Serious? The communities both you, I, and everyone else on this blog site belong to. Schools, rec centers, volunteer events, natural disaster reliefs, etc etc etc.
Yes, serious.
Public corporations in the US are set up for a primary purpose, and that is to create shareholder value. This notion is enshrined a famous (Michigan) Supreme court ruling in 1919 called Dodge v. Ford (you can Google it). It has become the law of the land.
We elect a government (and fund numerous non-profits, including religious institutions) whose role it is to address the welfare of other constituencies.
This is not to say that corporations should not spend their money on charitable contributions or other good works. But they have no right to do so at the expense of profit and shareholder value maximization. That is the law. We can try to change it if we don't like it, but until we do, Tim Cook's objective function is unambiguous.
Arguably, schools, rec centers, volunteer organizations etc have got great value out of Apple producing and selling products of high quality, and from the charitable contributions from shareholders who have more to give, thanks to the wealth created by companies such as Apple. (People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett couldn't do all the wonderful things they do if it weren't for the wealth created by their companies).
Sorry, when you measure company size (as in "largeness"), the accepted measurement is revenue, not market capitalization. The three largest companies in America today are Wal-mart, Exxon Mobil, and Chevron.
Someday, AI may actually properly report financial topics accurately.
But yet they refuse to pay out a dividend...with almost a hundred billion dollars in the bank. Apple has realized they no longer need those who invest in them because of their cash stockpile. Very sad. Never forget those who helped fund you when things were just ok. If you're gonna hoard your money, at least give more back to the community. Do I dare mention Target gves more money back to the community and they are no where near Apple's worth? You're already number 1 in so many areas, try to be number 1 in areas that really matter.
You don't know much about why companies pay dividends, do you?
Hint... It's because they're not increasing in share value.
I'll take my 300% gains over little dividend payoffs any day.
This is not to say that corporations should not spend their money on charitable contributions or other good works. But they have no right to do so at the expense of profit and shareholder value maximization. That is the law. We can try to change it if we don't like it, but until we do, Tim Cook's objective function is unambiguous.
There are some very powerful reasons for corporation to give back to the community: their millions of customers. If customers care enough, and if the corporation does not respond, shareholders will be royally screwed. And some customers on this board clearly care, and that may be a sign of trouble in paradise.
Apple's is the most respected company in the world http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...011/full_list/. Apple's reputation is so valuable it cannot be priced, but it may be worth more that all that cash that they have in the bank. If many people begin to believe (with a basis in truth) that Apple is not a "good" corporate citizen, Apple will be badly hurt.
Apple is acting like money is everything by not being a community leader; you can still be hugely successful while still being a major player in the philanthropy arena. And I promise you, Steve Jobs is now realizing money isn't everything.
And Bill Gates money is doing so much good. Maybe you should look at the performance of his charter schools. They are awful. Steve can do what he wants with his money. He earned it. Apple does some philanthropy they just don't brag about it.
Public corporations in the US are set up for a primary purpose, and that is to create shareholder value. This notion is enshrined a famous (Michigan) Supreme court ruling in 1919 called Dodge v. Ford (you can Google it). It has become the law of the land.
We elect a government (and fund numerous non-profits, including religious institutions) whose role it is to address the welfare of other constituencies.
This is not to say that corporations should not spend their money on charitable contributions or other good works. But they have no right to do so at the expense of profit and shareholder value maximization. That is the law. We can try to change it if we don't like it, but until we do, Tim Cook's objective function is unambiguous.
Arguably, schools, rec centers, volunteer organizations etc have got great value out of Apple producing and selling products of high quality, and from the charitable contributions from shareholders who have more to give, thanks to the wealth created by companies such as Apple. (People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett couldn't do all the wonderful things they do if it weren't for the wealth created by their companies).
Ok, so saying Apple giving back to the community by means of them selling their products to schools is philanthropy? Give me a break. They BUY them because they are good products. That's it. Also, look it up, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett donate billions while they are still alive to organizations they feel need them...and are donating a HUGE percentage of their wealth once they're dead. Apple is purely sub-mediocre, and that's being liberal. Corporations or invdividuals are not required to donate anything, obviously, but there's a point where you need to sit back and realize a hundred billion dollars in the bank is no different than that lady on that hoarders show who can't let anything go and has a panic attack when someone just talks about getting rid of some.
Let's face it, the two most important statistics for the Street are revenue and EPS.
I realize that there are financial articles by a variety of sources about market cap (or any other financial barometer), but as long as CFOs still read Fortune, revenue is the benchmark. I never said that revenue was the only measurement of a company's fiscal health, just that is was equivalent to "large". And large doesn't necessarily mean good, healthy, efficient, etc.
If you want to assess a company's overall value, there are probably 20-30 financial statistics to consider, plus intangible/subjective ratings like what they do to combat climate change or how they treat employees.
Revenue is relative to Costs of Maintenance including Labor Costs, plus the outstanding Debt of the Company.
Apple has zero debt, extremely High Revenue to Costs and the largest market cap.
Apple's is, I believe, the most respected company in the world. Apple's reputation is so valuable it cannot be priced, but it may be worth more that all that cash that they have in the bank. If many people begin to believe (with a basis in truth) that Apple is not a "good" corporate citizen, Apple will be badly hurt.
Funny how the haters always seem to move on to the next talking point. Market share, market capitalization, revenue, profit, margins, and now philanthropy. Nothing Apple does will ever satisfy them. Apple has surpassed every other tech company in most of those metrics so now we start hearing about the cash "hoard" and how stingy Apple and Jobs are. Will it ever end? Nope. There will always be the next talking point to bash with.
And Bill Gates money is doing so much good. Maybe you should look at the performance of his charter schools. They are awful. Steve can do what he wants with his money. He earned it. Apple does some philanthropy they just don't brag about it.
I don't know what Bill Gates does with his charter schools, and frankly this is the first I've heard of this initiative of his, but at least he's trying to do good with his money. I'm no MS fan, but I'm sure there is more to the story as the educational system in this country is f&cked. And I gotta say, I LOL'd by your 'Apple does *some* philanthropy..." I'd love to see *some* quantified.
There are some very powerful reasons for corporation to give back to the community: their millions of customers. If customers care enough, and if the corporation does not respond, shareholders will be royally screwed. And some customers on this board clearly care, and that may be a sign of trouble in paradise.
Apple's is, I believe, the most respected company in the world. Apple's reputation is so valuable it cannot be priced, but it may be worth more that all that cash that they have in the bank. If many people begin to believe (with a basis in truth) that Apple is not a "good" corporate citizen, Apple will be badly hurt.
If customers care enough, thats the point, Apple have done less in the contributions arena, really customers do not care because at end of the day, the customers are focused on great products. We can discuss this area at length, but proof is the profit being generated and little discussion occurring on Apple's giving to the community.
Ok, so saying Apple giving back to the community by means of them selling their products to schools is philanthropy? Give me a break.
Who said anything about 'philanthropy'? You really need to grapple with the fact that corporations - and that includes MSFT and BRK - are not in the philanthropy business. They are in the shareholder value creation business. Your wishing for something else will not make that happen, and more importantly, it should not.
Gates and Buffett, otoh, can surely be in the philanthropy business (as a consequence of all the wealth that their respective corporations have created for them), just as Jobs could be/should be/perhaps is, in spades, and we don't know/perhaps will be after his death/etc/etc. That is their choosing.
Funny how the haters always seem to move on to the next talking point. Market share, market capitalization, revenue, profit, margins, and now philanthropy. Nothing Apple does will ever satisfy them. Apple has surpassed every other tech company in most of those metrics so now we start hearing about the cash "hoard" and how stingy Apple and Jobs are. Will it ever end? Nope. There will always be the next talking point to bash with.
Actually, I think the haters are just people who are bitter that they didn't buy AAPL at $240 in August last year, or $90 back in 2009, or a split-adjusted $45 back in 2005, or...
Well I think that successful corporations have a responsibility beyond just profits. Apple obviously believes that too (see their environmental policies). So you obviously disagree with Apple.
Big deal. It's his money, and he can do with it as he pleases.
Would you rather he burnt it to heat his home with it?
Ok, so Steve Jobs created $340 billion of value for Apple, its investors, consumers, and fans (note I left out communities). So when he dies would you rather he take it to his grave since it's 'his' money?
Comments
Serious? The communities both you, I, and everyone else on this blog site belong to. Schools, rec centers, volunteer events, natural disaster reliefs, etc etc etc.
Yes, serious.
Public corporations in the US are set up for a primary purpose, and that is to create shareholder value. This notion is enshrined a famous (Michigan) Supreme court ruling in 1919 called Dodge v. Ford (you can Google it). It has become the law of the land.
We elect a government (and fund numerous non-profits, including religious institutions) whose role it is to address the welfare of other constituencies.
This is not to say that corporations should not spend their money on charitable contributions or other good works. But they have no right to do so at the expense of profit and shareholder value maximization. That is the law. We can try to change it if we don't like it, but until we do, Tim Cook's objective function is unambiguous.
Arguably, schools, rec centers, volunteer organizations etc have got great value out of Apple producing and selling products of high quality, and from the charitable contributions from shareholders who have more to give, thanks to the wealth created by companies such as Apple. (People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett couldn't do all the wonderful things they do if it weren't for the wealth created by their companies).
And I promise you, Steve Jobs is now realizing money isn't everything.
Unless that is a pathetically cheap shot, what is that supposed to mean?
well, next rumor of a rumor of a rumor of a gas leak from cheney's butt will raise Exxon above APPL.
Sorry, when you measure company size (as in "largeness"), the accepted measurement is revenue, not market capitalization. The three largest companies in America today are Wal-mart, Exxon Mobil, and Chevron.
Someday, AI may actually properly report financial topics accurately.
But not today.
Title says it.
But yet they refuse to pay out a dividend...with almost a hundred billion dollars in the bank. Apple has realized they no longer need those who invest in them because of their cash stockpile. Very sad. Never forget those who helped fund you when things were just ok. If you're gonna hoard your money, at least give more back to the community. Do I dare mention Target gves more money back to the community and they are no where near Apple's worth? You're already number 1 in so many areas, try to be number 1 in areas that really matter.
You don't know much about why companies pay dividends, do you?
Hint... It's because they're not increasing in share value.
I'll take my 300% gains over little dividend payoffs any day.
omg, shiny beats oil.
well, next rumor of a rumor of a rumor of a gas leak from cheney's butt will raise Exxon above APPL.
That's very nice, but I doubt if Appell Petroleum Company (stock symbol APPL) has much input about the former vice president.
Yes, serious.
This is not to say that corporations should not spend their money on charitable contributions or other good works. But they have no right to do so at the expense of profit and shareholder value maximization. That is the law. We can try to change it if we don't like it, but until we do, Tim Cook's objective function is unambiguous.
There are some very powerful reasons for corporation to give back to the community: their millions of customers. If customers care enough, and if the corporation does not respond, shareholders will be royally screwed. And some customers on this board clearly care, and that may be a sign of trouble in paradise.
Apple's is the most respected company in the world http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...011/full_list/. Apple's reputation is so valuable it cannot be priced, but it may be worth more that all that cash that they have in the bank. If many people begin to believe (with a basis in truth) that Apple is not a "good" corporate citizen, Apple will be badly hurt.
Apple is acting like money is everything by not being a community leader; you can still be hugely successful while still being a major player in the philanthropy arena. And I promise you, Steve Jobs is now realizing money isn't everything.
And Bill Gates money is doing so much good. Maybe you should look at the performance of his charter schools. They are awful. Steve can do what he wants with his money. He earned it. Apple does some philanthropy they just don't brag about it.
Yes, serious.
Public corporations in the US are set up for a primary purpose, and that is to create shareholder value. This notion is enshrined a famous (Michigan) Supreme court ruling in 1919 called Dodge v. Ford (you can Google it). It has become the law of the land.
We elect a government (and fund numerous non-profits, including religious institutions) whose role it is to address the welfare of other constituencies.
This is not to say that corporations should not spend their money on charitable contributions or other good works. But they have no right to do so at the expense of profit and shareholder value maximization. That is the law. We can try to change it if we don't like it, but until we do, Tim Cook's objective function is unambiguous.
Arguably, schools, rec centers, volunteer organizations etc have got great value out of Apple producing and selling products of high quality, and from the charitable contributions from shareholders who have more to give, thanks to the wealth created by companies such as Apple. (People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett couldn't do all the wonderful things they do if it weren't for the wealth created by their companies).
Ok, so saying Apple giving back to the community by means of them selling their products to schools is philanthropy? Give me a break. They BUY them because they are good products. That's it. Also, look it up, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett donate billions while they are still alive to organizations they feel need them...and are donating a HUGE percentage of their wealth once they're dead. Apple is purely sub-mediocre, and that's being liberal. Corporations or invdividuals are not required to donate anything, obviously, but there's a point where you need to sit back and realize a hundred billion dollars in the bank is no different than that lady on that hoarders show who can't let anything go and has a panic attack when someone just talks about getting rid of some.
Nah, not just Fortune.
Let's face it, the two most important statistics for the Street are revenue and EPS.
I realize that there are financial articles by a variety of sources about market cap (or any other financial barometer), but as long as CFOs still read Fortune, revenue is the benchmark. I never said that revenue was the only measurement of a company's fiscal health, just that is was equivalent to "large". And large doesn't necessarily mean good, healthy, efficient, etc.
If you want to assess a company's overall value, there are probably 20-30 financial statistics to consider, plus intangible/subjective ratings like what they do to combat climate change or how they treat employees.
Revenue is relative to Costs of Maintenance including Labor Costs, plus the outstanding Debt of the Company.
Apple has zero debt, extremely High Revenue to Costs and the largest market cap.
And some customers on this board clearly care, and may be a sign of trouble in paradise.
People like you would surely wish that.
Apple's is, I believe, the most respected company in the world. Apple's reputation is so valuable it cannot be priced, but it may be worth more that all that cash that they have in the bank. If many people begin to believe (with a basis in truth) that Apple is not a "good" corporate citizen, Apple will be badly hurt.
See above.
And Bill Gates money is doing so much good. Maybe you should look at the performance of his charter schools. They are awful.
Big deal. It's his money, and he can do with it as he pleases.
Would you rather he burnt it to heat his home with it?
And Bill Gates money is doing so much good. Maybe you should look at the performance of his charter schools. They are awful. Steve can do what he wants with his money. He earned it. Apple does some philanthropy they just don't brag about it.
I don't know what Bill Gates does with his charter schools, and frankly this is the first I've heard of this initiative of his, but at least he's trying to do good with his money. I'm no MS fan, but I'm sure there is more to the story as the educational system in this country is f&cked. And I gotta say, I LOL'd by your 'Apple does *some* philanthropy..." I'd love to see *some* quantified.
There are some very powerful reasons for corporation to give back to the community: their millions of customers. If customers care enough, and if the corporation does not respond, shareholders will be royally screwed. And some customers on this board clearly care, and that may be a sign of trouble in paradise.
Apple's is, I believe, the most respected company in the world. Apple's reputation is so valuable it cannot be priced, but it may be worth more that all that cash that they have in the bank. If many people begin to believe (with a basis in truth) that Apple is not a "good" corporate citizen, Apple will be badly hurt.
If customers care enough, thats the point, Apple have done less in the contributions arena, really customers do not care because at end of the day, the customers are focused on great products. We can discuss this area at length, but proof is the profit being generated and little discussion occurring on Apple's giving to the community.
Ok, so saying Apple giving back to the community by means of them selling their products to schools is philanthropy? Give me a break.
Who said anything about 'philanthropy'? You really need to grapple with the fact that corporations - and that includes MSFT and BRK - are not in the philanthropy business. They are in the shareholder value creation business. Your wishing for something else will not make that happen, and more importantly, it should not.
Gates and Buffett, otoh, can surely be in the philanthropy business (as a consequence of all the wealth that their respective corporations have created for them), just as Jobs could be/should be/perhaps is, in spades, and we don't know/perhaps will be after his death/etc/etc. That is their choosing.
Funny how the haters always seem to move on to the next talking point. Market share, market capitalization, revenue, profit, margins, and now philanthropy. Nothing Apple does will ever satisfy them. Apple has surpassed every other tech company in most of those metrics so now we start hearing about the cash "hoard" and how stingy Apple and Jobs are. Will it ever end? Nope. There will always be the next talking point to bash with.
Actually, I think the haters are just people who are bitter that they didn't buy AAPL at $240 in August last year, or $90 back in 2009, or a split-adjusted $45 back in 2005, or...
People like you would surely wish that.
Well I think that successful corporations have a responsibility beyond just profits. Apple obviously believes that too (see their environmental policies). So you obviously disagree with Apple.
Does that make you feel silly or superior?
Big deal. It's his money, and he can do with it as he pleases.
Would you rather he burnt it to heat his home with it?
Ok, so Steve Jobs created $340 billion of value for Apple, its investors, consumers, and fans (note I left out communities). So when he dies would you rather he take it to his grave since it's 'his' money?