Dividend seen bringing $4B additional investment dollars to Apple

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 86
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shompa View Post


    Delist the company and focus on making the best products in the world. That is what Steve wants.



    I seriously, SERIOUSLY doubt that.
  • Reply 42 of 86
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tjwal View Post


    Selling covered calls is a good way to lose your good stocks and keep your bad ones.



    That's one way to look at it, but every case is different. For someone who wants to take profits on a portion of their holdings at a given price they can make a lot of sense. Also, for a stock that fluctuates wildly like aapl they can increase your income greatly if you're looking to cash in on some of the swings. When aapl hits a new high there's usually a pretty big sell-off coming soon.



    Like I said, they're not perfect. But it's another tool you can use to take advantage of the money you've invested in aapl.
  • Reply 43 of 86
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mcarling View Post


    The day Apple start paying dividends is the day I will sell all my AAPL.



    You won't be the only one.
  • Reply 44 of 86
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shompa View Post


    Apple should buy back shares.

    With todays idiotic value of Apple, the stock is dirt cheap.



    Not a bad idea.
  • Reply 45 of 86
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tjwal View Post


    A stock split would sure be nice. It would expand the investor base. This may or may not raise the stock price but it would provide a lot of inertia that would tend to inhibit stock manipulation.



    Splits are quite irrelevant.
  • Reply 46 of 86
    That war chest is strategic to Apple kicking everyones' asses in the supply chain.
  • Reply 47 of 86
    Why?... once you start down the dividend road, its almost expected that it should grow at least annually.... that's a big comittment for a tech company....



    On the other hand, a share buy back can be quantified by the amount of money set aside and is conditional on pulling a trigger as a business decision. This is more in Apple style.



    If the stock market tanks... many great opportunities will abound.... even an anti-trust acquision that would never pass muster would have a chance (to save jobs and create stability).



    A buy back would also help offset the dilution of stock options that are looming just down the road and help push them into the money for all the top executives who just got big grants.



    Bet on the stock buy back if you think Apple might change its long-standing policy.



  • Reply 48 of 86
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KC_150 View Post


    I disagree to have dividend and stock price split as well. Keep the reserve to buy out Gxxgle and SamSxxg.



    I would love to see a stock split and then have the value go back up to this $350+ range. The analysts would drop a load trying to come up with the reasons why, blah blah
  • Reply 49 of 86
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post


    That alone indicates that there are criminals running Wall Street and Apple has no direct control over that.



    "Twas ever thus". .....
  • Reply 50 of 86
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post




    I'd much rather apple see Apple invest in their business. They have less than 10 retail stores in China, they should probably have 1,000. They need to build data centers around the globe to support iCloud/Siri rollouts and upgrades.



    This is likely exactly what they are doing, but it takes time to work through the politics etc
  • Reply 51 of 86
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post


    I've seen this proposal countless times in many tech forums, but not in the press or by analysts.



    Why? Because it makes no sense. Apple considers mobile operators to be dumb pipes. Cellular companies are like utilities and don't bring any value add to the equation.



    I think something similar could have been said at one time about processor manufacturers. And retail establishments.



    Recall Apple got lucky AT&T was desperate enough to hand over control to Apple on those first iphones...



    The argument would be that a carrier (not Sprint) would provide Apple with a way to market its television product as an integrated solution. you turn it on and it works. Recall that while recuperating from liver transplant surgery, Steve Jobs called the CEO of Comcast to tell him that his HD product sucked...



    Cellular companies ARE like utilities ... and these pipes become quite valuable when there are capacity constraints.



    If you are going to reinvent television...maybe do away with television networks...you better have the bandwidth on hand to transmit all that stuff turnkey. You already know about the issues regarding how much pipe is required by just Netflix and how the carriers want to stick it to Netflix users....this is going to be people watching HDTV all day!...



    Can Apple reinvent television while relying on the current carriers to just pass the data through?
  • Reply 52 of 86
    cameronjcameronj Posts: 2,357member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post


    Increased vertical integration. More retail. The ability to further integrate the hardware, software and network.



    All just a WAG, however. My only real evidence is Apple making a loan to Sprint that dwarfs Sprints annual income, combined with reports that it may endanger Sprint's survival.



    Why would Apple enter into such an agreement?



    Because it is in no way shape or form similar to a loan. It's an agreement to sell phones. If Sprint goes bankrupt apple does not lose anything. Buying sprint would be incredibly stupid, thank god they have professionals running apple not forum amateurs.
  • Reply 53 of 86
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sammy Davis View Post


    If you are going to reinvent television...maybe do away with television networks...you better have the bandwidth on hand to transmit all that stuff turnkey. You already know about the issues regarding how much pipe is required by just Netflix and how the carriers want to stick it to Netflix users....this is going to be people watching HDTV all day!...



    Can Apple reinvent television while relying on the current carriers to just pass the data through?



    The problem with television isn't bandwidth: there's plenty of that for streaming movies and regular programs.



    The challenge is the content deals, and a large part of that is driven by major sports leagues, cable companies, and television networks. It's the live content with local blackout rules, exclusivity, etc. that makes access via Internet an issue. A few of the leagues have stepped into the tepid waters, but even then one really can't have a choice of every single game.



    If television is to be reinvented, it must be addressed beyond the narrow Netflix/Hulu/whatever mindset since those services aren't broadcasting the NFL, the Olympics, or the World Cup.
  • Reply 54 of 86
    cameronjcameronj Posts: 2,357member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post


    I do not want dividends. I don't like the fact that Apple is earning zilch on its cash pile, but I don't see how I could do any better if they returned the cash to me as a stockholder.



    Wow, you don't think you could do better than zero return on your money? You really have no prospects in life, huh? That's pitiful. I personally think I can make money with my money. I guess I'm part of the 1%, huh?
  • Reply 55 of 86
    cameronjcameronj Posts: 2,357member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


    That war chest is strategic to Apple kicking everyones' asses in the supply chain.



    Agreed. If Apple only had 40 billion in the bank their competitors would think "this Apple is really falling apart, we can drive a hard bargain with Samsung and the like now". Thankfully that extra 40 billion on top of the first 40 billion keeps them at bay. Hopefully the next 20 billion convinces them to stop competing at all!



    Duh.
  • Reply 56 of 86
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cameronj View Post


    thank god they have professionals running apple not forum amateurs.



    2006: The xMac is released. The Mac Pro, iMac, and Mac Mini are discontinued.

    2007: The iPhone, complete with slide-down keyboard, 3G, and thumbprint scanner, is released. Apple's included stylus is found to be lacking, so third-party stylus sales soar.

    2008: The MacBook Slate, a 4 pound laptop with a 2.5" SSD and the thinnest Blu-ray drive ever (.5x speed) is released. It has a touchscreen and it swivels around to become a tablet. Novelty giant styluses are sold.

    2009: Mac OS 10.6, Lion, is released. Lion obviously includes Rosetta support and reintroduces the Classic environment on Intel with a new extension allowing for Motorola backwards compatibility. Apple also starts shipping computers with USB 3.0 after having removed all FireWire ports during the previous year.

    2010: The iSlate is released. Its 7" screen and physical keyboard make it an instant confuser. The industry bashes it as "A small MacBook Slate" and hates its pathetic battery life, blaming the built-in Blu-ray drive. Apple insists it's a new kind of product. Mid-size styluses increase in popularity.

    2011: The 5th iPhone is released. It is the second model to include LTE and WiMAX and now sports a 5" display, allowing for the largest slide-down physical keyboard in the cell phone industry.

    2012: Apple is rumored to release a 50" HDTV with DirecTV's, Dish Network's, and Comcast's software suites built in for easy access to modern programming presentation formats.



    I hope that hurts you as much to read as it hurt me to write. I think I've covered basically every fringe-case cliche this place has ever seen.
  • Reply 57 of 86
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post


    My guess is that Apple is going to own Sprint within the next few years.



    Sprint bet the company, and incurred more debt to Apple than was wise. My guess is that all that debt is secured with first-priority security interests in all of Sprints assets. Sprint may well run into liquidity problems and be unable to pay its debts as they become due. Apple is in a perfect position to swoop in and cut a deal with the Trustee.



    A couple of things wrong with this:
    • Sprint has no "debt" to Apple. They have a contractual obligation to buy a certain number of iOS devices at certain prices. There is no secured debt.

    • If Sprint were unable to meet that obligation, it would not be in Apple's interest to try to sink the company into bankruptcy; this would the be most hostile of takeover attempts, and you don't destroy what you want to acquire

    • If Apple wanted Sprint, they could just buy them outright without all the machinations and drama a contract showdown and legal battle would create

  • Reply 58 of 86
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Splits are quite irrelevant.



    Absolutely wrong.



    On paper, stock splits SHOULD be irrelevant, but there's plenty of evidence that some types of stocks do better after splits. Prices of several hundred dollars per share scare off small investors and reduce your investing pool.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cameronj View Post


    Wow, you don't think you could do better than zero return on your money? You really have no prospects in life, huh? That's pitiful. I personally think I can make money with my money. I guess I'm part of the 1%, huh?



    I don't think any long term Apple investors are crying about the return on their investment.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shompa View Post


    Apple should buy back shares.

    With todays idiotic value of Apple, the stock is dirt cheap.



    That's certainly one option - and might make some sense, particularly on the dips.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shompa View Post


    If Apple continues to grow like they have for the last 10 years, Apple will have enough cash 2014 to buy every single share of AAPL.



    It doesn't work that way. As they buy up shares, the remaining shares increase in value. Apple's current market cap is $360 B. If they bought every share but one, the remaining share would be worth $360 B (in theory).



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shompa View Post


    Delist the company and focus on making the best products in the world. That is what Steve wants.



    Apple's not going there.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ssls6 View Post


    What I want to see under Cook....leverage the brand and go for their throats.



    1) Launch a $500 notebook & desktop, pocket around $100 per sku. Stop ignoring this market.



    They're not ignoring the cheapskate market. That's what the iPad and iPod Touch are for.



    Notebook and desktop for under $500? Not a chance. In order to do that profitably, they'd have to make too many compromises and end up selling a junk product - which would merely tarnish their brand.



    They're not going to accept 20% margins, either.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ssls6 View Post


    2) Add phone models to the lineup or license I0S to select makers, pocket about $50 per sku. Allow the partner to use the A5 or whatever to help drive down costs. Position the phones under your flagship, using old models for you "no-cost" option isn't a great strategy. Make the industry work for you not against you.



    They're not going to license iOS to competitors. Just not going to happen. More phone models? Sure - as they come up with configurations where the sacrifices don't make it too much like a POS Android phone.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ssls6 View Post


    3) Expand Apple TV to include apps and Siri, put a mic in the simple remote. There are already apps to control cable, satellite receivers.



    There has been plenty of speculation on that one and it could happen - if Apple can find a way to make it work well.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ssls6 View Post


    Once you've thrown down a challenge, you must play offense and defense....defense alone will not do it.



    Since when has Apple been playing defense? Have you been sleeping for the past 15 years?
  • Reply 59 of 86
    How is the divided bringing $4 billion of new investment dollars to Apple?



    1. Apple issues $4 billion of new shares? With no dilution?



    2. Or the dividend is paid and the demand for Apple stock increases so the market cap goes up $4 billion?

    From $360 billion to $364 billion? Or about 1% increase? Apple is up 2% today alone.



    What's this guy saying?
  • Reply 60 of 86
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,511member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chabig View Post


    Even if another $4 billion is invested in Apple stock, the company doesn't get any of the money.



    No, but the shareholders do, in the form of increased price per share.



    Thompson
Sign In or Register to comment.