Analysts: 'Stay the course with Apple,' $450 price target set



  • Reply 41 of 41
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

    At the risk of striking a slain steed*, what is your point about percentage being invested? Before it was that they didn?t invest in anything during the recession despite article after article to the contrary (which I didn?t cite), followed up by a recent article about a new investment that also details some previous investments.

    What percentage of their cash holdings have to be used per day before you think it makes sense? It really sounds you want Apple to just buy things for the sake of buying them.

    It?s the fool that spends money just because he has it. Poor people buy things so they feel rich, rich people buy things so they can stay rich.

    The point is, they can easily fund these sorts of expenditures, even if they had to do so entirely out of free cash flow -- which of course they are nowhere near having to do.

    I'm the last one to suggest that Apple should buy things for the sake of it. In fact I've been the one arguing against virtually every cockamamie merger concept that's been floated here, and up until now at least, they all been pretty outlandish and pointless. And that's just the thing -- Apple simply cannot spend any meaningful percentage the cash they've already got on growing Apple's business, which is the only responsible reason for them to spend it.

    So, I will put a motion on the floor: that Apple declare a 1% annual stock dividend. This would cost them roughly $3b a year, or at the current rate of free cash gain, about about the amount they accumulate in one month. Arguments against?
Sign In or Register to comment.