Well, I don't want to see a buyback, as that never does anything, and I don't want to see some massive purchase.
Cook already has said that they investigated a split, and that they didn't see an advantage to it. A would agree with that. Maybe when it gets to $1,000.
I don't want to see them in manufacturing, though investing in others plants is what they do. They paid for half of Samsung's plant in Texas where their SoC's are made.
But none of that would be enough to hold a conference. It has to be something substantial. By that, I don't mean they they have to do some major change to their usage. I mean that they have to make a substantial statement as to what they are going to do, no matter what it is—even if it is to announce that they are doing nothing after all. I don't think theat would be it though.
Possibly a one time payout, or a dividend, or some combo of the two.
I agree on the buyback -- just shuffling deck chairs...
A substantial split would open the stock to the smaller investor -- advantages and disadvantages...
We discussed before an OTPC (One [iPad] Tablet Per Child) offering -- they could set up and administer a matching fund... supplying iPads at cost (or below) and setting up infrastructure in underdeveloped countries. There could be some substantial tax benefits to this if structured correctly. And, as we discussed I really like the long term potential for Apple and for humanity.
They could open up the iTunes store to "hard goods" -- Amazon done right!... Nah!
They could become a massive MVNO (possible), investing in a cableco (not likely), buy content or broadcast rights -- I like this the more I think about it.
Or, LOL, they could (to paraphrase Michael Dell) "payoff the shareholders and take Apple private".
Seems majority believe in a dividend and or a split over a buy back.
I support that but...am in Hollywood...work in the entertainment industry and for my money two acquisitions (not that they'd announce it tomorrow) make a whole lotta sense to some of us here.
1) Netflix - Why? Content deals. Apple needs to secure it's position in this arena IF it's gonna go balls out in the TV Content world. Strange that suddenly you can now pay for your sub's in itunes. Just sayin.
2) Sprint - Why? Wireless is the future. Again if you were Apple and going full on into the TV arena and your not getting cooperation from content providers who (some) happen to also control the content pipes into our homes then you'd make a run for a pipe provider giving you access into homes wirelessly. As we heard, Apple is at first base and getting ready to roll out a major boost to WIFI delivery...The only way I see Apple gaining cooperation with content providers and developers like my employer is by having direct access. Thoughts?
Apple needs to make decisions that benefit the board and the shareholders. While some options may provide an immediate kick to the shareholders (dividend or one time disbursement), it may adversely affect the company over the long term. I'm in favor of Apple making long-term decisions, not just quarter-to-quarter decisions.
Seems majority believe in a dividend and or a split over a buy back.
I support that but...am in Hollywood...work in the entertainment industry and for my money two acquisitions (not that they'd announce it tomorrow) make a whole lotta sense to some of us here.
1) Netflix - Why? Content deals. Apple needs to secure it's position in this arena IF it's gonna go balls out in the TV Content world. Strange that suddenly you can now pay for your sub's in itunes. Just sayin.
2) Sprint - Why? Wireless is the future. Again if you were Apple and going full on into the TV arena and your not getting cooperation from content providers who (some) happen to also control the content pipes into our homes then you'd make a run for a pipe provider giving you access into homes wirelessly. As we heard, Apple is at first base and getting ready to roll out a major boost to WIFI delivery...The only way I see Apple gaining cooperation with content providers and developers like my employer is by having direct access. Thoughts?
Netflix is way overpriced, and has a number of problems. Sprint isn't a good idea because it's always bad to go into competition with your customers . And, yes, the carriers are their customers too, as are we.
Not on the 9AM (Eastern) call, but I would not be surprised if later on in the day or Tuesday they issue a separate press release announcing weekend sales. Whatever they decided to do with cash will have a significant impact on their stock trading activity tomorrow, and so might speculation about iPad sales. I'm guessing the board met this weekend to approve whatever Tim Cook and Peter Oppenheimer will announce, though I find it a bid odd they decided to do it the same weekend the new iPad launched.
I just can't resist...
Apple is going to pay down the cost of Algore's carbon footprint
If you wanted that you should have bought Microsoft during it's rise. They've overly split the stock to a point now that it will never go up for squat.
Surely they fact is MS won't go up based on crap products not because of stock splits?
I agree on the buyback -- just shuffling deck chairs...
A substantial split would open the stock to the smaller investor -- advantages and disadvantages...
We discussed before an OTPC (One [iPad] Tablet Per Child) offering -- they could set up and administer a matching fund... supplying iPads at cost (or below) and setting up infrastructure in underdeveloped countries. There could be some substantial tax benefits to this if structured correctly. And, as we discussed I really like the long term potential for Apple and for humanity.
They could open up the iTunes store to "hard goods" -- Amazon done right!... Nah!
They could become a massive MVNO (possible), investing in a cableco (not likely), buy content or broadcast rights -- I like this the more I think about it.
Or, LOL, they could (to paraphrase Michael Dell) "payoff the shareholders and take Apple private".
On Apple's site, they do say that this is about the cash, so I don't think it would be about anything else, unless they did have some numbers to give us.
Very interesting. They want to be able to have a dramatic impact on the market it would seem.
Problems I see with a huge dividend are the percentage of the money outside the US, and the major capital investments in their campus(es). They can do it from LT investment money, but that seems odd.
Don't really want the $100B to become $75B after paying taxes on offshore money to the US.
What do you mean by distributed? They're given quarter by quarter, so if, for example, Apple were to be very generous and give $20 a share per year, we'd get $5 a quarter. I don't know if that answers your question, or if it has nothing to do with it.
Is your example the dollar value you think dividends would be distributed?
Apple needs to make decisions that benefit the board and the shareholders. While some options may provide an immediate kick to the shareholders (dividend or one time disbursement), it may adversely affect the company over the long term. I'm in favor of Apple making long-term decisions, not just quarter-to-quarter decisions.
It's been pointed out in a number of articles that Apple will generate at least $40 billion in cash during 2012, and possibly 50% more?$60 billion. They could easily give a $20 a share dividend, and still accumulate a lot of cash. In 2013, unless something unusually adverse occurs, they will generate a good deal more cash than that, and so on.
I've been against dividends and cash disbursements for years concerning Apple. But when they reached $50 billion I began to think differently. Now, they've got to do something. There is no need for that amount of cash. Apple has NO long term debt to pay off, or medium term debt to pay off where cash would be a good backup in case of some severe economic turndown like the last one. But they don't need it for that.
So, what DO they need it for? Does it matter if they now have $105 billion (by the end of the quarter), or $85 billion? By the end of next quarter, they will have added another $10 billion anyway. The quarter after that, they will be back where they will be in a few weeks, maybe even more.
Totally disagree! My daughter started using my Mac when she was 2 1/2 years old. By the time she was three, she was reading books. She was one of a very few who was reading well by kindergarten.
We bought her books such as Grandma and Me, plus D&K dictionary, and a number of other programs. She loved them! I think that kids should get on computers as soon as they can manipulate them. They are amazingly strong learners.
But you have to buy the right programs. Junk isn't the way to go.
Only one I think they would buy (if it ever made any sense) would be Sharp.
It's tough to buy Asian and European companies. The governments there aren't happy about that. It's even difficult to learn what these companies are comprised of in Asia. They are part of groups that are very opaque. Their accounting is different from ours, and the laws in most Asian countries allow companies to hide a lot of cash, and debt.
One example. A lot of Japanese and Korean companies own banks. Those banks then make loans to the companies that own them, as well as to companies involved in the groups in which they are part of. But, they also make loans to banks owned by other groups, and receive loans from them. They are all interconnected. It's difficult to pry them apart.
Samsung, as an example, has numerous divisions, and sister companies, all of which issue their own stock. Very confusing as they use different accounting rules.
Is your example the dollar value you think dividends would be distributed?
If they do give a dividend, I think it could be anywhere from a low of $5 per share, to $25. That's per year. Of course, no one knows what their thinking on this is.
Seems majority believe in a dividend and or a split over a buy back.
Not me. A dividend does not historically increase the share price of a growth stock. For example, look at the big Microsoft one-time dividend a year ago. The share price dropped by almost exactly the amount of the dividend.
And Microsoft's share price growth has been far lower than Apple's - and MS offers a dividend and Apple does not. There's no evidence that a dividend increases the share price of growth stocks - and people like Warren Buffet are staunchly opposed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gijoeinla
I support that but...am in Hollywood...work in the entertainment industry and for my money two acquisitions (not that they'd announce it tomorrow) make a whole lotta sense to some of us here.
1) Netflix - Why? Content deals. Apple needs to secure it's position in this arena IF it's gonna go balls out in the TV Content world. Strange that suddenly you can now pay for your sub's in itunes. Just sayin.
2) Sprint - Why? Wireless is the future. Again if you were Apple and going full on into the TV arena and your not getting cooperation from content providers who (some) happen to also control the content pipes into our homes then you'd make a run for a pipe provider giving you access into homes wirelessly. As we heard, Apple is at first base and getting ready to roll out a major boost to WIFI delivery...The only way I see Apple gaining cooperation with content providers and developers like my employer is by having direct access. Thoughts?
Both terrible examples. In both cases, Apple's success depends on having access to all content and carriers. Choosing only one puts them in competition with key partners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Generally, a dividend causes a rise in price, though that may not last.
That's not at all true. A large one-time dividend causes a drop in share price roughly equal to the value of the dividend. If it's an ongoing dividend, there's no evidence that dividends are correlated with share price. Some of the fastest growing stocks (Berkshire Hathaway and AAPL, for example) do NOT pay dividends.
But feel free to provide evidence to support the claim that a dividend generally increases share price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Paying an additional 35% would be ridiculous. They have already paid taxes on this money.
Not quite true.
They pay taxes in local currency on money earned in other countries. If they repatriate the money, they pay taxes based on US tax rates - BUT they get to deduct the amount paid on foreign countries. So, in effect, if they want the money back in the U.S., the total tax rate they pay will be US tax rates, so there's no double taxation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I agree on the buyback -- just shuffling deck chairs...
A substantial split would open the stock to the smaller investor -- advantages and disadvantages...
Actually, you have it backwards.
A split is shuffling deck chairs. It has absolutely no impact on the ratios or the split-adjusted share price. Evidence is pretty clear that while a split might have a very short term benefit, that goes away quickly.
OTOH, a buy-back has a very real effect. There are 930 M shares in circulation right now. The per-share earnings are $X divided by 930 M. If Apple buys back 30 M shares, then the per-share earnings are $X divided by only 900 M, so earnings per share are increased - permanently.
Whatever multiple the investor uses will be based on the new share price, so the price would increase proportionally. That is, if they buy back 5% of the shares, the share price will increase approximately 5%.
To clear up some of the continuing confusion about tomorrow, this is directly from Apple's investor's page:
Quote:
Apple Conference Call
Tim Cook, Apple's CEO, and Peter Oppenheimer, Apple's CFO, will host a Conference Call on Monday, March 19, 2012 at 6:00 a.m. PT to announce the outcome of the Company's discussions concerning its cash balance. Apple will not be providing an update on the current quarter nor will any topics be discussed other than cash.
Comments
How about a bounty on Daisey's head.
I was think of buying FoxConn and putting him in charge.
Transferring this post from another thread;
Well, I don't want to see a buyback, as that never does anything, and I don't want to see some massive purchase.
Cook already has said that they investigated a split, and that they didn't see an advantage to it. A would agree with that. Maybe when it gets to $1,000.
I don't want to see them in manufacturing, though investing in others plants is what they do. They paid for half of Samsung's plant in Texas where their SoC's are made.
But none of that would be enough to hold a conference. It has to be something substantial. By that, I don't mean they they have to do some major change to their usage. I mean that they have to make a substantial statement as to what they are going to do, no matter what it is—even if it is to announce that they are doing nothing after all. I don't think theat would be it though.
Possibly a one time payout, or a dividend, or some combo of the two.
I agree on the buyback -- just shuffling deck chairs...
A substantial split would open the stock to the smaller investor -- advantages and disadvantages...
We discussed before an OTPC (One [iPad] Tablet Per Child) offering -- they could set up and administer a matching fund... supplying iPads at cost (or below) and setting up infrastructure in underdeveloped countries. There could be some substantial tax benefits to this if structured correctly. And, as we discussed I really like the long term potential for Apple and for humanity.
They could open up the iTunes store to "hard goods" -- Amazon done right!... Nah!
They could become a massive MVNO (possible), investing in a cableco (not likely), buy content or broadcast rights -- I like this the more I think about it.
Or, LOL, they could (to paraphrase Michael Dell) "payoff the shareholders and take Apple private".
I have always thought that to be a good idea. Then all chips for all their products would be in-house.
Except that AMD sucks. Really badly. And they no longer have their own chip production. That's putting them at an even worse disadvantage.
Wow
Read all the posts.
Seems majority believe in a dividend and or a split over a buy back.
I support that but...am in Hollywood...work in the entertainment industry and for my money two acquisitions (not that they'd announce it tomorrow) make a whole lotta sense to some of us here.
1) Netflix - Why? Content deals. Apple needs to secure it's position in this arena IF it's gonna go balls out in the TV Content world. Strange that suddenly you can now pay for your sub's in itunes. Just sayin.
2) Sprint - Why? Wireless is the future. Again if you were Apple and going full on into the TV arena and your not getting cooperation from content providers who (some) happen to also control the content pipes into our homes then you'd make a run for a pipe provider giving you access into homes wirelessly. As we heard, Apple is at first base and getting ready to roll out a major boost to WIFI delivery...The only way I see Apple gaining cooperation with content providers and developers like my employer is by having direct access. Thoughts?
Apple needs to make decisions that benefit the board and the shareholders. While some options may provide an immediate kick to the shareholders (dividend or one time disbursement), it may adversely affect the company over the long term. I'm in favor of Apple making long-term decisions, not just quarter-to-quarter decisions.
Wow
Read all the posts.
Seems majority believe in a dividend and or a split over a buy back.
I support that but...am in Hollywood...work in the entertainment industry and for my money two acquisitions (not that they'd announce it tomorrow) make a whole lotta sense to some of us here.
1) Netflix - Why? Content deals. Apple needs to secure it's position in this arena IF it's gonna go balls out in the TV Content world. Strange that suddenly you can now pay for your sub's in itunes. Just sayin.
2) Sprint - Why? Wireless is the future. Again if you were Apple and going full on into the TV arena and your not getting cooperation from content providers who (some) happen to also control the content pipes into our homes then you'd make a run for a pipe provider giving you access into homes wirelessly. As we heard, Apple is at first base and getting ready to roll out a major boost to WIFI delivery...The only way I see Apple gaining cooperation with content providers and developers like my employer is by having direct access. Thoughts?
Netflix is way overpriced, and has a number of problems. Sprint isn't a good idea because it's always bad to go into competition with your customers . And, yes, the carriers are their customers too, as are we.
Not on the 9AM (Eastern) call, but I would not be surprised if later on in the day or Tuesday they issue a separate press release announcing weekend sales. Whatever they decided to do with cash will have a significant impact on their stock trading activity tomorrow, and so might speculation about iPad sales. I'm guessing the board met this weekend to approve whatever Tim Cook and Peter Oppenheimer will announce, though I find it a bid odd they decided to do it the same weekend the new iPad launched.
I just can't resist...
Apple is going to pay down the cost of Algore's carbon footprint
Ha!! Tim announces that Apple is buying a well known Japanese TV manufacture.
Can't be Sony. They don't make Tv's anymore.
If you wanted that you should have bought Microsoft during it's rise. They've overly split the stock to a point now that it will never go up for squat.
Surely they fact is MS won't go up based on crap products not because of stock splits?
Can't be Sony. They don't make Tv's anymore.
Only one I think they would buy (if it ever made any sense) would be Sharp.
Transferring this post from another thread;
I agree on the buyback -- just shuffling deck chairs...
A substantial split would open the stock to the smaller investor -- advantages and disadvantages...
We discussed before an OTPC (One [iPad] Tablet Per Child) offering -- they could set up and administer a matching fund... supplying iPads at cost (or below) and setting up infrastructure in underdeveloped countries. There could be some substantial tax benefits to this if structured correctly. And, as we discussed I really like the long term potential for Apple and for humanity.
They could open up the iTunes store to "hard goods" -- Amazon done right!... Nah!
They could become a massive MVNO (possible), investing in a cableco (not likely), buy content or broadcast rights -- I like this the more I think about it.
Or, LOL, they could (to paraphrase Michael Dell) "payoff the shareholders and take Apple private".
On Apple's site, they do say that this is about the cash, so I don't think it would be about anything else, unless they did have some numbers to give us.
Very interesting. They want to be able to have a dramatic impact on the market it would seem.
Problems I see with a huge dividend are the percentage of the money outside the US, and the major capital investments in their campus(es). They can do it from LT investment money, but that seems odd.
Don't really want the $100B to become $75B after paying taxes on offshore money to the US.
Maybe Tim just wants to ring the bell
What do you mean by distributed? They're given quarter by quarter, so if, for example, Apple were to be very generous and give $20 a share per year, we'd get $5 a quarter. I don't know if that answers your question, or if it has nothing to do with it.
Is your example the dollar value you think dividends would be distributed?
Apple needs to make decisions that benefit the board and the shareholders. While some options may provide an immediate kick to the shareholders (dividend or one time disbursement), it may adversely affect the company over the long term. I'm in favor of Apple making long-term decisions, not just quarter-to-quarter decisions.
It's been pointed out in a number of articles that Apple will generate at least $40 billion in cash during 2012, and possibly 50% more?$60 billion. They could easily give a $20 a share dividend, and still accumulate a lot of cash. In 2013, unless something unusually adverse occurs, they will generate a good deal more cash than that, and so on.
I've been against dividends and cash disbursements for years concerning Apple. But when they reached $50 billion I began to think differently. Now, they've got to do something. There is no need for that amount of cash. Apple has NO long term debt to pay off, or medium term debt to pay off where cash would be a good backup in case of some severe economic turndown like the last one. But they don't need it for that.
So, what DO they need it for? Does it matter if they now have $105 billion (by the end of the quarter), or $85 billion? By the end of next quarter, they will have added another $10 billion anyway. The quarter after that, they will be back where they will be in a few weeks, maybe even more.
Seriously, cash is not a problem for them.
STeVEN: Superior Tim-expunging Virtual Executive Nomographer
Maybe Tim just wants to ring the bell
Totally disagree! My daughter started using my Mac when she was 2 1/2 years old. By the time she was three, she was reading books. She was one of a very few who was reading well by kindergarten.
We bought her books such as Grandma and Me, plus D&K dictionary, and a number of other programs. She loved them! I think that kids should get on computers as soon as they can manipulate them. They are amazingly strong learners.
But you have to buy the right programs. Junk isn't the way to go.
Totally agree.
Only one I think they would buy (if it ever made any sense) would be Sharp.
It's tough to buy Asian and European companies. The governments there aren't happy about that. It's even difficult to learn what these companies are comprised of in Asia. They are part of groups that are very opaque. Their accounting is different from ours, and the laws in most Asian countries allow companies to hide a lot of cash, and debt.
One example. A lot of Japanese and Korean companies own banks. Those banks then make loans to the companies that own them, as well as to companies involved in the groups in which they are part of. But, they also make loans to banks owned by other groups, and receive loans from them. They are all interconnected. It's difficult to pry them apart.
Samsung, as an example, has numerous divisions, and sister companies, all of which issue their own stock. Very confusing as they use different accounting rules.
Is your example the dollar value you think dividends would be distributed?
If they do give a dividend, I think it could be anywhere from a low of $5 per share, to $25. That's per year. Of course, no one knows what their thinking on this is.
Wow
Read all the posts.
Seems majority believe in a dividend and or a split over a buy back.
Not me. A dividend does not historically increase the share price of a growth stock. For example, look at the big Microsoft one-time dividend a year ago. The share price dropped by almost exactly the amount of the dividend.
And Microsoft's share price growth has been far lower than Apple's - and MS offers a dividend and Apple does not. There's no evidence that a dividend increases the share price of growth stocks - and people like Warren Buffet are staunchly opposed.
I support that but...am in Hollywood...work in the entertainment industry and for my money two acquisitions (not that they'd announce it tomorrow) make a whole lotta sense to some of us here.
1) Netflix - Why? Content deals. Apple needs to secure it's position in this arena IF it's gonna go balls out in the TV Content world. Strange that suddenly you can now pay for your sub's in itunes. Just sayin.
2) Sprint - Why? Wireless is the future. Again if you were Apple and going full on into the TV arena and your not getting cooperation from content providers who (some) happen to also control the content pipes into our homes then you'd make a run for a pipe provider giving you access into homes wirelessly. As we heard, Apple is at first base and getting ready to roll out a major boost to WIFI delivery...The only way I see Apple gaining cooperation with content providers and developers like my employer is by having direct access. Thoughts?
Both terrible examples. In both cases, Apple's success depends on having access to all content and carriers. Choosing only one puts them in competition with key partners.
Generally, a dividend causes a rise in price, though that may not last.
That's not at all true. A large one-time dividend causes a drop in share price roughly equal to the value of the dividend. If it's an ongoing dividend, there's no evidence that dividends are correlated with share price. Some of the fastest growing stocks (Berkshire Hathaway and AAPL, for example) do NOT pay dividends.
But feel free to provide evidence to support the claim that a dividend generally increases share price.
Paying an additional 35% would be ridiculous. They have already paid taxes on this money.
Not quite true.
They pay taxes in local currency on money earned in other countries. If they repatriate the money, they pay taxes based on US tax rates - BUT they get to deduct the amount paid on foreign countries. So, in effect, if they want the money back in the U.S., the total tax rate they pay will be US tax rates, so there's no double taxation.
I agree on the buyback -- just shuffling deck chairs...
A substantial split would open the stock to the smaller investor -- advantages and disadvantages...
Actually, you have it backwards.
A split is shuffling deck chairs. It has absolutely no impact on the ratios or the split-adjusted share price. Evidence is pretty clear that while a split might have a very short term benefit, that goes away quickly.
OTOH, a buy-back has a very real effect. There are 930 M shares in circulation right now. The per-share earnings are $X divided by 930 M. If Apple buys back 30 M shares, then the per-share earnings are $X divided by only 900 M, so earnings per share are increased - permanently.
Whatever multiple the investor uses will be based on the new share price, so the price would increase proportionally. That is, if they buy back 5% of the shares, the share price will increase approximately 5%.
Apple Conference Call
Tim Cook, Apple's CEO, and Peter Oppenheimer, Apple's CFO, will host a Conference Call on Monday, March 19, 2012 at 6:00 a.m. PT to announce the outcome of the Company's discussions concerning its cash balance. Apple will not be providing an update on the current quarter nor will any topics be discussed other than cash.