of the world entering another recession.[/I]

The world?

US+EU ≠ 'World'

Countries like China and India will be humming along fine, thank you.
post #89 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

This is prime example of a shibboleth.

Companies are in a position to pay dividends when they can't reinvest all of their profits in additional growth. It's got nothing to do with share value not increasing.

You really should not make such categorical statements, since they are not true.
post #90 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

The dividend itself does not have any impact on the market cap of the company. Not any. Zero, zilch, nada. None.

There is an entire theoretical, and more importantly, well-tested empirical literature on a phenomenon known as 'dividend signaling' in finance.

You should look it up before making such sweeping/categorical assertions.
post #91 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

The world?

US+EU ≠ 'World'

Countries like China and India will be humming along fine, thank you.

Quote: The risk of global recession is "quite high, maybe 50 percent," Krugman told Bloomberg.

FWIW, I'm no fan of Krugman either. Just posting that it was he (or Bloomberg) that indicated it would be world-wide.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #92 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by anfboymn View Post

Apple is acting like money is everything by not being a community leader; you can still be hugely successful while still being a major player in the philanthropy arena. And I promise you, Steve Jobs is now realizing money isn't everything.

Wow. So astute of you to say. You must be a personal friend with Mr Jobs or know him oh so very well. You must be smarter then Mr. Jobs and all of Apple for you to make such clever comments.

Clearly something is missing in your life.
post #93 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Apple is doomed.

Funny how the simplest most repeated joke still cracks up the simplest around here.
post #94 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple/// View Post

Wow. So astute of you to say. You must be a personal friend with Mr Jobs or know him oh so very well. You must be smarter then Mr. Jobs and all of Apple for you to make such clever comments.

Clearly something is missing in your life.

Yeah, your comment makes sense since you can bring your money to your grave and all...
post #95 of 107
I am an avid Apple backer and satisfied stockholder but AI is pushing things a bit too far.

Apple is the world's most valuable company but Apple most certainly is not the world's largest company unless you use very narrow and very specific criteria to substantiate that claim.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply
post #96 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

This whole discussion about how Apple should give something back has really helped me understand thinking in the US a bit better.

It seems that a lot of people believe that it's the role of companies to take care of them (help fund schools, etc). So now it makes sense to me why people don't feel government is important, don't vote, and would be happier to just get rid of government altogether and not pay any taxes.

When in reality, the goal of a company is simply to make as much money as possible. If being charitable is cheaper than advertising as a means to get people to buy their products, or if it provides them some other benefit which outweighs the cost, they'll do it. Otherwise they won't. Sure there are exceptions to the rule, but in general, that's the guiding principal of any business.

IMO, it's the role of government to balance private interests (re. profit) against things which are in the general interest of the public (access to good education, health care, decent city infrastructure, etc) through taxation or other means. So people really need to look to government for these things, not industry.

Yes, people know this. Corporations are like robots, and you don't make money by giving it away. Apple is just a corporation that seeks to control as much as it can without working alongside anyone. They have good customer service because they only support a handful of products, all of which are so dumbed down to begin with that supporting them isn't hard at all. Not being able to change your battery, for instance, is just an example of a step Apple took to ensure that idiots don't mess up their devices. These measures have profits in mind alone, which is fine for the stockholders, but what does it really do for everyone else?

Steve Jobs once said what he envied most about Microsoft is their ability to work well with other companies. It's apparent Apple doesn't want to have anything to do with anything that isn't Apple, in as many areas as they possibly can, and this self-absorbed prick attitude spills over to their outlook on charities and whatnot. I personally don't care, because I see all corporations in America as heartless robots lacking basic humanity, but when you hear news like this, it's REALLY hard to like a corporation like Apple.
post #97 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

FWIW, I'm no fan of Klugman either. Just posting that it was he (or Bloomberg) that indicated it would be world-wide.

Since you posted it, I felt it important to point out the distinction - it was irrelevant whether Krugman said it, you said it, or you said Krugman said it.

Oh, I am a huge fan of KRugrman. That doesn't mean he's always right.
post #98 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

Funny how the simplest most repeated joke still cracks up the simplest around here.

It cracked you up? Gee, thanks!
post #99 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

You really should not make such categorical statements, since they are not true.

I only make them when they are categorically true, as in this case.

Noting your lack of contrary evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

There is an entire theoretical, and more importantly, well-tested empirical literature on a phenomenon known as 'dividend signaling' in finance.

You should look it up before making such sweeping/categorical assertions.

You should read the post to which I was responding before making assertions, categorical or otherwise. He argued that cash was factored into a company's market value. This is not done by any measure currently in use by anyone. Neither is debt. Not that either are not considered in some existential sense by investors, but they are not reflected in market cap in any way that you can measure, and particularly not cash, which is utterly meaningless to stockholders unless the company pays some of it out as a dividend.

Again, noting your lack of contrary evidence. If anyone is making sweeping assertions here, it is you. My argument is based on facts, yours on nothing that I can see.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #100 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

He argued that cash was factored into a company's market value. This is not done by any measure currently in use by anyone. Neither is debt. Not that either are not considered in some existential sense by investors, but they are not reflected in market cap in any way that you can measure, and particularly not cash, which is utterly meaningless to stockholders unless the company pays some of it out as a dividend.

Perhaps you're not expressing it well, but if you're arguing against the fact -- actually, the identity -- that Mkt Cap = Value(Equity) = Enterprise Value - Debt + Cash, then I am afraid there are some basic gaps in your knowledge.

I am sure I must be misinterpreting what you're saying!
post #101 of 107
post #102 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Perhaps you're not expressing it well, but if you're arguing against the fact -- actually, the identity -- that Mkt Cap = Value(Equity) = Enterprise Value - Debt + Cash, then I am afraid there are some basic gaps in your knowledge.

I am sure I must be misinterpreting what you're saying!

At least one too many equals signs in your statement. Market cap is the current value of all outstanding shares, period. Enterprise value is market cap plus debt minus cash, but this factor is not used to calculate P/E. There's an argument that it should be used instead of market cap, but it is not. The main evidence I can provide that enterprise value is not much used by investors is AAPL itself. The ridiculously low P/E for AAPL is even more ridiculously low if enterprise value is substituted for market cap. There's a reason for this -- which is that neither debt nor cash have much direct bearing on earnings, which is what you are actually buying in a stock, since as a stockholder you are neither responsible for the debt nor do you get access to the cash.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #103 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by anfboymn View Post

But yet they refuse to pay out a dividend...with almost a hundred billion dollars in the bank. Apple has realized they no longer need those who invest in them because of their cash stockpile. Very sad. Never forget those who helped fund you when things were just ok. If you're gonna hoard your money, at least give more back to the community. Do I dare mention Target gves more money back to the community and they are no where near Apple's worth? You're already number 1 in so many areas, try to be number 1 in areas that really matter.

Depending on when you invested, your investment has doubled, tripled, is up 10 times, 20 times, whatever. I think Apple's done a lot to help you.
post #104 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

No. The effect you are describing is the modest tendency for investors to buy into a stock shortly before a dividend is declared and to sell after they collect it. The net effect is not measurable. The dividend itself does not have any impact on the market cap of the company. Not any. Zero, zilch, nada. None.


don't you think my 'plucked from my arse' theory sounds good though

I will investigate your theory, but could it not be that we are in effect saying the same thing?

I only know 10 people that get the
binary joke

Reply

I only know 10 people that get the
binary joke

Reply
post #105 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

Depending on when you invested, your investment has doubled, tripled, is up 10 times, 20 times, whatever. I think Apple's done a lot to help you.

My investment in AAPL has appreciated over 8,000% since purchased, but that still means I have to sell to realize any of that appreciation. Then I have less AAPL going forward, and also pay capital gains taxes. A dividend would permit owners to realize appreciation without selling, and therefore make the stock somewhat less subject to this sort of thrash. But go ahead, keep trying to find a negative side to this. I'm listening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by orange whip View Post

don't you think my 'plucked from my arse' theory sounds good though

I will investigate your theory, but could it not be that we are in effect saying the same thing?

Could be. I'm simply saying that the net impact of dividend anticipation and dividend payment is a wash. If you hold through those periods (a few days, typically), you are not going to notice. It's a blip, at most, even for stocks that pay large dividends. I'm not expecting Apple to pay more than 1%. Personally, I'd be thrilled with even that much, which Apple could easily afford to pay and still continue to accumulate cash at an astonishing rate.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #106 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

At least one too many equals signs in your statement.

No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Market cap is the current value of all outstanding shares, period.

I.e., it is value of equity (hence the need for the second equal sign), since it is price per share (which includes the value of cash on the firm's balance sheet) multiplied by the number of shares outstanding. For example, the market cap of Apple today is ~$386B (= $416.5 per share multiplied by 927M shares outstanding). This $416.5 per share - which is the stock price at the time I am posting this - thus includes the per-share value of Apple's cash and cash equivalents of ~$76B. The non-cash value of Apple is ~$310B.
post #107 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

No.

Yes.

Quote:
I.e., it is value of equity (hence the need for the second equal sign), since it is price per share (which includes the value of cash on the firm's balance sheet) multiplied by the number of shares outstanding. For example, the market cap of Apple today is ~$386B (= $416.5 per share multiplied by 927M shares outstanding). This $416.5 per share - which is the stock price at the time I am posting this - thus includes the per-share value of Apple's cash and cash equivalents of ~$76B. The non-cash value of Apple is ~$310B.

But it doesn't. Market cap is defined as the current market value of the outstanding shares only. Nothing else is included in market cap. Where you get this other idea, I cannot guess. In fact any number of financial columnists over recent years have made the argument that AAPL is arguably undervalued because the cash should be subtracted from the market cap (i.e., enterprise value should be considered). I don't necessarily agree that this should matter to investors, but I get the point they are making. What I don't get is your redefinition of market cap to somehow include cash and debt.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple closes at new all-time high as world’s largest company