or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple to distribute another $2.867 billion to shareholders via dividend
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple to distribute another $2.867 billion to shareholders via dividend

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
Apple is paying its shareholders a slightly larger quarterly dividend on Thursday, distributing over $2.867 billion in $3.05 per share payments across the company's 940 million outstanding shares.


Source: Apple


Shareholders "of record" on Monday May 13 will be paid today, although any shares changing hands must settle first, making the last day to have bought a share to qualify for the current dividend May 8.

Flush with billions in cash it simply can't spend fast enough, Apple first announced plans for a dividend program a year ago last March, alongside a $10 billion share buyback program. It was the first time the company had paid a dividend in 17 years. Each quarter, the company initially stated it will pay its shareholders a $2.65 per share dividend.

In its last earnings conference call, the company's chief executive Tim Cook announced that, after paying out more than $10 billion over the past year in dividends, the company would launch "an aggressive plan that more than doubles the size of the [existing] capital return program" beginning this quarter.

Cook said "the vast majority of our incremental cash return will be in the form of share repurchases," explaining that "as the Board and management team deliberated among the various alternatives to returning cash, we concluded that investing in Apple was the best. In addition to share repurchases, we are increasing our current dividend by 15% to further appeal to investors seeking yield.""Retailer investors are pouring money into tech giant Apple Inc. than ever before"

He added, "while we continue to generate cash in excess of our needs to operate the business, invest in our future and maintain flexibility to take advantage of strategic opportunities, we remain firmly committed to our objective of delivering attractive returns to shareholders through both our business performance and the return of capital."

A new report by the Dividend Daily notes that Apple's dividend program is attracting new retail investors, stating "retailer investors are pouring money into tech giant Apple Inc. than ever before."

The report cited consumer-oriented brokerage firm TD Ameritrade as saying that "more of its clients own Apple shares now than at any other point," making Apple shares the second most widely held stock by its clients after General Electric in share count, and by far the most widely held in terms of dollar value.

Can't spend fast enough to make a dent



Over the next three years, Cook stated that Apple's newly expanded buyback and dividend plans will distribute $100 billion from its cash pile, leveraging debt markets to borrow a very low interest against the company's vast holdings that are mostly held overseas. That allows the company to make use of its stellar credit rating and avoid massive taxes that would be triggered if it were to simply shift cash earned internationally into the U.S.

While this has triggered reports vilifying Apple for "avoiding" taxes, the company is actually "one of the top corporate income tax payers in the country, if not the largest," notes Steve Dowling, Apple's head of public relations.

In 2012, Apple paid $6 billion in federal corporate income taxes, which amounts to 1 out of every 40 dollars in corporate income taxes collected by the U.S. government Dowling told Bloomberg.

May 3, 2013


Apple continues to earn new cash faster than it is paying out in dividends and stock buybacks; even with its $10 billion in quarterly dividend payments over the past year and $10 billion in buybacks, Apple's cash hoard has grown to more than $144.7 billion by the end of March, the company's second fiscal quarter.

Apple will continue paying the now slightly higher quarterly dividends about a month and a half after the end of each subsequent quarter, and reevaluate its dividend payments on an annual basis.

A dividend equivalent will also be paid to holders of Apple's restricted shares, although Cook declined to collect dividend payments for the 1.125 million shares of restricted stock he has been granted, which would otherwise be worth over $75 million.

The company's current dividend payment rate is quite modest when compared to its current and future cash position. At the same time, Apple's nearly $3 billion in quarterly dividend payments makes it one of the highest dividend payers in the world.
post #2 of 27
"A new report by the Dividend Daily notes that Apple's dividend program is attracting new retail investors, stating "retailer investors are pouring money into tech giant Apple Inc. than ever before."

Too bad that it's the institutional investments that make the stock move...

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #3 of 27
I wish I had Apple's "problem".
post #4 of 27

Glad to see Tim Cook focused on bleeding cash to stockholders and operations with no acknowledgment or game plan that the iPhone is no longer a breakout product.  This guy thinks end users will cheer for him because he is putting Apple into debt and paying dividends.  What a Sculley wanna-be.. 

post #5 of 27
Originally Posted by ShelShock View Post
Glad to see Tim Cook focused on bleeding cash to stockholders and operations with no acknowledgment or game plan that the iPhone is no longer a breakout product.  This guy thinks end users will cheer for him because he is putting Apple into debt and paying dividends.  What a Sculley wanna-be.. 

 

Go away.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #6 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShelShock View Post

Glad to see Tim Cook focused on bleeding cash to stockholders and operations with no acknowledgment or game plan that the iPhone is no longer a breakout product.  This guy thinks end users will cheer for him because he is putting Apple into debt and paying dividends.  What a Sculley wanna-be.. 

 

Glad to see that when Apple gets tired of the ridiculous amounts of cash that Tim Cook is able to generate for the company, they'll be able to tap on your boundless business acumen.

post #7 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave MacLachlan View Post

 

Glad to see that when Apple gets tired of the ridiculous amounts of cash that Tim Cook is able to generate for the company, they'll be able to tap on your boundless business acumen.

 

Not to mention his finance doctorate from a world renowned and prestigious university (received with honours no-less). I mean what does Rupert Murdoch know about business finance anyways? ShelShock will gladly show Apple the way to endless streams of infinite fortunes with his unquestionable business (dare I say omniscient) strategies.

post #8 of 27
Waste of money if you ask me. I don't understand this pandering to shareholders and market hacks. Apple has enough money without requiring capital investment. Honestly, if I were them, I'd just let Wall Street play its little game and focus on delivering more great products. If the share price goes up, great. If it goes down, super. Buy it all back when it hits $50 and take the company private.

Dividends are for companies who need investors.
post #9 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave MacLachlan View Post

 

Glad to see that when Apple gets tired of the ridiculous amounts of cash that Tim Cook is able to generate for the company, they'll be able to tap on your boundless business acumen.

 

HA!  Thanks for the laugh, I need it today. :)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by robogobo View Post

Waste of money if you ask me. I don't understand this pandering to shareholders and market hacks. Apple has enough money without requiring capital investment. Honestly, if I were them, I'd just let Wall Street play its little game and focus on delivering more great products. If the share price goes up, great. If it goes down, super. Buy it all back when it hits $50 and take the company private.

Dividends are for companies who need investors.

 

In most cases, you'd be right about dividends.  In this case, though, they felt they needed to do something.  So, they pay a dividend and do a buyback.  It's not as if it actually affects the amount of cash they have in a significant way.  They make it faster than they can spend it anyhow.

 

In other words, if it makes a few people (on Wall St.) happy, then why not?  It certainly has no effect on the company.

post #10 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by robogobo View Post

Waste of money if you ask me. I don't understand this pandering to shareholders and market hacks. Apple has enough money without requiring capital investment. Honestly, if I were them, I'd just let Wall Street play its little game and focus on delivering more great products. If the share price goes up, great. If it goes down, super. Buy it all back when it hits $50 and take the company private.

Dividends are for companies who need investors.

As a long-term Apple shareholder, I'm very pleased to get the increased dividends if Apple doesn't do what's necessary to hold the share price higher than $450.  Look, I could understand if Apple was actively acquiring companies or building smartphones that no rival company could duplicate, but that isn't happening.  It's Apple shareholders being constantly bombarded with idiots claiming Apple is worth about $240 a share.  Google is easily heading for $1000 and Apple is heading in the other direction.  Wasn't it Apple last year that was supposed to hit $1000.  You're going to tell me that Apple can't use any of the money to sell enough products or put enough value into the company like other companies to keep the share price higher than it is.  It's like Apple isn't even trying to compete in the smartphone industry.  They can't even hold on to what little market share they have.  I'm not talking majority market share, but at least double digits.  You're telling me $100+ billion in the bank can't do that much for Apple.  Simply increasing their advertising budget by a billion or so could do that much.  It's not like Apple is going to miss it.  Like you, I feel Apple should focus on designing GREAT products for consumers, but does anyone even acknowledge that Apple is building better smartphones than Samsung.  There should be some clear-cut difference that the iPhone is a higher-quality product, but even that's questionable in the smartphone industry and Wall Street's opinion.

 

If Apple isn't going to seriously use that money to kick the crap out of their smartphone rivals, then at least give loyal Apple shareholders something back besides just good products.  Apple should never have let Samsung get even close to them in profits.  Apple should have kept pouring on the juice when the stock was at $700 instead of just giving up and folding like a house of cards.  Apple continues to get upstaged by Google and Android and with Apple's money, it should be able to put a stop to that nonsense.

post #11 of 27
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post
…what's necessary…

 

And what would that be, exactly?


…if Apple was actively acquiring companies or building smartphones that no rival company could duplicate, but that isn't happening.

 

The former isn't because it's reckless and the latter is because you're blind.


Google is easily heading for $1000 and Apple is heading in the other direction.  Wasn't it Apple last year that was supposed to hit $1000.

 

And for that reason, I cannot wait for Google's delicious collapse.


You're going to tell me that Apple can't use any of the money to sell enough products or put enough value into the company like other companies to keep the share price higher than it is.

 

Who's telling you that? It's not about the telling, it's about the believing. Wall Street sees ever-increasing profit and sells. That's their problem.


It's like Apple isn't even trying to compete in the smartphone industry.  They can't even hold on to what little market share they have. I'm not talking majority market share, but at least double digits.

 

Keeps going up, though. Marketshare, that is. So enough with that.


Simply increasing their advertising budget by a billion or so could do that much.

 

lol, no. Not at all. Advertising? Hilarious.


…I feel Apple should focus on designing GREAT products for consumers…

 

And yet you say "waste money on advertising".


…but does anyone even acknowledge that Apple is building better smartphones than Samsung.

 

Every review, ever, since 2007.


There should be some clear-cut difference that the iPhone is a higher-quality product, but even that's questionable in the smartphone industry and Wall Street's opinion.

 

Screw Wall Street. What do they matter unless they're the ones purchasing the products? How many awards has Apple won for quality? How many charts have they topped? Screw Wall Street. 


…give loyal Apple shareholders something back besides just good products.

 

Sounds like they're doing that.


Apple should never have let Samsung get even close to them in profits.

 

That's what the lawsuits are for. You're basically saying "Apple should never have let Samsung steal their IP". How, exactly, could they have prevented it?


Apple should have kept pouring on the juice when the stock was at $700 instead of just giving up and folding like a house of cards.

 

What "juice"? What anything? 


Apple continues to get upstaged by Google and Android and with Apple's money, it should be able to put a stop to that nonsense.

 

Upstaged in what freaking capacity?

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #12 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by robogobo View Post

Waste of money if you ask me. I don't understand this pandering to shareholders and market hacks. Apple has enough money without requiring capital investment. Honestly, if I were them, I'd just let Wall Street play its little game and focus on delivering more great products. If the share price goes up, great. If it goes down, super. Buy it all back when it hits $50 and take the company private.

Dividends are for companies who need investors.

As a long-term Apple shareholder, I'm very pleased to get the increased dividends if Apple doesn't do what's necessary to hold the share price higher than $450.  Look, I could understand if Apple was actively acquiring companies or building smartphones that no rival company could duplicate, but that isn't happening.  It's Apple shareholders being constantly bombarded with idiots claiming Apple is worth about $240 a share.  Google is easily heading for $1000 and Apple is heading in the other direction.  Wasn't it Apple last year that was supposed to hit $1000.  You're going to tell me that Apple can't use any of the money to sell enough products or put enough value into the company like other companies to keep the share price higher than it is.  It's like Apple isn't even trying to compete in the smartphone industry.  They can't even hold on to what little market share they have.  I'm not talking majority market share, but at least double digits.  You're telling me $100+ billion in the bank can't do that much for Apple.  Simply increasing their advertising budget by a billion or so could do that much.  It's not like Apple is going to miss it.  Like you, I feel Apple should focus on designing GREAT products for consumers, but does anyone even acknowledge that Apple is building better smartphones than Samsung.  There should be some clear-cut difference that the iPhone is a higher-quality product, but even that's questionable in the smartphone industry and Wall Street's opinion.

 

If Apple isn't going to seriously use that money to kick the crap out of their smartphone rivals, then at least give loyal Apple shareholders something back besides just good products.  Apple should never have let Samsung get even close to them in profits.  Apple should have kept pouring on the juice when the stock was at $700 instead of just giving up and folding like a house of cards.  Apple continues to get upstaged by Google and Android and with Apple's money, it should be able to put a stop to that nonsense.

Good, concise points.

post #13 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

Google is easily heading for $1000 and Apple is heading in the other direction.

Wall Street's evaluation of Apple is heading in the wrong direction (actually it's fairly accurate just now, Google's is probably overvalued). There's a distinction.

Calendar Q1 2013, Apple made $9.5b, Google made $3.3b. Complain to Wall Street why they value Google at 3/4 Apple's market cap when they make 1/3 the profit. Google is growing fast in volume but their profits aren't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

It's like Apple isn't even trying to compete in the smartphone industry.

Not for volume they aren't. For profit, they are and winning that hands down so far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

They can't even hold on to what little market share they have.

You have to remember what the market share numbers mean. Apple's numbers are still increasing so they are still increasing cell phone marketshare but feature phones are converting to Android faster as they have cheaper options so Apple's share of new purchases is lower. Slowed growth, not negative growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

I'm not talking majority market share, but at least double digits.

I'm pretty sure they have a double-digit marketshare. The share between iOS and Android isn't that important, it's Apple vs the next largest manufacturer. Apple is second in the world to Samsung, which only ships 50% more smartphones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

I feel Apple should focus on designing GREAT products for consumers, but does anyone even acknowledge that Apple is building better smartphones than Samsung.  There should be some clear-cut difference that the iPhone is a higher-quality product, but even that's questionable in the smartphone industry and Wall Street's opinion.

Wall Street's opinion is worth about as much as the currency they trade in. The quality difference is widely acknowledged in reviews, even Samsung acknowledged it. They are even being compared unfavourably to other Android phones like the HTC One X. Samsung's strength is marketing and volume. They know how to do that well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

Apple should have kept pouring on the juice when the stock was at $700 instead of just giving up and folding like a house of cards.

They haven't done anything different from when it went up to $700. There was no extra juice then and no lack of juice now, it's the same juice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

Apple continues to get upstaged by Google and Android

You obviously didn't watch Google's latest developer conference. It was quite a blatant 'we need to catch up to Apple'. Vector maps and 3D object models, an IDE for Android like XCode. No new hardware, no innovations, no new Android version. Pushing the Chromebook Pixel (can't imagine where they got the idea to ship a laptop with a high PPI display). Google Game Play Services (can't imagine where they got the idea for that).

That's the problem with them having the event before Apple's. You'll have to wait until next year's Google IO so that Google can 'upstage' them by copying what's in iOS 7. If you want to see Android tomorrow, look at iOS today.
post #14 of 27

Tim Cook took Mr. Buffet's advice. Buying back the shares in earnest reduces the total shares outstanding. That increases the earnings per share in two ways: higher revenues through product sales and less shares for those earnings. This will accelerate Apple's growth even further. Combine Apple's profitability with accelerating earnings growth and a high dividend and you have a killer stock. One that will hit $1000 a share and stay there in the next 18 months. You have been forewarned Papi. Get in now before the Boat sails away on you.

post #15 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShelShock View Post

Glad to see Tim Cook focused on bleeding cash to stockholders and operations with no acknowledgment or game plan that the iPhone is no longer a breakout product.  This guy thinks end users will cheer for him because he is putting Apple into debt and paying dividends.  What a Sculley wanna-be.. 
Number one selling smartphone in the world, superior OS, highest customer satifaction levels by far, best service and support, highest resell value of any smartphone, best app store on many levels, best ecosystem, and more money in the bank than they know what to do with to the tune of 150 BILLION DOLLARS - and the problem is what again?
post #16 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProfessorXXX View Post

Tim Cook took Mr. Buffet's advice. Buying back the shares in earnest reduces the total shares outstanding. That increases the earnings per share in two ways: higher revenues through product sales and less shares for those earnings. This will accelerate Apple's growth even further. Combine Apple's profitability with accelerating earnings growth and a high dividend and you have a killer stock. One that will hit $1000 a share and stay there in the next 18 months. You have been forewarned Papi. Get in now before the Boat sails away on you.

1) Lots of people recommended this well before Buffett did. Also, it was a fairly obvious recommendation.

2) If it was as simple as a mechanical increase in EPS, the optimal strategy for every company would be to buy up as many shares of itself as it can, whenever it can, so that the EPS is sky-high, no? Why do you think they don't all do it all the time?

3) What does a share repurchase have to do with 'revenues'!?
post #17 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by robogobo View Post

Waste of money if you ask me. I don't understand this pandering to shareholders and market hacks. Apple has enough money without requiring capital investment. Honestly, if I were them, I'd just let Wall Street play its little game and focus on delivering more great products. If the share price goes up, great. If it goes down, super. Buy it all back when it hits $50 and take the company private.

Dividends are for companies who need investors.

 

A company cannot own itself. What are you referring to here? Even if the stock dropped off a cliff yet again, they would require investors with the funds to buy out all shareholders. If I recall correctly something like 90% is required to coerce anyone unwilling to sell.

post #18 of 27
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
…they would require investors with the funds to buy out all shareholders.

 

Why, if they had the cash necessary?

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #19 of 27
Originally Posted by jdnc123 View Post
You are implying the value of the company would trade below the cash value which could and would never happen.

 

It can be done in stages, however.


Shareholders own this company.  Shareholders will soon be kicking Tim Cook out of it, in my opinion.

 

Your opinion is bollocks. Forgive me if I don't care about the other things you say, then.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #20 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123 View Post

Shareholders will soon be kicking Tim Cook out of it, in my opinion.

Who would be a better replacement and besides the stock price movement, what are you basing these assessments of ability on?
post #21 of 27
Originally Posted by jdnc123 View Post
Someone who instills confidence in the investment community AND its employees.

 

Why do YOU matter? You being the investment community, since you never shut up about it, that is.


…this company for its primary purpose - to create shareholder value…

 

No, that's not its primary purpose. Go educate yourself.


…the market has lost all confidence…

 

Screw your market. Apple cares about the real market.


Originally Posted by jdnc123 View Post
Give me one example where a company went private without the help of outside investors.  Your contention is baseless and hogwash.

 

"It hasn't happened, therefore it can't," is a laughable "argument".

 

And really, please use the actual quote feature.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #22 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123 View Post

Someone that doesn't have the personality of a rock to begin with.  Someone who instills confidence in the investment community AND its employees.  Someone who doesn't decide to go the longest in more than 10 years to roll out a new product.  Someone that can run this company for its primary purpose - to create shareholder value, not destroy it.  Apple isn't trading where it is simply due to its deteriorating earnings.... the market has lost all confidence in Tim Cook, otherwise how can you explain the stock trading below the valuation metrics of Dell, HPQ, Intel, Microsoft, and virtually every other tech company.  The market is pricing in the future and saying the future under Tim Cook doesn't look good.

Longest in 10 years to roll out new products? Are you talking about brand new products or updates? Almost the entire product line was updated last fall. Cook has been on the job for less than two years. There were six years between the iPod and iPhone.

Apple still made a lot of money last qtr. go troll somewhere else.
post #23 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123 View Post

I was paraphrasing a Bloomberg story today that says its the longest period with no new product since at least 2000.  Maybe you should tell that reporter he/she is a troll.

Yes, Apple made a lot of money.  Yes the products are still great, that isn't the issue.  The issue is the money they make is shrinking while others continue to make more in mobile.  Why is that?

Yes because Bloomberg is known for journalistic integrity (if you ignore the Bloomberg terminal stories). Apple still has 60-70% of the mobile profits. Only Sammy is making money on the Android side.
post #24 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123 View Post

Someone that doesn't have the personality of a rock to begin with.

He can be a little dry but he has the confidence of a rock and I like that in a CEO. Look at Zuckerberg when he was under questioning at All Things D - sweatin' like a fat guy in a sauna. Tim is always calm and very resolute. He manages to get a few one-liners in now and again too and his values are totally aligned with the company. I really can't think of many candidates who could do a better job than he is doing. Look at Google, Larry Page was terrible at the IO conference. I don't want to criticise him as an individual as he came across as a nice guy but he looks like he's not in control of the company at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123 View Post

Someone who instills confidence in the investment community AND its employees.

The investment community is not really his focus. The company doesn't need new investors. Slowed growth was an inevitability. As for the employees, that's up to them to decide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123 View Post

Someone who doesn't decide to go the longest in more than 10 years to roll out a new product.

They can't update most of their products until they have the components from suppliers. This is just some unfortunate scheduling. Haswell arrives June 3rd, the iOS components should be available in time for a September launch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123 View Post

Someone that can run this company for its primary purpose - to create shareholder value, not destroy it.

More value was created under his leadership than has been destroyed and the term 'value' here is of course referring to the stock price, which is not really directly based on anything tangible.

Under Tim's leadership, emotional investors moved their valuation of Apple to double what it was in a matter of months. Apple did very little during that time. A while later, savvy investors decided to reassess that valuation (this is called profiting). Emotional investors now tell stories about how Tim destroyed it all. Wall Street, big banks and insurance companies (the biggest shareholders) took all the 'value' out of it, while pointing the finger at the only people generating value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123 View Post

The market is pricing in the future and saying the future under Tim Cook doesn't look good.

These would be the same people who predicted the financial turmoil they were responsible for? If they can't predict their own business, how qualified are they to predict the future of a business they know nothing about?
post #25 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Why, if they had the cash necessary?


I thought others had explained this in prior threads. Apple can buy back shares. They cannot vote with the shares they buy back, and a corporation cannot own itself. Let me ask, what would it take to put this matter to rest? I know it's come up before (edit: not referring to the current thread), and you don't seem to believe what others have already stated.

post #26 of 27
Originally Posted by jdnc123 View Post
…will… 

 

lol.


The reality is any public company must create shareholder value or shareholders will leave in droves, which is what we are seeing now…

 

Yes, we're seeing idiots sell a stock they don't comprehend.


I don't matter.

 

Good, so you can just stop posting entirely, then.


Why do you keep responding to comments that don't matter.

 

Why do you keep making them?


Let me voice my opinion…

 

Your opinion is lies. "Let" becomes the wrong word.


Originally Posted by hmm View Post
Apple can buy back shares. They cannot vote with the shares they buy back, and a corporation cannot own itself.

 

Guess I missed a key point: they still have to have vote on it, regardless if they themselves own all the shares? That doesn't make any sense.


Let me ask, what would it take to put this matter to rest?

 

Apple going private. 1tongue.gif

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #27 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


 

Guess I missed a key point: they still have to have vote on it, regardless if they themselves own all the shares? That doesn't make any sense.

 

Buying it up would affect the value of stock still in circulation, assuming no new shares are issued. You still haven't answered who you thought would own it at that point. Corporations can own subsidiaries, but they do not own themselves. If Apple tried to buy up all shares, they would just inflate the price of those remaining in circulation. If thousands rather than millions of shares were left in circulation, the price would be much higher, assuming those shareholders were willing to sell. You seem to hold the view that Apple has some kind of autonomy when it's still owned by its shareholders.

Quote:

 

 

Apple going private. 1tongue.gif

Fair enough.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple to distribute another $2.867 billion to shareholders via dividend