or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Morgan Stanley expects 6% dividend, cheaper 'iPhone mini' after meeting with Apple CFO
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Morgan Stanley expects 6% dividend, cheaper 'iPhone mini' after meeting with Apple CFO - Page 2

post #41 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post


People around here don't seem to know what a bond is.


Indeed. But would you expect many here to have majored in chemistry?

post #42 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post


6.1 The poster is guessing, just like Einhorn
7.1 I would not make investment decisions based upon imaginary supernatural entities and I would not remove financial flexibility by making an open-ended commitment for a company in a consumer discretionary industry which is often influenced by volatile fashions.
8. Interest rates will rise significantly before the Sun goes nova. Fixed income securities will decrease in price when that happens.
8.1 Preferred shares are not bonds. Bonds have a maturity date and get paid off. These preferred shares are described as perpetual. In the pecking order of corporate obligations bonds get paid first, preferred dividends after, and common dividends after that. A shareholder
can try to force a company to repurchase preferred shares, just as they can (and are) trying to force a company to repurchase common
shares. It would be a tender offer to repurchase, not a "call", since preferred shares are equity, not debt.

Clearly someone doesn't understand something.

 

6.1 Even if the common drops in value by 25% because of pref div its still a net gain to the stockholder:

So from $450 to $340
Then add the $250 preferred.
Total value = $590

 

7.1 Again Pref stock rates are not guaranteed.  The rate can be cut just as a common div.  Only difference is you must pay pref first.

8. So what.  If the Pref Stock goes down in 5 years to $230 who cares!  People are buying 10 year bonds at 2%.  You don't think 4% is attractive?  Even if the rates go up the preferred will be only discounting to $225-230.  Even with that the total shareholder value is still a plus $125

 

8.1 They can try all they want to get face value.  Not going to happen.

 

One more consideration is this will signficantly reduce the market cap.  If the stock goes down to $340 then the cap would be only $300 billion.  And that is a good thing.  One of the reasons for the fall form $700 is because it is very hard if not impossible for the market to support a $700 Billion stock, no matter how good it is.  At a mere $300 bil market cap it will be much easier for the market to support its growth to $400 or even $500 bil.

post #43 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post


6.1 Common shares will tank when they are massively dumped by value investors and institutions.
7.1 Apple will have a perpetual $10 Billion per year leech attached to its neck.
8 When interest rates inevitably rise from their current historical lows, the preferred shares (not being convertible or pegged to anything) will decrease in market value
8.1 Some Wall Street dipshit, holding millions of shares of preferred, will sue Apple try to force them to repurchase the preferred at face value.

 

6.1 Why would value investors/institutions dump the common shares?  They could just hold the pref shares and common shares and GET THE EXACT SAME DIVIDEND.  Only difference is they would have the option to sell the growth portion (common stock) or value portion (pref stock) at their discretion.

post #44 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

6.1 Common shares will tank when they are massively dumped by value investors and institutions.

7.1 Apple will have a perpetual $10 Billion per year leech attached to its neck.

8 When interest rates inevitably rise from their current historical lows, the preferred shares (not being convertible or pegged to anything) will decrease in market value

8.1 Some Wall Street dipshit, holding millions of shares of preferred, will sue Apple try to force them to repurchase the preferred at face value.


6.1 Common shares may drop but not close to $250.  Even after taking out the $10 Bil in Preferred Div the Net Income to common shares would be over $30 Bil.  Do you seriously think the stock will drop to $200 per share if they stop doing the div to common and move it to preferred?  Seriously?  They will have close to $200 per share in cash a year from now. Seriously!

7.1 Same leach as the common dividend now.  Apple has the right to lower the dividend rate at any time just like with common.  Only restriction is that they need to pay the pref shares first.

8 If it decreases in value who cares.  If it goes to $230 big deal.  You still are netting over $200 in shareholder value

8.1 They can try all they want but they won't win that case against Apple.  Its been proven a million times in court.

6.1 This seems to be the leap of faith that is required to support this proposal. Somehow, by separating
a preferred share from a common share, the market will begin to evaluate AAPL on some other basis than
they have been using lately. Apple management is going to conjure a new class of equity by subtraction from
the common equity, and declare it has a certain value, and the market is not going to subtract this made-up
face value on a dollar for dollar basis from the value of the common stock. I don't have the faith.

7.1 If they are so similar, than the smoke-and-mirrors wealth creation must be the main motivation.

8. I'm going to say the people who swallowed this proposal, thinking the shares would be worth $250 would
care. Again, the shareholder values posited are wet dream guesses. They can't be predicted accurately.

8.1 A million? Name three. Recent court decisions have taught me not to be certain about anything, anyway.
post #45 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

People around here don't seem to know what a bond is.


Indeed. But would you expect many here to have majored in chemistry?

lol.gif good one, not the bohring humor we usually get around here
post #46 of 78
First, a serious stock split, while seemingly meaningless, will bring in droves of more investors & the stock will go up quickly. It's a good proven stock marketing tactic. High stock valuation per share is a bad ego thing for those controlling the company. Split ASAP!

Second, a substantial but responsible increase in stock buy back and dividend increase w/out borrowing money is required by shareholders and again good marketing but not the real mover.

Third, and most important, Apple must become a credit card company. Already global, well funded and with credit cards moving to smart phones, Apple is the only company with in house control of the banking, the secure hardware (fingerprint recognition technology that they own) and a more secure closed Eco-system OS they own. This is a "no brainer" and a must that Apple does soon. It would be an immense income stream.

New products? Has everyone forgotten that Ives was there with most of Apple's new products in prototype form when Steve returned from the desert to run Apple? An iWatch coupled with an iPad mini that has an international LTD Phone chip instantly becomes a small iPhone while staying a premium product. The iPad stays in your briefcase or purse yet you can still answer or make a call just like Dick Tracy.
Ives will WOW you for awhile then fade into history. Until then Apple will do great.

Couple all of these and the moon is the limit on stock value!

Long Apple. Death to brokerage rules that let funds move the market for personal gain regardless of how well the company is performing.
post #47 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post


6.1 This seems to be the leap of faith that is required to support this proposal. Somehow, by separating
a preferred share from a common share, the market will begin to evaluate AAPL on some other basis than
they have been using lately. Apple management is going to conjure a new class of equity by subtraction from
the common equity, and declare it has a certain value, and the market is not going to subtract this made-up
face value on a dollar for dollar basis from the value of the common stock. I don't have the faith.

7.1 If they are so similar, than the smoke-and-mirrors wealth creation must be the main motivation.

8. I'm going to say the people who swallowed this proposal, thinking the shares would be worth $250 would
care. Again, the shareholder values posited are wet dream guesses. They can't be predicted accurately.

8.1 A million? Name three. Recent court decisions have taught me not to be certain about anything, anyway.

 

6.1 No leap of faith needed.  Like I said even with the $10 Bil of Pref Div that will leave over $30 bil of net income for common.  They will have almost $200 cash per share in a year.  Do you SERIOUSLY think the stock will be worth less than $300 a share?  That would be a PE of 3.3 taking out cash. REALLY? 

 

7.1  Issuing common shares is smoke and mirrors too.  So is dividends.  The bottom line is Apple has a very peculiar problem = they have too much cash, more than they could ever spend effectively.  They need to use smoke and mirrors to bring value to the shareholders to unlock that cash.  You cannot compare Apple with any other company because there has never been a company in this situation before.

 

8.  In this market who would not buy a share at close to $250 face that gives 4%?  Where else can you get anything close to that with a company that has $150 Bil, no debt, and will probably be making $40-$50 bil for the next few years?

 

8.1 On what basis would they ask for face value?  They can simply sell it in the market for that amount.  The only way the preferred shares go below $200 on the open market is if Apple is going bankrupt.

post #48 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by copeland View Post

So she really suggests that Apple should get a loan to pay a higher dividend?
Does she dislike companies with no debt?

For some reason it's not as attractive as we think it should. They love the companies in debt.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #49 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post


6.1 Why would value investors/institutions dump the common shares?  They could just hold the pref shares and common shares and GET THE EXACT SAME DIVIDEND.  Only difference is they would have the option to sell the growth portion (common stock) or value portion (pref stock) at their discretion.

I think you answered your own question. Value investors/institutions want to own value stocks. They would dump the zero-dividend "growth" AAPL common at the first possible moment and use the funds received to buy other "value" stocks. In the case of some mutual funds which are chartered to only own dividend paying stocks, they
would be required to sell, rather than relying on their discretion.
post #50 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post


I think you answered your own question. Value investors/institutions want to own value stocks. They would dump the zero-dividend "growth" AAPL common at the first possible moment and use the funds received to buy other "value" stocks. In the case of some mutual funds which are chartered to only own dividend paying stocks, they
would be required to sell, rather than relying on their discretion.

 

So according to you none of these funds bought Apple before they had a dividend?

 

Having a less cash PE of 3.3 is pretty value oriented

post #51 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

People around here don't seem to know what a bond is.

Sure we do, he's that British guy that goes around drinking martinis and drives a gadget laden Aston Martin, and bangs hot chicks with names like Pussy Galore.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #52 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
There are no 'taxes' to be paid on loans. If anything, interest payments on loans being tax-deductible means that there is a 'tax shield benefit from debt' for equity holders. (This is, for example, an important source of gains to shareholders from an LBO).

Are you warming up to the idea of borrowing to do a share repurchase?

ABSOLUTELY not! I think taking on debt would be a terribly dumb idea for Apple (although, I should point out that Google took on debt to take advantage of cheap financing a couple of years ago).

 

I was merely responding to a factual error in charlituna's post.

post #53 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrphil49 View Post

Third, and most important, Apple must become a credit card company. Already global, well funded and with credit cards moving to smart phones, .... etc etc.

A terrible idea, IMHO. Low-end financial services is just about the worst business that there is (just look at GE and its travails with GE Capital, which nearly made the 100+ year-old company go bankrupt a couple of years ago). Moreover, the credit card business has nothing remotely to do with Apple's core competency.

 

Leave that to Capital One and Bank of America.

post #54 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post


One more consideration is this will signficantly reduce the market cap.  If the stock goes down to $340 then the cap would be only $300 billion.  And that is a good thing.  One of the reasons for the fall form $700 is because it is very hard if not impossible for the market to support a $700 Billion stock, no matter how good it is.  At a mere $300 bil market cap it will be much easier for the market to support its growth to $400 or even $500 bil.

You must have added this part while I was typing. I think you are mistaken about the market cap. All equity must be taken into consideration. You don't get to ignore the preferred equity. If the total of the value of the two classes of shares increases, as you dream, the market cap will increase correspondingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

6.1 No leap of faith needed.  Like I said even with the $10 Bil of Pref Div that will leave over $30 bil of net income for common.  They will have almost $200 cash per share in a year.  Do you SERIOUSLY think the stock will be worth less than $300 a share?  That would be a PE of 3.3 taking out cash. REALLY? 

7.1  Issuing common shares is smoke and mirrors too.  So is dividends.  The bottom line is Apple has a very peculiar problem = they have too much cash, more than they could ever spend effectively.  They need to use smoke and mirrors to bring value to the shareholders to unlock that cash.  You cannot compare Apple with any other company because there has never been a company in this situation before.

8.  In this market who would not buy a share at close to $250 face that gives 4%?  Where else can you get anything close to that with a company that has $150 Bil, no debt, and will probably be making $40-$50 bil for the next few years?

8.1 On what basis would they ask for face value?  They can simply sell it in the market for that amount.  The only way the preferred shares go below $200 on the open market is if Apple is going bankrupt.

6.1 I understand and totally relate to your astonishment. For years the market has been evaluating AAPL based upon factors other than traditional metrics like net income and P/E and net cash and marketable securities. You just can't rely on the market valuing AAPL like other companies. You, Einhorn, and others believe that this proposed ploy will shove the reality into the face of the market and the market will finally get the message. That is the leap of faith to which I refer, and without it the proposal has no appeal.

7.1 The smoke and mirrors is when you subtract $250 from $450 and end up with $405. You claim to have created $205 without doing anything but waving your hands
(see your quote below).

8. Today's market is not the same as it will be in the future. It is good that you realize that you are making assumptions about Apple's future earnings. That is a step in the right direction. Even today there are investments which pay more than 4%. VZ and INTC both have dividends over 4%, just to name two that people might be familiar with.

8.1 They would want face value if it was more than the market value. I think you should study up on the relationship between market interest rates and prices of fixed income paying securities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post


Calculation

Common Stock: $450

Common Stock after adjustment w/out dividend (-10%): $405

Value of Preferred Stock: $250

Total Value: $655

post #55 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

I think you answered your own question. Value investors/institutions want to own value stocks. They would dump the zero-dividend "growth" AAPL common at the first possible moment and use the funds received to buy other "value" stocks. In the case of some mutual funds which are chartered to only own dividend paying stocks, they

would be required to sell, rather than relying on their discretion.

So according to you none of these funds bought Apple before they had a dividend?

Having a less cash PE of 3.3 is pretty value oriented

That is a little bit like what I said.
post #56 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

People around here don't seem to know what a bond is.

Sure we do, he's that British guy that goes around drinking martinis and drives a gadget laden Aston Martin, and bangs hot chicks with names like Pussy Galore.

I stand corrected.
post #57 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post


You must have added this part while I was typing. I think you are mistaken about the market cap. All equity must be taken into consideration. You don't get to ignore the preferred equity. If the total of the value of the two classes of shares increases, as you dream, the market cap will increase correspondingly.
6.1 I understand and totally relate to your astonishment. For years the market has been evaluating AAPL based upon factors other than traditional metrics like net income and P/E and net cash and marketable securities. You just can't rely on the market valuing AAPL like other companies. You, Einhorn, and others believe that this proposed ploy will shove the reality into the face of the market and the market will finally get the message. That is the leap of faith to which I refer, and without it the proposal has no appeal.

7.1 The smoke and mirrors is when you subtract $250 from $450 and end up with $405. You claim to have created $205 without doing anything but waving your hands
(see your quote below).

8. Today's market is not the same as it will be in the future. It is good that you realize that you are making assumptions about Apple's future earnings. That is a step in the right direction. Even today there are investments which pay more than 4%. VZ and INTC both have dividends over 4%, just to name two that people might be familiar with.

8.1 They would want face value if it was more than the market value. I think you should study up on the relationship between market interest rates and prices of fixed income paying securities.

 

6.1 One of the main reasons why Apple always had a realively low PE is because they are so unfriendly to the investor.  Having this plan will show they care about investor value. 

 

7.1 Things can be worth more when they are separated or combined.  This is an instance when a division of a product is worth more.

 

8. Problem is VZ and INTC can easily drop 10% in share prices and the div don't mean jack then.  With a pref div you dont need to worry about huge drops.  And lets not compare the financial health of INTC to apple.

 

8.1 Apple could easily buy back those shares.  But I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to sue trying to get face value.  You can't even sue as a Pref Stockholder for a dividend being suspended.  The only these things happen is if apple is about to get bankrupt, which would make all stock worthless anyway

post #58 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

There are no 'taxes' to be paid on loans. If anything, interest payments on loans being tax-deductible means that there is a 'tax shield benefit from debt' for equity holders. (This is, for example, an important source of gains to shareholders from an LBO).


Are you warming up to the idea of borrowing to do a share repurchase?
ABSOLUTELY not! I think taking on debt would be a terribly dumb idea for Apple (although, I should point out that Google took on debt to take advantage of cheap financing a couple of years ago).

I was merely responding to a factual error in charlituna's post.

OK. You persuaded me. If Google is doing it, I don't want Apple to do it. 1tongue.gif
post #59 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

7.1 Things can be worth more when they are separated or combined.  This is an instance when a division of a product is worth more.

Why?
post #60 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

 

6.1 One of the main reasons why Apple always had a realively low PE is because they are so unfriendly to the investor.  Having this plan will show they care about investor value. 

 

7.1 Things can be worth more when they are separated or combined.  This is an instance when a division of a product is worth more.

6.1: Abject nonsense. Show us one shred of evidence that makes a connection between companies "unfriendly to investors" and PE ratio. Moreover, the assertion that a stock that has risen 6000% (that's right, look it up) in the past ten years (and 12,500% since inception) is investor-unfriendly is horse manure.

 

7.1: You have to argue why, instead of just making another cheap assertion.

post #61 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post


Why?

 

Because value/income investors don't want to deal with the volitile nature of APPL common.  By breaking out the dividend portion of the stock it gives them the stability and larger div% they are looking for.

post #62 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

6.1: Abject nonsense. Show us one shred of evidence that makes a connection between companies "unfriendly to investors" and PE ratio. Moreover, the assertion that a stock that has risen 6000% (that's right, look it up) in the past ten years (and 12,500% since inception) is investor-unfriendly is horse manure.

 

7.1: You have to argue why, instead of just making another cheap assertion.

 

6.1 Its pretty self evident.  Even at $700 Apple's PE was quite low.  The stock has risen 6000% but so has Apples net income. 

 

Examples of Apple's unfriendlyness:

 

Not debunking hurtful 'reports' and 'rumors' of product demand cuts.  If Tim Cook debunked those reports in Dec/Jan the stock would not be as low now.  He debunked them in the conference call but it was too late.

 

Tim Cook saying he does not care about revenue and net income.  He just worries about making great products. Seriously.  Any shorty can float a rumor and some ridiculous media website will publish it and Apple does NOTHING. No matter how false and unfounded these reports may be.  Bottom line is Apple does not defend their stock.


Edited by sog35 - 2/22/13 at 12:43pm
post #63 of 78
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
6.1: Abject nonsense.

 

1biggrin.gif

 

I'm not paying attention, so don't take this as agreeing, but I saw this and it made me smile.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #64 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrphil49 View Post

First, a serious stock split, while seemingly meaningless, will bring in droves of more investors & the stock will go up quickly. It's a good proven stock marketing tactic. High stock valuation per share is a bad ego thing for those controlling the company. Split ASAP!

Second, a substantial but responsible increase in stock buy back and dividend increase w/out borrowing money is required by shareholders and again good marketing but not the real mover.

Third, and most important, Apple must become a credit card company. Already global, well funded and with credit cards moving to smart phones, Apple is the only company with in house control of the banking, the secure hardware (fingerprint recognition technology that they own) and a more secure closed Eco-system OS they own. This is a "no brainer" and a must that Apple does soon. It would be an immense income stream.

New products? Has everyone forgotten that Ives was there with most of Apple's new products in prototype form when Steve returned from the desert to run Apple? An iWatch coupled with an iPad mini that has an international LTD Phone chip instantly becomes a small iPhone while staying a premium product. The iPad stays in your briefcase or purse yet you can still answer or make a call just like Dick Tracy.
Ives will WOW you for awhile then fade into history. Until then Apple will do great.

Couple all of these and the moon is the limit on stock value!

Long Apple. Death to brokerage rules that let funds move the market for personal gain regardless of how well the company is performing.

 

 

OMG, did you say a stock split. Now why didn't I think of that?1biggrin.gif

post #65 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

6.1: Abject nonsense. Show us one shred of evidence that makes a connection between companies "unfriendly to investors" and PE ratio. Moreover, the assertion that a stock that has risen 6000% (that's right, look it up) in the past ten years (and 12,500% since inception) is investor-unfriendly is horse manure.

 

7.1: You have to argue why, instead of just making another cheap assertion.

 

6.1 Its pretty self evident.  Even at $700 Apple's PE was quite low.  The stock has risen 6000% but so has Apples net income. 

 

Examples of Apple's unfriendlyness:

 

Not debunking hurtful 'reports' and 'rumors' of product demand cuts.  If Tim Cook debunked those reports in Dec/Jan the stock would not be as low now.  He debunked them in the conference call but it was too late.

 

Tim Cook saying he does not care about revenue and net income.  He just worries about making great products. Seriously.  Any shorty can float a rumor and some ridiculous media website will publish it and Apple does NOTHING. No matter how false and unfounded these reports may be.  Bottom line is Apple does not defend their stock.

Uh.... did you understand the question? I asked, "Show us one shred of evidence that makes a connection between companies "unfriendly to investors" and PE ratio" And your answer is it's 'self-evident'? To whom -- just you?

 

Also, does Tim Cook have to respond to every rumor on every news channel and every blog from every source and every talking head? Quite apart from the task of deciding which ones he should respond to, do you seriously think he'll have time to run a $450B market cap company?!

 

Please stop.


Edited by anantksundaram - 2/22/13 at 1:18pm
post #66 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

Because value/income investors don't want to deal with the volitile nature of APPL common.  By breaking out the dividend portion of the stock it gives them the stability and larger div% they are looking for.

Really? Why not payout 100% of earnings as dividends then?

post #67 of 78
I don't think that "innovation" per se is the top priority. "Making great products" is. The former is a lesser-included function of the latter.
post #68 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Really? Why not payout 100% of earnings as dividends then?

 

A 4% dividend on preferred shares is all that is needed.  If they pay 100% of their earnings their tax rate will go up significantly.

 

With my plan Apple's cash flow will not change at all

post #69 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Uh.... did you understand the question? I asked, "Show us one shred of evidence that makes a connection between companies "unfriendly to investors" and PE ratio" And your answer is it's 'self-evident'? To whom -- just you?

 

Also, does Tim Cook have to respond to every rumor on every news channel and every blog from every source and every talking head? Quite apart from the task of deciding which ones he should respond to, do you seriously think he'll have time to run a $450B market cap company?!

 

Please stop.


That's what the PR department is for.  Everyone in Wall St knows you can float rumors about Apple because they never defend the stock.  That is bad news for shareholders who are open to massive market manipulation.

 

Look at this week.  Report that Foxcon is freezing hiring.  Stock drops 3%.  No response from Apple.  All they needed to do is release a two sentence press report and the stock would have never fallen like a rock.

post #70 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

Because value/income investors don't want to deal with the volitile nature of APPL common.  By breaking out the dividend portion of the stock it gives them the stability and larger div% they are looking for.
Really? Why not payout 100% of earnings as dividends then?

I was going to suggest assigning a face value of $1000 per share to the preferred and then, even if the common goes to .000001, we will still unlock more value, but I didn't because I thought it might sound petulant.
post #71 of 78
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

Look at this week.  Report that Foxcon is freezing hiring.  Stock drops 3%.  No response from Apple.  All they needed to do is release a two sentence press report and the stock would have never fallen like a rock.

 

But you can't quantify how much a stock falls based on a story. There's no proof the story caused the collapse.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #72 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

 

A 4% dividend on preferred shares is all that is needed.  

Not 3.2%? 5.7% 4.99%? 72% And you know this how?lol.gif

post #73 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post


That's what the PR department is for.  Everyone in Wall St knows you can float rumors about Apple because they never defend the stock.  That is bad news for shareholders who are open to massive market manipulation.

 

Look at this week.  Report that Foxcon is freezing hiring.  Stock drops 3%.  No response from Apple.  All they needed to do is release a two sentence press report and the stock would have never fallen like a rock.

Apple responding to rumors would only start a vicious cycle of more and more ridiculous rumors. If Apple then missed responding to a rumor some idiot would take a rumor as fact, since Apple didn't debunk it, and then that same idiot would sue Apple because Apple didn't do what it was rumored that they would do. Apple couldn't win trying to kill or control rumors. How would Apple even go about choosing which rumors to respond to? Best bet is to be safe and just ignore all rumors.

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

 

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

Reply

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

 

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

Reply
post #74 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

6.1 Its pretty self evident.  Even at $700 Apple's PE was quite low.  The stock has risen 6000% but so has Apples net income. 

Examples of Apple's unfriendlyness:

Not debunking hurtful 'reports' and 'rumors' of product demand cuts.  If Tim Cook debunked those reports in Dec/Jan the stock would not be as low now.  He debunked them in the conference call but it was too late.

Tim Cook saying he does not care about revenue and net income.  He just worries about making great products. Seriously.  Any shorty can float a rumor and some ridiculous media website will publish it and Apple does NOTHING. No matter how false and unfounded these reports may be.  Bottom line is Apple does not defend their stock.

But how is this news? Apple has been run this way ever since Jobs returned. They have had the same attitude towards Wall-Street and have had the same attitude with their cash pile. Actually it was Cook that began with the dividend in the first place. Did investors think that with the success the company has had over the years that they would change that formula? This sounds like Wall-Street was thinking that Cook was going to cower to them after Jobs left and are upset because they didn't get their wish. It is a free country, if you don't like the way the company behaves, sell the stock and buy another one. Problem solved
post #75 of 78

Cost of interest should be less than 2% for Aaple, which could be offset by 2.3% dividend saved on the repurchased shares - kind of a wash. Would like to see Aaple borrow $45-50B and take out 10% of shares in a short period of say 3-4 months but announce it as within a year to keep iHorn and his WS cohorts guessing. This should boost stock north of $500.
 

post #76 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvigod View Post

They won't be paying 6% without borrowing either.  That would burn through their cash in 2 years. 


Check your math - a 6% dividend would cost $25.4 billion, which is quite a bit less than they make in profits.  Even with a 6% dividend they will still grow their pile of cash.

45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #77 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by StPeters1019 View Post

Cost of interest should be less than 2% for Aaple, which could be offset by 2.3% dividend saved on the repurchased shares - kind of a wash. Would like to see Aaple borrow $45-50B and take out 10% of shares in a short period of say 3-4 months but announce it as within a year to keep iHorn and his WS cohorts guessing. This should boost stock north of $500.
 

Nice first post.

They don't need to borrow though. They could lend to themselves.

 

Ive said it before - anounce a buy back scheme over a period of years to slowly decrease the shares on market. Will it push price up - uh, I'll put both knackers on it.

Dont need any financial short term chicanery.

 

Apple doesn't need any bs from Wall St or the media that could possibly affect their ability to deliver great products.

Call it a long term exit strategy.

post #78 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

 

I doubt that Apple is viewed as being more creditworthy than the US government, which is borrowing at almost exactly 2% for 10 year debt (which is what we are talking about here, roughly).

 

http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2012-11-08/corporate-bond-yields-below-treasurys

They would probably be the same yield as US treasuries.
 

45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Morgan Stanley expects 6% dividend, cheaper 'iPhone mini' after meeting with Apple CFO