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

Component suppliers set up shop pretty quickly around the automakers in detroit, but not nearly as fast as they do in China. When major product revisions happen as quickly as they do in the electronics industry, it is a big risk to make changes that may disrupt that. One delayed project can cost a significant amount of money. I think that is a bigger issue then labor costs as things become more automated and more reliant on machinists to set up the equipment. Steve Jobs did speak of moving production back in his biography if there were people with the available skills here. He mentioned needing at least 30,000 skilled machinists to start. We already don't have enough people in vocational fields. This is one of many key problems to bringing production to the US. People seem to think this is all unskilled labor. We don't have enough skilled machinists for the factories we already have here. If and when it does happen, it would be initiated by companies like Foxconn that can do it slowly without disrupting the supply chain. I understand that they are already experimenting with bringing some production to the US.

I'm not sure if a couple hundred acres would do it. That is the size of a company that is near me with 15,000 employees. They would need much more then that. I doubt any former factory sites are large enough. Most former sites are also old and torn down to begin environmental cleanup.

Paying dividends right now when the company's stock price/revenue/profit is exploding IS INSANE!

Companies pay out dividends to make their stock more attractive to investors BECAUSE their stock price/revenue/profit HAS PLATEAUED and there are no expectations of high growth.

Paying dividends right now is A WASTE OF MONEY.

They haven't "maximized shareholder value". If the Board had authorized any kind of stock buy back last year instead of sitting on so much cash yielding .25%, that would have been maximizing shareholder value.

Market Cap says we need a dividend. Apple could make all the growth in the world, who is going to buy the stock? Everyone that can already owns it at max level...

Retail investors are a drop in the sea, you could have all the retail investors sell the stock at the same time and the price will barely move. And if Apple slow its growth, the hedge funds are going to start dumping it and the stock will tank to insane low level compare to fundamentals. You could have Apple trading at a P/E of only 5 if this happen. Again, finance 101, the price of a stock is base on profit participation at some point. The only thing keeping a no dividend growth stock price is... growth.

If you want to see what happens to a growth stock that doesnt pay dividends when investors realize the company wont be able to deliver the growth: go see the netflix chart. And look at amazon, they are going down like a patato bag if they miss again.

They need new money coming in from big funds that cant touch it right now.

You know the companies that pay out dividends?

Microsoft, IBM, AT&T, Johnson&Johnson, etc.


FAT, Bloated companies with no prospect for growth.

completly unrelated, a dividend is required for a company that doesnt growth indeed, but you can have both. Look at the pharmaceutical stocks for starters...
and BTW IBM is doing great in terms of growth...

Eating fried lobster makes you fat and bloated.

Apple paying a dividend will benefit Apple shareholders

I don't, but AppleInsider seems to subscribe to his blog or something.

He is a very good tech analyst...

Detroit has never nor will it ever be a ``IT Manufacturing Mecca.''

Perhaps if the Big 3 which bought up all the rail lines over the course of several decades had taken a more pragmatic approach to both Rails and Highways they never would have needed to be hollowed out before they could regain their footing?

GM would have been wise to develop and produce commuter rail systems for decades. Instead, they go into corrupt financing and credit. Brilliant on their part.

If by "very good" you're grading on the scale of all analysts with "perfect record" being "got something right once by sheer luck after hundreds of wrong predictions" and "completely wrong" being "every other analyst out there", sure.

At 80 cents a day, I doubt it. When we brought manufacturing to China, it didn't lower the prices of Apple's products back home. Last I checked Apple was a US company, so it should care first about Americans.

I didn't want to enter this discussion, but here goes...

1) the goal of business is to make a profit at the risk of a loss -- it is not to "maximize shareholder value" or anything else.

2) making a profit allows the business to, optionally, do other things -- but the business needs to survive (be profitable) to do them.

3) if the goal were to "maximize shareholder value" -- when should they make the decision to do that and how should they do it?

If the Apple board saw a bad patch coming, should they "maximize shareholder value" by doing as Michael Dell suggested a few years back -- "sell all the assets and return the money to the shareholders"?

Stock buybacks are historically a bad use of shareholder money. They are generally a sign that management can't put the money to productive use.

Absolutely wrong.

The Board wants to maximize shareholder value. There's some truth to that (although it's an oversimplification). The board can do a lot of things with that cash:
- Save it for a rainy day
- Make acquisitions
- Save it for potential future acquisitions
- Invest it in new facilities (NC data center)
- Buy things (property or components)
- Spend it on R&D
- Pay a dividend
- Buy back stock
- Etc.

The board decides which one it thinks will maximize shareholder value. it's not an exact science so it does come down to opinions. At the PRESENT time, the board has apparently decided that holding on to the cash is the best use of the money. I'd be willing to bet just about anything that they know more about Apple's goals, opportunities, and resources than you do.

Shareholders elect the board members and authorize the board members to act on their behalf. So if the board members decide to save it for a future acquisition, then the shareholders have indirectly agreed. If they disagree, they can write to the board to ask them to reconsider or they could elect a new board, but until then, the board can do what they want.


Nonsense. If a company has 1 million shares of stock and you own one of them, then you have one millionth of the company. If the company is worth a billion dollars, your share of the company is worth $1,000.

The stock market was created (and largely still exists) as a way to capitalize companies and make it possible to obtain resources greater than individuals could provide while allowing individuals to share in the ownership of entitles larger than they could afford. Most people invest to make money - which means that they hope to have more money in the future than at the present. That could be by dividends, by growth in share value, or both. Suggesting that a stock is worthless unless it pays a dividend indicates a complete lack of comprehension of how the market works.

If I had 1,000 shares of AAPL, I could trade it for nearly half a million dollars in cash. That's quite a bit for a 'worthless' item.

What do people have against dividends?

Apple is sitting on about $100 billion of cash. They have more than enough money to tie up supplies for their supply chain, buy any companies they want, and have a Scrooge McDuck swimming pool.

Having a reasonable dividend gives back money to the stockholders. Remember, holding stock doesn't make money without a dividend. You would have to sell.

Having strong companies that consistently pay a nice dividend is essential for any portfolio.

And how about having a DRIP? You can buy a share for a child and watch the investment grow over time.

That has been historically true. I'm not so sure that it applies in Apple's case. They're building cash by tens of billions of dollars per year. I can't think of any case where that has happened in the past and where there were no attractive acquisition targets.

There are no acquisitions that appear attractive that would use even a small percentage of the cash. I can't think of a single company that Apple could buy that would generate anywhere near the returns that Apple has and that would fit into Apple's strategy of making insanely great products. So at some point, Apple will need to decide what to do with its excess (i.e., amounts greater than they need for acquisitions and safety net) cash. That will mean one of the following:
- Dividends
- Stock buy backs
- Major change in focus to make a huge investment in a completely unrelated area.

The latter is a 'bet the farm' investment (or would be if Apple didn't have so much cash to risk) and doesn't seem particularly likely.

I guess you must be right and Tim Cook, wrong: http://www.edibleapple.com/2011/10/1...pple-in-china/
/s


You don't know what the price would have been if manufacturing had been not brought to China.


That is stunningly insular view regarding a company 60% of whose sales come from non-US markets, a share that is only likely to grow even more in the future given the growth opportunities abroad compared to the US.

By that token, dividends aren't?

jrag,
So if AAPL's Board had bought back any amount of shares last year as opposed to investing in money market securities at .25% that would not have been a good use of capital?

Absolutely not true. You can write options.

As an example example, if you own 1000 shares of Apple and you sold a July 2012 call at an exercise price of, say, $600 per share, you'd make $6.60*1000 = $6,600 today. (Options price from www.finance.yahoo.com) And hold on to your AAPL.

I am not at all suggesting that you should do that, but your statement above is incorrect.

I'm inclined to agree with those who say that Apple's focus shouldn't be to maximize shareholder value. We're along for the ride. We paid for that privilege, but we did so for the chance to be rewarded by an increasing stock price, nothing more.

The question Apple's board is clearly struggling with is, what is the best way we can use our cash to serve our focus? The answer is tied up in the question, what is or should be Apple's focus? Again, the answer is clear: Customer satisfaction.

So maybe the best thing they can do with the extra money is lower the price of their product. Only one problem: They can't keep up demand as it is! Therefore, the best use of the extra cash is to vastly increase production so that they can lower the price, and increase the number of stores so they can improve service. Oh, and keep improving the quality of their product.

Hmm. They're already doing all of these things, and they STILL are generating annoyingly large quantities of spare cash.

Maybe they should become a bank. Or a charity. Or a foundation.

You know what? I'm fine with all those. But as a stockholder, I see absolutely no need for a dividend.

annoyingly large quantities of cash?

charity?

foundation?

What planet are you from?

Give in order to receive. What a concept. Insane, or insanely great?

I thought that the whole purpose for dividend creation was to stimulate interest in a particular stocks ownership. What better barometer do we need than the already sky high price and growth curve of Apple stock? Why not continue to hold solid cash reserves and invest surpluses in R&D projects.

Dividends may lure a few more investors, but well chosen and funded R&D projects create long term value and viability. Yes, dividend creation can fund corporate capital through stock price increases, but stock prices are really just bets on future demand. Stock prices may wax and wane throughout a corporations lifespan. Cash, patent holdings, and product R&D (past, present and future) are the real armor that a company needs to thrive.

Corporate warfare is just like any other kind of warfare, where the supply sergeant needs quick and uninterrupted access to supplies. Effective military logistics demand a quick response to the needs of the front line. Cash supports logistics like nothing else.

Traditional cash bloat vulnerabilities are not a current problem for Apple. And cash poor innovation companies will almost always become new meat for the giants and find their patents working to fund someone elses dreams.

http://markdavidnoble.com

That strikes me as being dead on target. I just read a piece about how Napoleon lost when he tried to invade Russia. It all boiled down to the logistics of supplying a huge invading force. Apple is leading a charge against many entrenched competitors. Above all, it needs to protect and bolster its supply chain.

Really good point.

Most of the cash is in offshore accounts (around 60% if I remember). Wouldn't Apple need to repatriate those funds first and pay taxes on it? Sorry for my faulty memory, but I think that would mean around 35% would just be taken away from the get go.

Seems like dividends are a bad financial strategy for both Apple customers and shareholders.

Apple GIVES the world insanely great products.

They don't need to give away their hard earned "retained earnings"

I know this runs counter to the typical conservative mindset, but I'm only being halfway facetious. Elevating the customer also elevates the seller. Look at China: Apple's helping elevate them, and they're becoming Apple's customers. Focusing on the customer rather than on the stockholder is simply good business.

Increasing production and/or adding stores can come back to bite you in the ass. Just look at how many retailers overexpanded and then had to close stores. Its always better to fill demand than to anticipate it incorrectly and end up with your product collecting dust. A small one time dividend won't hurt and drive up stock price. A win for both income and growth investors.

Apple could use the retained earnings generated out of the US and pay a hefty dividend.
With ZERO tax implications.
And have plenty of cash left over to sit in money market accounts.

What have they got to lose? They've got money to burn! Besides, we don't need a piddly little dividend. Apple went up well over 40% in the last year. Who cares about another lousy 2%, which will be less than that after taxes.

This is the way to think about this! Even five years out, nobody knows what they have in the works.

Jragosta is also among the few who acknowledge the unknown need for cash in the future.

Data centers around the world, new screen technologies, wearable displays, 3D and lightfield imaging, who knows what else . . .

They certainly have not finished revolutionizing photography, either in display or acqusition, just to take one example. Right now there is a desperate need for mid-level 3D video cameras. There is absolutely nothing decent on the market. Same with wearable screens. The Sony wearable screen is, well, very un-Apple.

http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/sto...rtNumber=HMZT1

Anyway, I can see them burning through a few tens of billions on their next few computing revolutions.

I might also add that by Tim Cook's own admission they left money on the table this holiday season by underestimating demand. If anything, the record speaks of Apple being overly cautious about investing. That needs to stop.

If you go to Horace's site, asymco.com, you discover Apple Stock price is highly correlated with its cash not its current or future earnings. Ergo if you give back a lot of cash $50B of $100B you may well drop the stock to $250 from $500. So for $50B you put $250B in stock value at risk.

When stockholders value Apple's profits now and in the future P/E of more like 15-20 vs the current miserable 10-15 over the last year or so, then consider dividend that seriously eats into the cash.

I hope Apple spends tens of billions on the next computing revolution. That would still leave a growing pile of cash earning money market rates.

The Board obviously doesn't think so.

You know, the people were elected by shareholders to direct the company. The people who have access to all of Apple's plans. The people who have a legal fiduciary responsibility to plan for Apple's future.

Why should anyone accept your view over theirs?

Absolute non sense. You dont know what you're talking about.

Youre comparing netflix and amazon to Apple? Haha youre nutz!

Look at their revenue/profit/etc growth. THERE is no comparison.

Do you even know what youre talking about? Rofl

A stock market without dividends is essentially a ponzi scheme. The only way you make money is by selling to the next guy. Eventually, there will be a guy taking a loss at the end. And from the sound of it, a lot of you guys will be that guy. A dividend will drive the price up near term, and stabilize it, so you can retire with your shares, make extra income, and not worry.

You guys talk about growth stocks, Apple's share price is growing very slowly right now. I've got stocks that have doubled up in the last 6 months, I'm up 20 percent in the last week. But I'm a trader. I'll buy and sell a hundred times in a month if I want.

If you guys want to hold on to Apple stock, you want a dividend. The current Apple share price increase is because of dividend rumors. Without a dividend, the stock price could crash anytime. Share price is at an all time high, you think the hedge funds won't take profit? And they move markets, not you guys (or me for that matter).

Nothing like Apple receiving unsolicited advice from someone on Wall Street. Of course they want access to Apple's cash. If you want a dividend stock by Intel, Microsoft or a utility company. Besides why should Apple pay Uncle Barrack 35% in taxes on the cash needed to pay the dividend that is actually held overseas. It would be just throwing good money away at this point.