Originally Posted by Wovel
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?
- Apple would have to repatriate the money, losing a large portion of it to the US Government
- 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.
The analysts I was referring to are the people on the likes of CNBC, who typically are in fact holders of the stock, as am I. To my way of thinking, they are analysts. I can't think of any reason why they should not be regarded as analysts. You evidently have a different definition, but you haven't made it clear, and it is clear that it is contrived.
As for your reasons #1 and #2, I do not know what you mean exactly by "repatriating" the money. I would be interested in that explanation, assuming that you can make sense of it and it does not turn out to be the same as #2, i.e., the need for stockholders to pay tax. And as for #2, if the stock increases in value and you eventually make your money by selling the stock at a profit, you will pay capital gains tax. Presently capital gains are taxed at a discount below even the discount that you get in effect when you have an investment in a tax-deferred savings account (which makes no sense), and although I haven't looked into it lately, my recollection is that per the present statutory requirement, this is scheduled to return over the next few years to the levels that applied to capital gains prior to whenever it was that it was decided that people who make their living from their investments should pay less tax than people who make their living in the more common manner. (I make mine almost entirely from investments, for the record.) Yet, you imply that if you get a dividend, you will pay capital gains tax on the dividend. I am pretty sure that this is not correct, and that as such, you do not know what you are talking about.
You dismiss the suggestion that Apple should buy Cirrus Logic. I gave a perfectly good reason. Cirrus Logic makes a product that Apple uses lots of, and Cirrus Logic is profitable. It is a no-brainer. Yet, you dismiss it, and you don't even give a reason. If you are not even going to bother to give a reason for what you assert, why should anyone pay any attention to you? For that matter, why should you pay any attention to yourself, if you make assertions and then turn immediately around and admit that you don't have any reason for the assertion?
You say that I have no considered the issues around this, but the only thing that you really brought up is the business of "repatriation". But you have not said anything about what this actually means, and you have not put any money behind it. Presumably you are saying that a substantial amount of this "cash" is not cash in the sense of USA currency, and you imply that Apple could not pay this meager 2% - 3% dividend without having to pay for this repatriation. This is something that you need to explain, in detail, with numbers, i.e., numbers that give quantitative meaning to just how much money would be paid to the federal government, by Apple, in order to pay holders of common stock a meager dividend.