or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple gearing up to pay out $2.5 billion in dividends on Thursday
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple gearing up to pay out $2.5 billion in dividends on Thursday - Page 2

post #41 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

What is the largest quarterly dividend a company has paid out? This seems pretty high. Note, I'm talking about a quarterly dividend not a one time dividend, but I'll take any info on the subject.
I have no idea about all-time, but here's a list of high-yield dividend stocks.

Some foreign telecoms pay out pretty well.
post #42 of 99

Why does this article contain political overtones?  Most investors are aware of the ramifications of dividend income vs capital gains... and are extremely aware of the games the politicians are playing with the tax code/tax cuts.

 

Further, most readers of DED are aware of his extreme political views...

 

Neither of these contribute any value to this article.

 

 

 

Quote:

Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other. 

Oscar Ameringer -

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #43 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

I can not wait for my first of many checks, can not retire on them but ever little bit counts.

 

For those who do not understand how this all works, first you have to be a holder of the stock for a longer period of time than a few days before an after other wise people would all try to buy and sell dividend stock before and after the dividend payout day all the time. If you only hold it for part of the period you get a prorated dividend. Also for those who think the stock drops equal to the dividend pay out that is not always true, some drop more and others continue to go up as you are seeing with Apple, not only are they paying a dividend your based investment continues to grow. Personally I like the stock that drop and maybe drop a lot as they pay out the dividend since I usually re-invest those dividend and I can buy at a lower cost and let the money ride. Apple stock price is not fully base on the money in the bank so their pay out has not really reflection on the value of the stock.

 

I personally have other investment that continue to pay dividend and the value of the investment continue to grow so you have to know the investment since they all do not react the same way

 

Also, to get the tax break you have to hold it more than a year otherwise the dividend will be treated as ordinary income and taxed according.

The underlined portion is incorrect. If you buy any stock the day before it goes ex-dividend (August 9 in the case of AAPL) and hold it until the next day, you get the entire dividend.

post #44 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

I have no idea about all-time, but here's a list of high-yield dividend stocks.
Some foreign telecoms pay out pretty well.

Thanks. There are a couple different measures here and I was not specific.

I found this article that does show Apple being the likely highest of the group over the next four quarters but it's certainly not a guarantee, much less a slam dunk or indication which company has given back as much in a single quarter. Percentage of their cash value Apple is certainly not even close to the top.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #45 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

What is the largest quarterly dividend a company has paid out? This seems pretty high. Note, I'm talking about a quarterly dividend not a one time dividend, but I'll take any info on the subject.

Interesting question, the answer to which is not easy.

 

Assuming you mean a regular, quarterly dividend (excluding dividend recapitalizations and special dividends) in nominal dollars, I am guessing it's either Saudi Aramco or Exxon-Mobil.

post #46 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post Also for those who think the stock drops equal to the dividend pay out that is not always true, some drop more and others continue to go up as you are seeing with Apple, not only are they paying a dividend your based investment continues to grow. 

Wrong!

 

Of course, the stock continues to move underneath the dividend.  Of course.

 

But say today I offer to sell you a stick of gum with a $5 bill attached.  You'd probably offer to pay me about $5.05.  If I took that $5 bill off tomorrow and then asked for your offer, you don't think your offer would go down by exactly that $5?  The rest of the asset (AAPL stock) remains exactly the same before and after the ex-date.  All that has changed is a $5 payout you get if you buy it.

post #47 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

WTF is this doing in this story?

 

 

 

Dilger doing his usual bang up job of inserting his own bias into every post. Nice.

 

Doesn't sound like you know the definition of bias. The story isn't advocating anything, it's just describing the current tax situation for Apple investors new to dividends, and explaining that things are potentially about to change, noting the interests of both political parties in keeping things the way they are, or reverting to the tax rates under Clinton, which delivered the longest period of post war expansion in America.

 

As for those complaining that investors shouldn't pay standard income tax rates for investment income because the corporations already paid tax on their earnings, well then why should employees pay income tax, as they are earning pay from a corporation that has already paid taxes on its profits.

 

The concept of a income tax is that you charge a fee every time income is generated, without regard to whether effort has transpired (work) or not (investors). Of course, those who have money don't want to pay into the system that helped them make that money, and would rather have their employees paying for civilization from their  wages. That's why the richest people in America are a few investors and everyone in the Walmart founders' family, who made their fortune off minimum wage workers with little to no benefits, and whose health insurance (and often food stamps and other basic living costs) are all largely subsidized by the government (that is, the rest of us).

 

You can add to the debate, or you can do what the rest of the investoconservatives do: complain that being rich makes you a victim of taxation, and that this class warfare is really distressing you as you are shuttled to your vacation home by servants. 

post #48 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

 

Doesn't sound like you know the definition of bias. The story isn't advocating anything, it's just describing the current tax situation for Apple investors new to dividends, and explaining that things are potentially about to change, noting the interests of both political parties in keeping things the way they are, or reverting to the tax rates under Clinton, which delivered the longest period of post war expansion in America.

 

blah blah blah

 

You can add to the debate, or you can do what the rest of the investoconservatives do: complain that being rich makes you a victim of taxation, and that this class warfare is really distressing you as you are shuttled to your vacation home by servants. 

Sounds like you definitely know the definition of bias ;)

post #49 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

I can not wait for my first of many checks, can not retire on them but ever little bit counts.

For those who do not understand how this all works, first you have to be a holder of the stock for a longer period of time than a few days before an after other wise people would all try to buy and sell dividend stock before and after the dividend payout day all the time. If you only hold it for part of the period you get a prorated dividend. Also for those who think the stock drops equal to the dividend pay out that is not always true, some drop more and others continue to go up as you are seeing with Apple, not only are they paying a dividend your based investment continues to grow. Personally I like the stock that drop and maybe drop a lot as they pay out the dividend since I usually re-invest those dividend and I can buy at a lower cost and let the money ride. Apple stock price is not fully base on the money in the bank so their pay out has not really reflection on the value of the stock.

I personally have other investment that continue to pay dividend and the value of the investment continue to grow so you have to know the investment since they all do not react the same way

Also, to get the tax break you have to hold it more than a year otherwise the dividend will be treated as ordinary income and taxed according.

Please stop offering financial advice when you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

1. You don't have to hold a stock for a period of time to get the dividend. If you own it on the ex-dividend date, you get the dividend - no matter how long you've owned it.

2. If you own it on the ex-dividend date, you get the full dividend. There's no pro-rating.

3. In most cases, a stock drops by the dividend amount on the ex-dividend date. However, this effect can be masked by normal daily swings. If the dividend is 1% and the stock varies by more than 1% day to day, the effect can be masked. But when there's a large dividend (such as the special dividend that Microsoft offered a decade or so ago), the price drops by that amount. You see it in mutual funds where the annual distribution can easily be 10% of the value or more - and the share price drops by the amount of the distribution (again, plus or minus the normal daily swings).

4. The tax break is on capital gains and has nothing to do with the dividends being discussed here.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #50 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

 

Doesn't sound like you know the definition of bias. The story isn't advocating anything, it's just describing the current tax situation for Apple investors new to dividends, and explaining that things are potentially about to change, noting the interests of both political parties in keeping things the way they are, or reverting to the tax rates under Clinton, which delivered the longest period of post war expansion in America.

 

blah blah blah

 

You can add to the debate, or you can do what the rest of the investoconservatives do: complain that being rich makes you a victim of taxation, and that this class warfare is really distressing you as you are shuttled to your vacation home by servants. 

Sounds like you definitely know the definition of bias ;)

+++ QFT

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #51 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

Also, to get the tax break you have to hold it more than a year otherwise the dividend will be treated as ordinary income and taxed according.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

4. The tax break is on capital gains and has nothing to do with the dividends being discussed here.
Actually, both you and Maestro64 are off the mark.

There is a tax break right now for those who receive qualified dividends. Ordinary dividends are taxed like regular income, no special break there. However, those who receive qualified dividends (based on the 121-day holding period that starts 60 days before the ex-dividend date -- typically the shares need to be held for more than 61+ days during that window) will have those dividends taxed at a lower tax, the same rates equivalent to long-term capital gains. The shares don't need to be held for 1+ year, just long enough to get the qualified dividend.

The tax break from the qualified dividend is separate from the capital gains tax from the sale of the stock.

  • Investor A buys AAPL in March 2012, sells in November 2012, dividends are qualified. Investor A pays short-term capital gains (same rate as income tax) from the stock sale, gets the qualified dividend tax rate (lower rate).
  • Investor B buys AAPL on July 23, 2012, sells on August 30, 2012, dividends are ordinary because the investor did not have them for 61+ days during the holding period. Investor B pays short-term capital gains (same rate as income tax) from the stock sale, pays ordinary dividend tax rate (same rate as income tax).
  • Investor C buys AAPL in August 2011, sells November 2, 2012, dividends are qualified. Investor C pays long-term capital gains (lower rate) from the stock sales, pays the qualified dividend tax rate (lower rate) for the Q3FY2012 dividend payout, receives no dividend for Q4FY2012.

After December 2012, there will be no tax break for qualified dividends. Ordinary and qualified dividends will all be taxed at the same levels as income, just like in 2000. The current tax break for qualified dividends was introduced in 2003 by the previous administration, originally set to sunset in 2010; it was extended for two years by the current administration in 2010, which is why it is sunsetting at the end of this year.

On a related note, long-term capital gains tax rates are scheduled to increase next year, mirroring many of these tax cuts brought into play by the previous administration (which were subsequently extended by the current administration).

  • Investor D buys AAPL in August 2010 and keeps holding onto them until December 2012, dividends for Q3FY2012 and Q4FY2012 are taxed as qualified dividends (lower tax rate), all subsequent dividends are taxed at the same rate as ordinary income. Moreover, when Investor D sells his shares, he qualifies for long-term capital gains, but at a slightly higher rate than if he sold in December of this year (it's still taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_dividend
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States

Note that certain criteria need to be met for qualified dividends and the company needs to work it out with the US government. Just meeting the holding period requirement does not automatically make it a qualified dividend payment.

Note that the individual investor doesn't need to figure out if a given company's dividend is qualified or ordinary. It's the responsibility of your investment company to provide that information to you in your statements and related tax documents.

My analysis is very simplistic, and probably has a couple of errors. Please consult your tax person or the IRS for a more authoritative answer.
Edited by cvaldes1831 - 8/14/12 at 4:35pm
post #52 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

 

Doesn't sound like you know the definition of bias. The story isn't advocating anything, it's just describing the current tax situation for Apple investors new to dividends, and explaining that things are potentially about to change, noting the interests of both political parties in keeping things the way they are, or reverting to the tax rates under Clinton, which delivered the longest period of post war expansion in America.

 

As for those complaining that investors shouldn't pay standard income tax rates for investment income because the corporations already paid tax on their earnings, well then why should employees pay income tax, as they are earning pay from a corporation that has already paid taxes on its profits.

 

The concept of a income tax is that you charge a fee every time income is generated, without regard to whether effort has transpired (work) or not (investors). Of course, those who have money don't want to pay into the system that helped them make that money, and would rather have their employees paying for civilization from their  wages. That's why the richest people in America are a few investors and everyone in the Walmart founders' family, who made their fortune off minimum wage workers with little to no benefits, and whose health insurance (and often food stamps and other basic living costs) are all largely subsidized by the government (that is, the rest of us).

 

You can add to the debate, or you can do what the rest of the investoconservatives do: complain that being rich makes you a victim of taxation, and that this class warfare is really distressing you as you are shuttled to your vacation home by servants. 

Corporations do not pay taxes on the money they use to pay their employees. Employees pay is part of the cost of doing business. It is deducted from their revenue before any profit tax is applied. Dividends on the other hand has been taxed and will be taxed again when the receiver gets it. So if you gave your brother $20,0000, do you think it's fair that he has to pay income tax on that money? Even though you already paid income tax on that money. After all, income was generated on his end. And since your brother is not a non-profit entity, you can not tax deduct that gift from your income tax. But it's what the IRS say he must do. (I believe any monetary gift over $10,000 must be declared.) 

 

And as for "the people who have money don't want to pay into the system that helped them make that money", guess who paid the most into that system? The people with money. The top 20% income tax payers pays over 80% of the income taxes that was used to pay for that system. You make seem as though the 50% of the people that don't pay any income taxes at all, are the ones that paid for that system. 

post #53 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

At some point 'growth' hits the ceiling of large numbers, and a P/E less than 20 is an artifact of that.   If you can't invest the money in the bank, and you're getting <1% Return on Cash, you're not stewarding your owner's money effectively.   evolving to paying a dividend gives you 3 things as a stockholder.

1) income
2) increased interest in your stock, in that large funds that have income requirements will now recognize you as a component qualifier
3) cash to buy more Apple Stock ( or diversify into smaller companies).

You may say 'buy some other company.'   I think it's hard to buy a company for > 10B, that aligns with Apple's core values and business plan.  Big doesn't mean good.  HP buying EDS, and now writing off over 8Billion is an example of that.  Apple buys small (<1B), and only when they are extremely strategic (PA Semi, LiquidMetal, Siri, Poly9&C3), and not just to pad the revenue streams (which makes the AuthenTec deal intriguing).

Having 1/6th of your value in Cash (and growing) just seems to be a waste of capital.  If Apple can't spend it to grow the company, it should spend it (in Dividends) to entice income investors into the mix.

I agree with not splitting the stock, not going whole hog and buying back stock to prop value (buying back stock to increase employee ownership is differend), and not 


I still think the best thing to do is create a Apple Bank and link it to ITMS. Why pay transaction fees, when you can be a bank?

I agree with you on all points except the split, I suspect the psychological effect may just help lift the sale of apple stock albeit numerically meaningless, but everything else yes, especially the Apple Bank concept.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #54 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Please stop offering financial advice when you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
1. You don't have to hold a stock for a period of time to get the dividend. If you own it on the ex-dividend date, you get the dividend - no matter how long you've owned it.
2. If you own it on the ex-dividend date, you get the full dividend. There's no pro-rating.
3. In most cases, a stock drops by the dividend amount on the ex-dividend date. However, this effect can be masked by normal daily swings. If the dividend is 1% and the stock varies by more than 1% day to day, the effect can be masked. But when there's a large dividend (such as the special dividend that Microsoft offered a decade or so ago), the price drops by that amount. You see it in mutual funds where the annual distribution can easily be 10% of the value or more - and the share price drops by the amount of the distribution (again, plus or minus the normal daily swings).
4. The tax break is on capital gains and has nothing to do with the dividends being discussed here.

I wonder if he's basing his comments on the workings of the financial system in Democratic Republic of the Congo?
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #55 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

At some point 'growth' hits the ceiling of large numbers, and a P/E less than 20 is an artifact of that.   If you can't invest the money in the bank, and you're getting <1% Return on Cash, you're not stewarding your owner's money effectively.   evolving to paying a dividend gives you 3 things as a stockholder.

1) income
2) increased interest in your stock, in that large funds that have income requirements will now recognize you as a component qualifier
3) cash to buy more Apple Stock ( or diversify into smaller companies).

You may say 'buy some other company.'   I think it's hard to buy a company for > 10B, that aligns with Apple's core values and business plan.  Big doesn't mean good.  HP buying EDS, and now writing off over 8Billion is an example of that.  Apple buys small (<1B), and only when they are extremely strategic (PA Semi, LiquidMetal, Siri, Poly9&C3), and not just to pad the revenue streams (which makes the AuthenTec deal intriguing).

Having 1/6th of your value in Cash (and growing) just seems to be a waste of capital.  If Apple can't spend it to grow the company, it should spend it (in Dividends) to entice income investors into the mix.

I agree with not splitting the stock, not going whole hog and buying back stock to prop value (buying back stock to increase employee ownership is differend), and not 


I still think the best thing to do is create a Apple Bank and link it to ITMS. Why pay transaction fees, when you can be a bank?

I agree with you on all points except the split, I suspect the psychological effect may just help lift the sale of apple stock albeit numerically meaningless, but everything else yes, especially the Apple Bank concept.

 

I, too, support a split... it could open up AAPL to a lot of small investors and delete the influence/manipulation of the holders of large blocks of stock.  Though, to be effective, it would need to be something like a 10 for 1 spit.

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #56 of 99

@cvaldes1831: good explanations. My only quibble is that you tacitly assume that nothing will be done about the expiration of the current

tax scheme.  I think that something will be done between the election and the end of the year, so the taxes will not revert to the pre-2003 scheme.

post #57 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 
1. You don't have to hold a stock for a period of time to get the dividend. If you own it on the ex-dividend date, you get the dividend - no matter how long you've owned it.

2. If you own it on the ex-dividend date, you get the full dividend. There's no pro-rating.

3. In most cases, a stock drops by the dividend amount on the ex-dividend date. However, this effect can be masked by normal daily swings. If the dividend is 1% and the stock varies by more than 1% day to day, the effect can be masked. But when there's a large dividend (such as the special dividend that Microsoft offered a decade or so ago), the price drops by that amount. You see it in mutual funds where the annual distribution can easily be 10% of the value or more - and the share price drops by the amount of the distribution (again, plus or minus the normal daily swings).

4. The tax break is on capital gains and has nothing to do with the dividends being discussed here.

Regarding 1. and 2., and just to further clarify, you must own the stock before the ex-dividend date.  If you buy the stock ON the ex-dividend date, you get it ex(cluding) the dividend.

post #58 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

I'm pretty sure someone has done that, just use your favorite search engine, but it's bound to be one of those Apple finance bloggers.
Apple's cash should be about three-quarters held off shore, maybe even more.

 

Yes, I was trying to make a subtle point that only US-based cash/cash equivalents are available to pay dividends. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I, too, support a split... it could open up AAPL to a lot of small investors and delete the influence/manipulation of the holders of large blocks of stock.  Though, to be effective, it would need to be something like a 10 for 1 spit.

 

Won't that just drive up the transactional costs to the small investor?  Hurting the people it was ostensibly meant to help?

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #59 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

 

I, too, support a split... it could open up AAPL to a lot of small investors and delete the influence/manipulation of the holders of large blocks of stock.  Though, to be effective, it would need to be something like a 10 for 1 spit.

Will you please walk me through your reasoning here?  The stock of the large holders will be split 10 for 1 also.  They will have 10 times as many shares.

If by small investors you mean people who can't afford $630 to buy a share now, just how many people like that do you think there are?

Today AAPL traded over 12 million shares.  Split 10:1 that would be 120 million shares.  Are there enough grannies and novice investors who  want to only

spend $63 on AAPL to make a material difference?

 

Also note that a plausible rationale for splitting 10:1 would be to improve the chances of AAPL being added to the Dow 30.  It would never be added at its current

stock price, because the index is dollar weighted and AAPL would have far to great an impact on the index.  At 1/10 the stock price it might be considered to be

added.  Thing is, if it were added to the Dow, a new bunch of large holders would be created, namely funds which must track the Dow.  This effect would dwarf

the granny/novice cohort.

post #60 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

Corporations do not pay taxes on the money they use to pay their employees. Employees pay is part of the cost of doing business. It is deducted from their revenue before any profit tax is applied. Dividends on the other hand has been taxed and will be taxed again when the receiver gets it. So if you gave your brother $20,0000, do you think it's fair that he has to pay income tax on that money? Even though you already paid income tax on that money. After all, income was generated on his end. And since your brother is not a non-profit entity, you can not tax deduct that gift from your income tax. But it's what the IRS say he must do. (I believe any monetary gift over $10,000 must be declared.) 

 

And as for "the people who have money don't want to pay into the system that helped them make that money", guess who paid the most into that system? The people with money. The top 20% income tax payers pays over 80% of the income taxes that was used to pay for that system. You make seem as though the 50% of the people that don't pay any income taxes at all, are the ones that paid for that system. 

Actually, the $20,000 you gave to your brother in this hypothetical isn't subject to income tax.  While it would be income under the general tax definition of income, gifts are specifically excluded from income tax by Section 102 of the Internal Revenue Code.  The donor is potentially subject to the gift tax on gifts above the annual exclusion amount of $13,000 per donor, per donee.

 

I believe you're thinking of the Bank Secrecy Act with the $10,000 reporting.  It has no relation to income, gift, or estate tax.  The IRS does require businesses receiving one or more related payments totaling $10,000 or more to file a form with them.

post #61 of 99
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

Are there enough grannies and novice investors who  want to only spend $63 on AAPL to make a material difference?

 

I'd love ten shares to sit on and wait until they hit 1,000 (100). I can't swing 6,300. I can swing 630. I imagine there would be a fair number of people who would benefit from lower prices.

post #62 of 99
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I, too, support a split... it could open up AAPL to a lot of small investors and delete the influence/manipulation of the holders of large blocks of stock.  Though, to be effective, it would need to be something like a 10 for 1 spit.

 

Won't that just drive up the transactional costs to the small investor?  Hurting the people it was ostensibly meant to help?

 

Educate me!  We primarily use Scottrade and Interactive Brokers... ST has the bulk of our AAPL holdings.   They charge $7 per trade for 1 or 1,000,000 shares.  So, we could trade AAPL (hypothetically split10 for 1 @ $63.17 -- for 1 share;   or $63,170 for 1,000 shares.   At this point in my life I have transferred much of my holdings to my daughter, now I want to do the same for my grandkids.   But I do want to teach them about the market, and you can be more emotionally detached with a $63 price than $630.

 

When I first started experimenting with the market, I analyzed Channeling Stocks recommendations as an educational experiment -- and for the small transactions the fees were a major consideration... and they still are for some investments.  But for long term investments, like AAPL, tax implications/timing rapidly became the major considerations.

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #63 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Originally Posted by quinney View Post

Are there enough grannies and novice investors who  want to only spend $63 on AAPL to make a material difference?

 

I'd love ten shares to sit on and wait until they hit 1,000 (100). I can't swing 6,300. I can swing 630. I imagine there would be a fair number of people who would benefit from lower prices.

You don't need the stock to split. You can buy 1 share now.  One share at $630 is exactly the same percentage of AAPL's capitalization as 10 shares at $63 would be.

I'm finished banging my head against a wall. Over. Out.

post #64 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

WTF is this doing in this story?

 

 

Quote:

This disparity between the very low federal tax rates on dividends or stock appreciation income and the much higher taxes that workers pay has resulted in criticism from even the very wealthy. 

 

 

Dilger doing his usual bang up job of inserting his own bias into every post. Nice.

Wake up! This is not Dilger bias, it is fact supported by non other than financial experts like Warren Buffet. So before you make such asinine comments you should try to get yourself a good education on the issues, and the facts.

post #65 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Originally Posted by quinney View Post

Are there enough grannies and novice investors who  want to only spend $63 on AAPL to make a material difference?

 

I'd love ten shares to sit on and wait until they hit 1,000 (100). I can't swing 6,300. I can swing 630. I imagine there would be a fair number of people who would benefit from lower prices.

 

That pretty much encapsulates my logic -- see my post following yours.  My initial investment in AAPL was 100 shares @ $17... $1,707.  This was a pretty big portion of the money I had set aside for investment in the market.  But it gave me the flexibility to watch, learn, try!  It was a big enough investment that it had my attention -- but not so big to discolor my reasoning,

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #66 of 99
Originally Posted by quinney View Post
You don't need the stock to split. You can buy 1 share now.  One share at $630 is exactly the same percentage of AAPL's capitalization as 10 shares at $63 would be.

I'm finished banging my head against a wall. Over. Out.

 

… You don't seem to get it. What if someone can only do 500? They can't even buy one share. I picked easy numbers because I figured people would get see what I was saying with them.

post #67 of 99

I disagree with this refund, er, "dividend" Apple is paying out when there's plenty of things for them to buy...  Twitter, TomTom, Wolfram Alpha, Watson (for Siri) or building some manufacturing facilities so we can put some Americans back to work.

 

Not that they'd ever consider this, but they could afford to lower their profit margins a bit, making their technology more accessible and competitive with PC prices.


Edited by Waverunnr - 8/14/12 at 6:43pm
post #68 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

@cvaldes1831: good explanations. My only quibble is that you tacitly assume that nothing will be done about the expiration of the current
tax scheme.  I think that something will be done between the election and the end of the year, so the taxes will not revert to the pre-2003 scheme.
I agree that there's a good chance that the tax breaks for qualified dividends and capital gains originally deployed in 2003 will be extended for a couple more years. However, the vote won't take place until after the November elections.

In any case, investors should plan for the worst (i.e., increased tax liability for investments in 2013 and beyond). Getting an extension of current tax laws would be a gift, not an entitlement.

As a private investor, that's really the only honest stance I can take at this time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

Yes, I was trying to make a subtle point that only US-based cash/cash equivalents are available to pay dividends. 
Not true.

Apple is perfectly capable of repatriating overseas cash, but deliberately chooses not to do so because of taxes. If they pay the taxes, they can bring in the overseas money. Note that Apple could choose to bring repatriate a small amount of overseas cash; there's no requirement for Apple to repatriate everything at once.

Apple is not obligated to pay the same dividend all the time. If they ever ran low on US cash, they have the option of reducing dividend payouts to cover the taxes imposed to repatriate foreign cash. Naturally, that would infuriate shareholders and any company that did that might be able to use that against the government. Only a handful of US companies have the clout to play that card against the IRS, but my guess is that Apple is one of those companies.

And when I say shareholders, I mean FMR, Vanguard, State Street, BlackRock, T. Rowe Price, JP Morgan, Legg Mason, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waverunnr View Post

I disagree with this refund, er, "dividend" Apple is paying out when there's plenty of things for them to buy...  Twitter, TomTom, Wolfram Alpha, Watson (for Siri) or building some manufacturing facilities so we can put some Americans back to work.

Not that they'd ever consider this, but they could afford to lower their profit margins a bit, making their technology more accessible and competitive with PC prices.
Well then, buy some AAPL shares and submit your proxy ballot.
Edited by cvaldes1831 - 8/14/12 at 7:42pm
post #69 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

… You don't seem to get it. What if someone can only do 500? They can't even buy one share. I picked easy numbers because I figured people would get see what I was saying with them.

Then that person can't buy a stock, nor SHOULD they buy a stock with their last $500.  But either way, it doesn't have ANY impact on the stock itself, because the number of shareholders with that tiny amount of money to invest don't move the needle.

post #70 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post
Well then, buy some AAPL shares and submit your proxy ballot.

Or start his own company which is free to operate as a non-profit.  Keep his hands out of other peoples' pockets.

post #71 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

 

I still think the best thing to do is create a Apple Bank and link it to ITMS. Why pay transaction fees, when you can be a bank?

 

I actually agree with this. All of the very largest companies have their own banks or financial services divisions. I'd gladly keep my savings with iBank.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #72 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinitaBoy View Post

I have 5700 shares and will be earning (at minimum) $60,420 a year in dividends

 

Well played, sir!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #73 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

Stuck with billions they can't spend fast enough eh?  They are more than welcome to pay off my debt.  Out soccer stadium seats 24,000 people.  My debt is less than that.  

 

Apple has this excess cash because they didn't make foolish investments. :D

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #74 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

I actually agree with this. All of the very largest companies have their own banks or financial services divisions. I'd gladly keep my savings with iBank.

Long as you don't mind your PE of 15 or whatever it is now going down closer to bank stock territory!  How does AAPL at $300 sound?

post #75 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post


I have no idea about all-time, but here's a list of high-yield dividend stocks.
Some foreign telecoms pay out pretty well.

 

Just because a stock has a big dividend does not necessarily mean it's a good investment. It could be a very shaky investment, AAMOF.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #76 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

 

Doesn't sound like you know the definition of bias. The story isn't advocating anything, it's just describing the current tax situation for Apple investors new to dividends, and explaining that things are potentially about to change, noting the interests of both political parties in keeping things the way they are, or reverting to the tax rates under Clinton, which delivered the longest period of post war expansion in America.

 

As for those complaining that investors shouldn't pay standard income tax rates for investment income because the corporations already paid tax on their earnings, well then why should employees pay income tax, as they are earning pay from a corporation that has already paid taxes on its profits.

 

The concept of a income tax is that you charge a fee every time income is generated, without regard to whether effort has transpired (work) or not (investors). Of course, those who have money don't want to pay into the system that helped them make that money, and would rather have their employees paying for civilization from their  wages. That's why the richest people in America are a few investors and everyone in the Walmart founders' family, who made their fortune off minimum wage workers with little to no benefits, and whose health insurance (and often food stamps and other basic living costs) are all largely subsidized by the government (that is, the rest of us).

 

You can add to the debate, or you can do what the rest of the investoconservatives do: complain that being rich makes you a victim of taxation, and that this class warfare is really distressing you as you are shuttled to your vacation home by servants. 

 

iRoll.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #77 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

 

I, too, support a split... it could open up AAPL to a lot of small investors and delete the influence/manipulation of the holders of large blocks of stock.  Though, to be effective, it would need to be something like a 10 for 1 spit.

 

I do not support a split. It may provide a psychological boost and encourage more novice investors to buy shares, but I don't view that necessarily as a positive.

 

I do see Apple's planned stock buyback as a positive, however.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #78 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

… You don't seem to get it. What if someone can only do 500? They can't even buy one share. I picked easy numbers because I figured people would get see what I was saying with them.

And YOU don't seem to get it. What if Apple does a 10:1 split and the price is $60 per share. But what if the person only has $50? They still have the same problem.

The fact is that no matter what the price, some people can't afford it. But the number of people is pretty small - and even if they can't afford Apple stock, they can buy a mutual fund which includes Apple stock.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #79 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

Wake up! This is not Dilger bias, it is fact supported by non other than financial experts like Warren Buffet. So before you make such asinine comments you should try to get yourself a good education on the issues, and the facts.

 

I find it endlessly amusing that the people who are always the most eager to raise taxes want YOU to go first.

 

Here are some facts. Story links for everyone's favorite chummy, grinning, back-slapping billionaire:

 

Warren Buffet's Latest Tax Dodge:  

http://washingtonexaminer.com/warren-buffetts-latest-tax-dodge/article/1231806

 

How Warren Buffet Gained from Bank Bailout:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/40276100/How_Warren_Buffett_Gained_from_Bank_Bailout

 

Bailout Bonanza for Berkshire and Buffet:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-36740940/bailout-bonanza-for-berkshire-and-buffett/

 

The Berkshire Bailout: Congress Misunderstands Markets

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/26/the-berkshire-bailout-congress-misunderstands-markets/

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #80 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

Long as you don't mind your PE of 15 or whatever it is now going down closer to bank stock territory!  How does AAPL at $300 sound?

 

I'd assume an Apple iBank would be a wholly separate division. ;)

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple gearing up to pay out $2.5 billion in dividends on Thursday