Apple is not that company anymore - it is now one of the biggest companies in the US which takes a lot of our hard earned money, stockpiles it and sends it overseas via manufacturing and component outsourcing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG
Good points.
You guys are ridiculous.
If you had half an ounce self-control, even less self-esteem, and actualy believe in the things that you say matter to yourself, why the heck do you buy their products? Is Apple pointing a gun to your head saying "buy, or else......"?!
Okay, so GM was not the best example. But not every company that failed in the crash was unprofitable, grossly mismanaged, etc. My main point was that we never know what form the next downturn will take, and why. To apply a related aphorism, the army is always preparing for the last war. It never hurts to be prudent and flexible enough to face any unexpected turn of events. I, like Solipsism, have a pretty good position in AAPL and am very comforted by their conservation of resources (cash).
No, GM was hardly the best example, but then you haven't supplied me with a better example. One of the brilliantly managed banks, perhaps?
Again, profits are not for stockpiling against Armageddon, they are for reinvesting into making the business grow. A well-managed business will be able to use profits far more productively for growing the markets they are in, then they will by banking them. Plowing profits back into the business signals management's confidence in their ability to continue growing the business. Socking profits away against unseen future monumental disasters signals a lack of confidence in same. I know people want to think of business finance as being like personal finance, but it isn't.
BTW, I am an AAPL investor since 1997. I have a huge amount at stake here, so I am not just noodling around with these concepts for the sake of theoretical debate. I want to see Apple continue to use their profits to grow their business, and hence my investment, and I get no comfort whatsoever from the thought or knowledge that they are planning for disaster instead. And neither should you.
If you had half an ounce self-control, even less self-esteem, and actualy believe in the things that you say matter to yourself, why the heck do you buy their products? Is Apple pointing a gun to your head saying "buy, or else......"?!
You are missing the point. It is perfectly reasonable to like apple and it's products, but desire that they plug back more of their huge profits into job creation in their home country like they used to.
For example a search reveled an apple factory list 2 years ago:
F: Fremont, CA, USA (which at one time was Steve Jobs pride and joy - a fully automated factory building macs)
CK: Cork, Ireland
SG, E: Singapore
XA, XB: Sacramento, CA, USA
FC: Fountain, CO, USA (PowerBooks only)
PK, SI: Mexico
LT, SR , UV, Taiwan
G, A: USA
MI, SK, M: Malaysia
PT: Korea
W8: Shanghai China
QT: Taiwan (Quanta Factory)
I couldn't find out anything on what factories it has now - probably because China with it's subsidized currency is building almost everything now some with underage workers. I think apple insider should look into this - what happened to the US factories and where is everything built and sourced now and in what percentages? In this age of the great recession and CA's huge deficits and unemployment it is particularly ironic that Apple is raking in record profits and sitting on them. I like apple and will continue to buy from them, they just need to be better corporate citizens now that they are so huge.
You are missing the point. It is perfectly reasonable to like apple and it's products, but desire that they plug back more of their huge profits into job creation in their home country like they used to.
No, you are. Because you are confusing cause and effect. There is a reason that Apple is so profitable.
More important, consider that their profits get reflected in their market value, which, in turn, bring tens of billions of dollars of wealth into this country, thereby fueling better retirements, better college education that parents can afford for their kids, better social spending (from NGOs that own Apple in their portfolio), and on and on.
If any of their activities had resulted in lousier products or less innovation or poorer customer service, I would agree with you.
No, GM was hardly the best example, but then you haven't supplied me with a better example. One of the brilliantly managed banks, perhaps?
Again, profits are not for stockpiling against Armageddon, they are for reinvesting into making the business grow. A well-managed business will be able to use profits far more productively for growing the markets they are in, then they will by banking them. Plowing profits back into the business signals management's confidence in their ability to continue growing the business. Socking profits away against unseen future monumental disasters signals a lack of confidence in same. I know people want to think of business finance as being like personal finance, but it isn't.
I'm no apologist for banks, but they were making money hand over fist. You can certainly argue bad management, bad morals--lack of foresight perhaps? One might even wonder how things might have gone had they each had a $40 billion backstop instead of investing their cash in bonuses for execs.
Okay, since you called me out for lacking a better example, turnabout is fair play. How would you have Apple dispose of their cash? I think they have diversified quite nicely over the last decade or so. I attribute their success partially to the fact that they keep themselves focused on their core business and evolve it carefully as the situation warrants. Assuming I am wrong, what new areas would you like to see Apple move into? And how fast? And what downside might there be to such adventurism?
In the spirit of citing example, how about AOL? They did a good job of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory didn't they?
I agree that they should reinvest and grow, but I worry about them getting ahead of themselves.
I'm no apologist for banks, but they were making money hand over fist. You can certainly argue bad management, bad morals--lack of foresight perhaps? One might even wonder how things might have gone had they each had a $40 billion backstop instead of investing their cash in bonuses for execs.
Okay, since you called me out for lacking a better example, turnabout is fair play. How would you have Apple dispose of their cash? I think they have diversified quite nicely over the last decade or so. I attribute their success partially to the fact that they keep themselves focused on their core business and evolve it carefully as the situation warrants. Assuming I am wrong, what new areas would you like to see Apple move into? And how fast? And what downside might there be to such adventurism?
In the spirit of citing example, how about AOL? They did a good job of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory didn't they?
I agree that they should reinvest and grow, but I worry about them getting ahead of themselves.
Ironically, the law is supposed to require the banks to have a backstop, AKA, cash reserves. They found a loophole, exploited it to the max, and lost big time. Now we're all paying for it.
I'm an advocate for Apple paying a dividend to stockholders, so maybe at least the cash pile won't grow quite so ridiculously fast. One thing I don't want to see them try with the money is to make huge acquisitions. That's like Russian Roulette with most of the chambers loaded. I don't see any way for them to responsibly use that much money, which is why I think some of it has to go back to the stockholders.
I'm an advocate for Apple paying a dividend to stockholders, so maybe at least the cash pile won't grow quite so ridiculously fast. One thing I don't want to see them try with the money is to make huge acquisitions. That's like Russian Roulette with most of the chambers loaded. I don't see any way for them to responsibly use that much money, which is why I think some of it has to go back to the stockholders.
Okay, I understand your position. I bought my first shares the same year you did--1997. I've gotten so used to never getting a dividend I've actually forgotten about even missing it. We may be in agreement here. I'd like to hear the argument for never paying dividends as a matter of policy. But absent that, it does seem like they could spare some of their bankroll for us loyal long time investors.
Okay, I understand your position. I bought my first shares the same year you did--1997. I've gotten so used to never getting a dividend I've actually forgotten about even missing it. We may be in agreement here. I'd like to hear the argument for never paying dividends as a matter of policy. But absent that, it does seem like they could spare some of their bankroll for us loyal long time investors.
The argument against is coming along in 3... 2... 1...
Ironically, the law is supposed to require the banks to have a backstop, AKA, cash reserves. They found a loophole, exploited it to the max, and lost big time. Now we're all paying for it.
I'm an advocate for Apple paying a dividend to stockholders, so maybe at least the cash pile won't grow quite so ridiculously fast. One thing I don't want to see them try with the money is to make huge acquisitions. That's like Russian Roulette with most of the chambers loaded. I don't see any way for them to responsibly use that much money, which is why I think some of it has to go back to the stockholders.
So wait... first you said you wanted Apple to plow all their profits back into the company to grow the business, and now you say that you are a proponent for Apple to pay a dividend. So... which is it?
So wait... first you said you wanted Apple to plow all their profits back into the company to grow the business, and now you say that you are a proponent for Apple to pay a dividend. So... which is it?
Neither. What I said is, if they can't reinvest a substantial portion of profits (never said all) into growing the business, then they should return some of the excess to the stockholders.
Comments
Apple is not that company anymore - it is now one of the biggest companies in the US which takes a lot of our hard earned money, stockpiles it and sends it overseas via manufacturing and component outsourcing.
Good points.
If you had half an ounce self-control, even less self-esteem, and actualy believe in the things that you say matter to yourself, why the heck do you buy their products? Is Apple pointing a gun to your head saying "buy, or else......"?!
Okay, so GM was not the best example. But not every company that failed in the crash was unprofitable, grossly mismanaged, etc. My main point was that we never know what form the next downturn will take, and why. To apply a related aphorism, the army is always preparing for the last war. It never hurts to be prudent and flexible enough to face any unexpected turn of events. I, like Solipsism, have a pretty good position in AAPL and am very comforted by their conservation of resources (cash).
No, GM was hardly the best example, but then you haven't supplied me with a better example. One of the brilliantly managed banks, perhaps?
Again, profits are not for stockpiling against Armageddon, they are for reinvesting into making the business grow. A well-managed business will be able to use profits far more productively for growing the markets they are in, then they will by banking them. Plowing profits back into the business signals management's confidence in their ability to continue growing the business. Socking profits away against unseen future monumental disasters signals a lack of confidence in same. I know people want to think of business finance as being like personal finance, but it isn't.
BTW, I am an AAPL investor since 1997. I have a huge amount at stake here, so I am not just noodling around with these concepts for the sake of theoretical debate. I want to see Apple continue to use their profits to grow their business, and hence my investment, and I get no comfort whatsoever from the thought or knowledge that they are planning for disaster instead. And neither should you.
If you had half an ounce self-control, even less self-esteem, and actualy believe in the things that you say matter to yourself, why the heck do you buy their products? Is Apple pointing a gun to your head saying "buy, or else......"?!
You are missing the point. It is perfectly reasonable to like apple and it's products, but desire that they plug back more of their huge profits into job creation in their home country like they used to.
For example a search reveled an apple factory list 2 years ago:
F: Fremont, CA, USA (which at one time was Steve Jobs pride and joy - a fully automated factory building macs)
CK: Cork, Ireland
SG, E: Singapore
XA, XB: Sacramento, CA, USA
FC: Fountain, CO, USA (PowerBooks only)
PK, SI: Mexico
LT, SR , UV, Taiwan
G, A: USA
MI, SK, M: Malaysia
PT: Korea
W8: Shanghai China
QT: Taiwan (Quanta Factory)
I couldn't find out anything on what factories it has now - probably because China with it's subsidized currency is building almost everything now some with underage workers. I think apple insider should look into this - what happened to the US factories and where is everything built and sourced now and in what percentages? In this age of the great recession and CA's huge deficits and unemployment it is particularly ironic that Apple is raking in record profits and sitting on them. I like apple and will continue to buy from them, they just need to be better corporate citizens now that they are so huge.
You are missing the point. It is perfectly reasonable to like apple and it's products, but desire that they plug back more of their huge profits into job creation in their home country like they used to.
No, you are. Because you are confusing cause and effect. There is a reason that Apple is so profitable.
More important, consider that their profits get reflected in their market value, which, in turn, bring tens of billions of dollars of wealth into this country, thereby fueling better retirements, better college education that parents can afford for their kids, better social spending (from NGOs that own Apple in their portfolio), and on and on.
If any of their activities had resulted in lousier products or less innovation or poorer customer service, I would agree with you.
Has it?
No, GM was hardly the best example, but then you haven't supplied me with a better example. One of the brilliantly managed banks, perhaps?
Again, profits are not for stockpiling against Armageddon, they are for reinvesting into making the business grow. A well-managed business will be able to use profits far more productively for growing the markets they are in, then they will by banking them. Plowing profits back into the business signals management's confidence in their ability to continue growing the business. Socking profits away against unseen future monumental disasters signals a lack of confidence in same. I know people want to think of business finance as being like personal finance, but it isn't.
I'm no apologist for banks, but they were making money hand over fist. You can certainly argue bad management, bad morals--lack of foresight perhaps? One might even wonder how things might have gone had they each had a $40 billion backstop instead of investing their cash in bonuses for execs.
Okay, since you called me out for lacking a better example, turnabout is fair play. How would you have Apple dispose of their cash? I think they have diversified quite nicely over the last decade or so. I attribute their success partially to the fact that they keep themselves focused on their core business and evolve it carefully as the situation warrants. Assuming I am wrong, what new areas would you like to see Apple move into? And how fast? And what downside might there be to such adventurism?
In the spirit of citing example, how about AOL? They did a good job of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory didn't they?
I agree that they should reinvest and grow, but I worry about them getting ahead of themselves.
I'm no apologist for banks, but they were making money hand over fist. You can certainly argue bad management, bad morals--lack of foresight perhaps? One might even wonder how things might have gone had they each had a $40 billion backstop instead of investing their cash in bonuses for execs.
Okay, since you called me out for lacking a better example, turnabout is fair play. How would you have Apple dispose of their cash? I think they have diversified quite nicely over the last decade or so. I attribute their success partially to the fact that they keep themselves focused on their core business and evolve it carefully as the situation warrants. Assuming I am wrong, what new areas would you like to see Apple move into? And how fast? And what downside might there be to such adventurism?
In the spirit of citing example, how about AOL? They did a good job of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory didn't they?
I agree that they should reinvest and grow, but I worry about them getting ahead of themselves.
Ironically, the law is supposed to require the banks to have a backstop, AKA, cash reserves. They found a loophole, exploited it to the max, and lost big time. Now we're all paying for it.
I'm an advocate for Apple paying a dividend to stockholders, so maybe at least the cash pile won't grow quite so ridiculously fast. One thing I don't want to see them try with the money is to make huge acquisitions. That's like Russian Roulette with most of the chambers loaded. I don't see any way for them to responsibly use that much money, which is why I think some of it has to go back to the stockholders.
I'm an advocate for Apple paying a dividend to stockholders, so maybe at least the cash pile won't grow quite so ridiculously fast. One thing I don't want to see them try with the money is to make huge acquisitions. That's like Russian Roulette with most of the chambers loaded. I don't see any way for them to responsibly use that much money, which is why I think some of it has to go back to the stockholders.
Okay, I understand your position. I bought my first shares the same year you did--1997. I've gotten so used to never getting a dividend I've actually forgotten about even missing it. We may be in agreement here. I'd like to hear the argument for never paying dividends as a matter of policy. But absent that, it does seem like they could spare some of their bankroll for us loyal long time investors.
Okay, I understand your position. I bought my first shares the same year you did--1997. I've gotten so used to never getting a dividend I've actually forgotten about even missing it. We may be in agreement here. I'd like to hear the argument for never paying dividends as a matter of policy. But absent that, it does seem like they could spare some of their bankroll for us loyal long time investors.
The argument against is coming along in 3... 2... 1...
Ironically, the law is supposed to require the banks to have a backstop, AKA, cash reserves. They found a loophole, exploited it to the max, and lost big time. Now we're all paying for it.
I'm an advocate for Apple paying a dividend to stockholders, so maybe at least the cash pile won't grow quite so ridiculously fast. One thing I don't want to see them try with the money is to make huge acquisitions. That's like Russian Roulette with most of the chambers loaded. I don't see any way for them to responsibly use that much money, which is why I think some of it has to go back to the stockholders.
So wait... first you said you wanted Apple to plow all their profits back into the company to grow the business, and now you say that you are a proponent for Apple to pay a dividend. So... which is it?
So wait... first you said you wanted Apple to plow all their profits back into the company to grow the business, and now you say that you are a proponent for Apple to pay a dividend. So... which is it?
Neither. What I said is, if they can't reinvest a substantial portion of profits (never said all) into growing the business, then they should return some of the excess to the stockholders.