I, too, support a split... it could open up AAPL to a lot of small investors and delete the influence/manipulation of the holders of large blocks of stock. Though, to be effective, it would need to be something like a 10 for 1 spit.
Won't that just drive up the transactional costs to the small investor? Hurting the people it was ostensibly meant to help?
Educate me! We primarily use Scottrade and Interactive Brokers... ST has the bulk of our AAPL holdings. They charge $7 per trade for 1 or 1,000,000 shares. So, we could trade AAPL (hypothetically split10 for 1 @ $63.17 -- for 1 share; or $63,170 for 1,000 shares. At this point in my life I have transferred much of my holdings to my daughter, now I want to do the same for my grandkids. But I do want to teach them about the market, and you can be more emotionally detached with a $63 price than $630.
When I first started experimenting with the market, I analyzed Channeling Stocks recommendations as an educational experiment -- and for the small transactions the fees were a major consideration... and they still are for some investments. But for long term investments, like AAPL, tax implications/timing rapidly became the major considerations.
Are there enough grannies and novice investors who want to only spend $63 on AAPL to make a material difference?
I'd love ten shares to sit on and wait until they hit 1,000 (100). I can't swing 6,300. I can swing 630. I imagine there would be a fair number of people who would benefit from lower prices.
You don't need the stock to split. You can buy 1 share now. One share at $630 is exactly the same percentage of AAPL's capitalization as 10 shares at $63 would be.
I'm finished banging my head against a wall. Over. Out.
This disparity between the very low federal tax rates on dividends or stock appreciation income and the much higher taxes that workers pay has resulted in criticism from even the very wealthy.
Dilger doing his usual bang up job of inserting his own bias into every post. Nice.
Wake up! This is not Dilger bias, it is fact supported by non other than financial experts like Warren Buffet. So before you make such asinine comments you should try to get yourself a good education on the issues, and the facts.
Are there enough grannies and novice investors who want to only spend $63 on AAPL to make a material difference?
I'd love ten shares to sit on and wait until they hit 1,000 (100). I can't swing 6,300. I can swing 630. I imagine there would be a fair number of people who would benefit from lower prices.
That pretty much encapsulates my logic -- see my post following yours. My initial investment in AAPL was 100 shares @ $17... $1,707. This was a pretty big portion of the money I had set aside for investment in the market. But it gave me the flexibility to watch, learn, try! It was a big enough investment that it had my attention -- but not so big to discolor my reasoning,
You don't need the stock to split. You can buy 1 share now. One share at $630 is exactly the same percentage of AAPL's capitalization as 10 shares at $63 would be.
I'm finished banging my head against a wall. Over. Out.
… You don't seem to get it. What if someone can only do 500? They can't even buy one share. I picked easy numbers because I figured people would get see what I was saying with them.
I disagree with this refund, er, "dividend" Apple is paying out when there's plenty of things for them to buy... Twitter, TomTom, Wolfram Alpha, Watson (for Siri) or building some manufacturing facilities so we can put some Americans back to work.
Not that they'd ever consider this, but they could afford to lower their profit margins a bit, making their technology more accessible and competitive with PC prices.
@cvaldes1831: good explanations. My only quibble is that you tacitly assume that nothing will be done about the expiration of the current
tax scheme. I think that something will be done between the election and the end of the year, so the taxes will not revert to the pre-2003 scheme.
I agree that there's a good chance that the tax breaks for qualified dividends and capital gains originally deployed in 2003 will be extended for a couple more years. However, the vote won't take place until after the November elections.
In any case, investors should plan for the worst (i.e., increased tax liability for investments in 2013 and beyond). Getting an extension of current tax laws would be a gift, not an entitlement.
As a private investor, that's really the only honest stance I can take at this time.
Yes, I was trying to make a subtle point that only US-based cash/cash equivalents are available to pay dividends.
Not true.
Apple is perfectly capable of repatriating overseas cash, but deliberately chooses not to do so because of taxes. If they pay the taxes, they can bring in the overseas money. Note that Apple could choose to bring repatriate a small amount of overseas cash; there's no requirement for Apple to repatriate everything at once.
Apple is not obligated to pay the same dividend all the time. If they ever ran low on US cash, they have the option of reducing dividend payouts to cover the taxes imposed to repatriate foreign cash. Naturally, that would infuriate shareholders and any company that did that might be able to use that against the government. Only a handful of US companies have the clout to play that card against the IRS, but my guess is that Apple is one of those companies.
And when I say shareholders, I mean FMR, Vanguard, State Street, BlackRock, T. Rowe Price, JP Morgan, Legg Mason, etc.
I disagree with this refund, er, "dividend" Apple is paying out when there's plenty of things for them to buy... Twitter, TomTom, Wolfram Alpha, Watson (for Siri) or building some manufacturing facilities so we can put some Americans back to work.
Not that they'd ever consider this, but they could afford to lower their profit margins a bit, making their technology more accessible and competitive with PC prices.
Well then, buy some AAPL shares and submit your proxy ballot.
… You don't seem to get it. What if someone can only do 500? They can't even buy one share. I picked easy numbers because I figured people would get see what I was saying with them.
Then that person can't buy a stock, nor SHOULD they buy a stock with their last $500. But either way, it doesn't have ANY impact on the stock itself, because the number of shareholders with that tiny amount of money to invest don't move the needle.
I still think the best thing to do is create a Apple Bank and link it to ITMS. Why pay transaction fees, when you can be a bank?
I actually agree with this. All of the very largest companies have their own banks or financial services divisions. I'd gladly keep my savings with iBank.
Stuck with billions they can't spend fast enough eh? They are more than welcome to pay off my debt. Out soccer stadium seats 24,000 people. My debt is less than that.
Apple has this excess cash because they didn't make foolish investments.
I actually agree with this. All of the very largest companies have their own banks or financial services divisions. I'd gladly keep my savings with iBank.
Long as you don't mind your PE of 15 or whatever it is now going down closer to bank stock territory! How does AAPL at $300 sound?
Doesn't sound like you know the definition of bias. The story isn't advocating anything, it's just describing the current tax situation for Apple investors new to dividends, and explaining that things are potentially about to change, noting the interests of both political parties in keeping things the way they are, or reverting to the tax rates under Clinton, which delivered the longest period of post war expansion in America.
As for those complaining that investors shouldn't pay standard income tax rates for investment income because the corporations already paid tax on their earnings, well then why should employees pay income tax, as they are earning pay from a corporation that has already paid taxes on its profits.
The concept of a income tax is that you charge a fee every time income is generated, without regard to whether effort has transpired (work) or not (investors). Of course, those who have money don't want to pay into the system that helped them make that money, and would rather have their employees paying for civilization from their wages. That's why the richest people in America are a few investors and everyone in the Walmart founders' family, who made their fortune off minimum wage workers with little to no benefits, and whose health insurance (and often food stamps and other basic living costs) are all largely subsidized by the government (that is, the rest of us).
You can add to the debate, or you can do what the rest of the investoconservatives do: complain that being rich makes you a victim of taxation, and that this class warfare is really distressing you as you are shuttled to your vacation home by servants.
I, too, support a split... it could open up AAPL to a lot of small investors and delete the influence/manipulation of the holders of large blocks of stock. Though, to be effective, it would need to be something like a 10 for 1 spit.
I do not support a split. It may provide a psychological boost and encourage more novice investors to buy shares, but I don't view that necessarily as a positive.
I do see Apple's planned stock buyback as a positive, however.
… You don't seem to get it. What if someone can only do 500? They can't even buy one share. I picked easy numbers because I figured people would get see what I was saying with them.
And YOU don't seem to get it. What if Apple does a 10:1 split and the price is $60 per share. But what if the person only has $50? They still have the same problem.
The fact is that no matter what the price, some people can't afford it. But the number of people is pretty small - and even if they can't afford Apple stock, they can buy a mutual fund which includes Apple stock.
Wake up! This is not Dilger bias, it is fact supported by non other than financial experts like Warren Buffet. So before you make such asinine comments you should try to get yourself a good education on the issues, and the facts.
I find it endlessly amusing that the people who are always the most eager to raise taxes want YOU to go first.
Here are some facts. Story links for everyone's favorite chummy, grinning, back-slapping billionaire:
I, too, support a split... it could open up AAPL to a lot of small investors and delete the influence/manipulation of the holders of large blocks of stock. Though, to be effective, it would need to be something like a 10 for 1 spit.
I do not support a split. It may provide a psychological boost and encourage more novice investors to buy shares, but I don't view that necessarily as a positive.
I do see Apple's planned stock buyback as a positive, however.
I don't know if this is still possible...
When I was a kid, my dad had some investment help... Somehow he got an investment in Southern California Edison. They paid a dividend, but there was some special tax exemption that they could enroll in to have the dividend used to buy additional shares. A relatively small investment in an income stock grew exponentially into a relative large investment in what turned out to be a growth stock.
Comments
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I, too, support a split... it could open up AAPL to a lot of small investors and delete the influence/manipulation of the holders of large blocks of stock. Though, to be effective, it would need to be something like a 10 for 1 spit.
Won't that just drive up the transactional costs to the small investor? Hurting the people it was ostensibly meant to help?
Educate me! We primarily use Scottrade and Interactive Brokers... ST has the bulk of our AAPL holdings. They charge $7 per trade for 1 or 1,000,000 shares. So, we could trade AAPL (hypothetically split10 for 1 @ $63.17 -- for 1 share; or $63,170 for 1,000 shares. At this point in my life I have transferred much of my holdings to my daughter, now I want to do the same for my grandkids. But I do want to teach them about the market, and you can be more emotionally detached with a $63 price than $630.
When I first started experimenting with the market, I analyzed Channeling Stocks recommendations as an educational experiment -- and for the small transactions the fees were a major consideration... and they still are for some investments. But for long term investments, like AAPL, tax implications/timing rapidly became the major considerations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by quinney
Are there enough grannies and novice investors who want to only spend $63 on AAPL to make a material difference?
I'd love ten shares to sit on and wait until they hit 1,000 (100). I can't swing 6,300. I can swing 630. I imagine there would be a fair number of people who would benefit from lower prices.
You don't need the stock to split. You can buy 1 share now. One share at $630 is exactly the same percentage of AAPL's capitalization as 10 shares at $63 would be.
I'm finished banging my head against a wall. Over. Out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
WTF is this doing in this story?
Quote:
This disparity between the very low federal tax rates on dividends or stock appreciation income and the much higher taxes that workers pay has resulted in criticism from even the very wealthy.
Dilger doing his usual bang up job of inserting his own bias into every post. Nice.
Wake up! This is not Dilger bias, it is fact supported by non other than financial experts like Warren Buffet. So before you make such asinine comments you should try to get yourself a good education on the issues, and the facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by quinney
Are there enough grannies and novice investors who want to only spend $63 on AAPL to make a material difference?
I'd love ten shares to sit on and wait until they hit 1,000 (100). I can't swing 6,300. I can swing 630. I imagine there would be a fair number of people who would benefit from lower prices.
That pretty much encapsulates my logic -- see my post following yours. My initial investment in AAPL was 100 shares @ $17... $1,707. This was a pretty big portion of the money I had set aside for investment in the market. But it gave me the flexibility to watch, learn, try! It was a big enough investment that it had my attention -- but not so big to discolor my reasoning,
Originally Posted by quinney
You don't need the stock to split. You can buy 1 share now. One share at $630 is exactly the same percentage of AAPL's capitalization as 10 shares at $63 would be.
I'm finished banging my head against a wall. Over. Out.
… You don't seem to get it. What if someone can only do 500? They can't even buy one share. I picked easy numbers because I figured people would get see what I was saying with them.
I disagree with this refund, er, "dividend" Apple is paying out when there's plenty of things for them to buy... Twitter, TomTom, Wolfram Alpha, Watson (for Siri) or building some manufacturing facilities so we can put some Americans back to work.
Not that they'd ever consider this, but they could afford to lower their profit margins a bit, making their technology more accessible and competitive with PC prices.
In any case, investors should plan for the worst (i.e., increased tax liability for investments in 2013 and beyond). Getting an extension of current tax laws would be a gift, not an entitlement.
As a private investor, that's really the only honest stance I can take at this time.
Not true.
Apple is perfectly capable of repatriating overseas cash, but deliberately chooses not to do so because of taxes. If they pay the taxes, they can bring in the overseas money. Note that Apple could choose to bring repatriate a small amount of overseas cash; there's no requirement for Apple to repatriate everything at once.
Apple is not obligated to pay the same dividend all the time. If they ever ran low on US cash, they have the option of reducing dividend payouts to cover the taxes imposed to repatriate foreign cash. Naturally, that would infuriate shareholders and any company that did that might be able to use that against the government. Only a handful of US companies have the clout to play that card against the IRS, but my guess is that Apple is one of those companies.
And when I say shareholders, I mean FMR, Vanguard, State Street, BlackRock, T. Rowe Price, JP Morgan, Legg Mason, etc.
Well then, buy some AAPL shares and submit your proxy ballot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
… You don't seem to get it. What if someone can only do 500? They can't even buy one share. I picked easy numbers because I figured people would get see what I was saying with them.
Then that person can't buy a stock, nor SHOULD they buy a stock with their last $500. But either way, it doesn't have ANY impact on the stock itself, because the number of shareholders with that tiny amount of money to invest don't move the needle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831
Well then, buy some AAPL shares and submit your proxy ballot.
Or start his own company which is free to operate as a non-profit. Keep his hands out of other peoples' pockets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
I still think the best thing to do is create a Apple Bank and link it to ITMS. Why pay transaction fees, when you can be a bank?
I actually agree with this. All of the very largest companies have their own banks or financial services divisions. I'd gladly keep my savings with iBank.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinitaBoy
I have 5700 shares and will be earning (at minimum) $60,420 a year in dividends
Well played, sir!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147
Stuck with billions they can't spend fast enough eh? They are more than welcome to pay off my debt. Out soccer stadium seats 24,000 people. My debt is less than that.
Apple has this excess cash because they didn't make foolish investments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
I actually agree with this. All of the very largest companies have their own banks or financial services divisions. I'd gladly keep my savings with iBank.
Long as you don't mind your PE of 15 or whatever it is now going down closer to bank stock territory! How does AAPL at $300 sound?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831
I have no idea about all-time, but here's a list of high-yield dividend stocks.
Some foreign telecoms pay out pretty well.
Just because a stock has a big dividend does not necessarily mean it's a good investment. It could be a very shaky investment, AAMOF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections
Doesn't sound like you know the definition of bias. The story isn't advocating anything, it's just describing the current tax situation for Apple investors new to dividends, and explaining that things are potentially about to change, noting the interests of both political parties in keeping things the way they are, or reverting to the tax rates under Clinton, which delivered the longest period of post war expansion in America.
As for those complaining that investors shouldn't pay standard income tax rates for investment income because the corporations already paid tax on their earnings, well then why should employees pay income tax, as they are earning pay from a corporation that has already paid taxes on its profits.
The concept of a income tax is that you charge a fee every time income is generated, without regard to whether effort has transpired (work) or not (investors). Of course, those who have money don't want to pay into the system that helped them make that money, and would rather have their employees paying for civilization from their wages. That's why the richest people in America are a few investors and everyone in the Walmart founders' family, who made their fortune off minimum wage workers with little to no benefits, and whose health insurance (and often food stamps and other basic living costs) are all largely subsidized by the government (that is, the rest of us).
You can add to the debate, or you can do what the rest of the investoconservatives do: complain that being rich makes you a victim of taxation, and that this class warfare is really distressing you as you are shuttled to your vacation home by servants.
iRoll.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I, too, support a split... it could open up AAPL to a lot of small investors and delete the influence/manipulation of the holders of large blocks of stock. Though, to be effective, it would need to be something like a 10 for 1 spit.
I do not support a split. It may provide a psychological boost and encourage more novice investors to buy shares, but I don't view that necessarily as a positive.
I do see Apple's planned stock buyback as a positive, however.
And YOU don't seem to get it. What if Apple does a 10:1 split and the price is $60 per share. But what if the person only has $50? They still have the same problem.
The fact is that no matter what the price, some people can't afford it. But the number of people is pretty small - and even if they can't afford Apple stock, they can buy a mutual fund which includes Apple stock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange
Wake up! This is not Dilger bias, it is fact supported by non other than financial experts like Warren Buffet. So before you make such asinine comments you should try to get yourself a good education on the issues, and the facts.
I find it endlessly amusing that the people who are always the most eager to raise taxes want YOU to go first.
Here are some facts. Story links for everyone's favorite chummy, grinning, back-slapping billionaire:
Warren Buffet's Latest Tax Dodge:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/warren-buffetts-latest-tax-dodge/article/1231806
How Warren Buffet Gained from Bank Bailout:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/40276100/How_Warren_Buffett_Gained_from_Bank_Bailout
Bailout Bonanza for Berkshire and Buffet:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-36740940/bailout-bonanza-for-berkshire-and-buffett/
The Berkshire Bailout: Congress Misunderstands Markets
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/26/the-berkshire-bailout-congress-misunderstands-markets/
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj
Long as you don't mind your PE of 15 or whatever it is now going down closer to bank stock territory! How does AAPL at $300 sound?
I'd assume an Apple iBank would be a wholly separate division.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I, too, support a split... it could open up AAPL to a lot of small investors and delete the influence/manipulation of the holders of large blocks of stock. Though, to be effective, it would need to be something like a 10 for 1 spit.
I do not support a split. It may provide a psychological boost and encourage more novice investors to buy shares, but I don't view that necessarily as a positive.
I do see Apple's planned stock buyback as a positive, however.
I don't know if this is still possible...
When I was a kid, my dad had some investment help... Somehow he got an investment in Southern California Edison. They paid a dividend, but there was some special tax exemption that they could enroll in to have the dividend used to buy additional shares. A relatively small investment in an income stock grew exponentially into a relative large investment in what turned out to be a growth stock.