Originally Posted by walshbj
Those quotes aren't mine, can you please fix your post and credit them to whoever made them??
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
I hope they don't announce a dividend and give it all away to already wealthy bankers.
Use it for major acquisitions to help their customers: Sony, Sharp, Samsung, Adobe, Twitter, Cable Companies, Become a MVNO, etc.
I think most of the cash is held outside the US so they would have to buy non US companies to avoid tax.
This has certainly perked up my Monday morning lol
Sorry, but a dividend goes to ALL investors - not just the wealthy ones. Besides. The money belongs to the investors so why shouldn't they be entitled to it?
Ultimately, Apple's job is to maximize shareholder returns. For all shareholders. If Apple thinks they can do that by buying a company, then that's what they should do. If they don't have anything that's worth more than distributing the money to the shareholders, that's what they should do.
Of the things you suggested, only Adobe makes much sense. Buying a stodgy, old, existing company makes zero sense. It would cost Apple more to 'fix' Sharp or Sony than it would cost to build their own products.
Personally, I would like to see Apple create another new revolution. While I don't personally see an Apple TV set as the solution, that has the potential to create another multi-tens of billions of dollars market for Apple. Apple has shown that they have the ability to create value in seemingly mature markets.
Another option that makes sense to me is someone's idea of investing many billions of dollars into the energy market. Renewable and alternative energies are at the point where they're very close to being competitive. The cost renewables continues to drop at significant rates and there's every reason to believe that the cost will be lower than conventional fuels at some time. Apple could revolutionize THAT industry, make a lot of money, and do some great things for our economy.
But, in the end, it's Apple's decision what to do.
Originally Posted by gijoeinla
I disagree with your arguments regarding my post.
1). Is it not true that THE hottest topic in the analytical world is Apple is coming forward with a brand new connected device for the home by the end of the year. Is it not true that there has been a flood of information "claiming" Apple is having trouble getting content providers on board with "a new service" Apple plans to provide with this device? Notice I'm not using the word TV.
2). Content is King. Remember that statement. In certain circles here in LA it's pretty likely Apple itself is going to start if not already acquiring content. You don't have access to that information - I do.
3) Why o why would Apple NOT make a play into Netflix -- it's for the CONTENT deals Doh! It's not the subs their looking for...Gee. Apple got 300 million SUBS of it's own, duh.
4) If Apple can't get ANY major content companies to open up a totally new CONTENT delivery stream for their "new device" then WTF are they gonna offer? Only APP content? Yea right.
5) Um, they already ARE competitors in many revenue arenas against people like ATT and VERIZON, DirecTV, Dish and so on.... it's called iTunes and it involves CONTENT distribution.
Apple MUST make a move in this arena, and soon if it's gonna seriously launch a new device that is supposed to "remake the TV experience". You can't do that by adopting OLD strategies.
All sheer speculation - and it completely ignores what I said.
Originally Posted by syracuse
jragosta, is at it again...
You do realize that if a stock didn't drop the amount of the dividend after ex-date their would be an ARBITRAGE that would be exploited by hedge funds?
Come on guy stop being so pedantic, and STOP with the Microsoft comparisons.
APPLE IS NOT MICROSOFT
It doesn't matter if Apple is Microsoft. A bunch of people (I don't know if it was you) were arguing that a massive one-time dividend would increase the share value. I was pointing out that that was wrong. A massive one-time dividend would DECREASE the share value by the amount of the dividend. Sounds like you came around to agreeing with me.
For an on-going dividend, there is absolutely no evidence that it would increase share value in the long run and some evidence that it would not. I'm simply asking people advocating that to provide evidence of their claims. After all, don't you think it's reasonable that if you're going to suggest spending many billions of dollars that you should need to show that it will accomplish the objective?
Now, I'm not saying that Apple won't issue a dividend. I don't have a crystal ball. I am, however, saying that if they do so, I will be disappointed for two reasons:
1. Evidence and history shows that buying back stock has a greater value without creating a taxable event for the shareholders.
And, more importantly:
2. Issuing a dividend suggests that Apple has reached the point that they no longer believe that they can do more with my money than I can. They have a solid history (at least 15 years worth) of showing the ability to turn everything they touch into gold. I would rather see them reinvent more industries or get into future growth markets than simply say "we don't have anywhere reasonable to invest this money, so we're turning it back to the shareholders".