As a long time shareholder I'm sure glad to see my shares being diluted by this guy. What has he done for the company?
Well, since he was on the board of directors he was actually involved with the management company -- which I bet is more than you did for Apple.
He acted as a representative of you. He helped shape policy that might potentially impact investors like you (and himself). But he's only one of many, and maybe he shared your views but was overruled by everyone else. Do you have any documentation of his opinion on the taxation matter? Any records of votes? Or are you scapegoating one guy because things didn't go the way you liked? Maybe he's not happy with the political commentating the company is doing and that's why he's pulling out his investment.
He's more than happy with the company direction. Freeing up equity that is just sitting around allows him to invest in his continued energy independence projects he has been developing over the past decade. Do some research.
He's done little for Apple as far as keeping them ahead of political trends.
Hey.... if it weren't for Al, we wouldn't have the Internet... and no Apple. /s
Seriously, imho Al has been a dead weight on the board. Does anyone have any info on what Gore has done in the past decade?
He's managed to make himself worth over 200 million. He must have been just a little busy.
How exactly do you judge "dead weight" of the other board members that aren't actively working at Apple , involved in daily operations or products ? Specifically independent directors like Gore.. what information do you use to consider them useful or dead weight?
As a long time shareholder I'm sure glad to see my shares being diluted by this guy. What has he done for the company? You'd a thought he would have used his valuable political pull to open up repatriation or something...looks like Trump might be giving us that free of charge. And who made this jetsetter the environmental expert? I'm sure his 2¢ on the matter don't add up to half of one.
I agree. If Apple wants to have itself marginally insulated from getting shafted in Washington, they need to face the music and get away from their one-sided political views. About half of the US disagrees with the progressive political views of their board. It's unwise to be tunnel visioned.
Sorry, but Apple will never adopt right-winger views just to appease old white guys, or under some misguided notion that all opinions are equal. They aren't. Some are most definitely better than others.
As a long time shareholder I'm sure glad to see my shares being diluted by this guy. What has he done for the company? You'd a thought he would have used his valuable political pull to open up repatriation or something...looks like Trump might be giving us that free of charge. And who made this jetsetter the environmental expert? I'm sure his 2¢ on the matter don't add up to half of one.
I agree. If Apple wants to have itself marginally insulated from getting shafted in Washington, they need to face the music and get away from their one-sided political views. About half of the US disagrees with the progressive political views of their board. It's unwise to be tunnel visioned.
Maybe they're focussing on the progressive half that can adapt to change and so earns the most money.
This. All of those angry red state people in trailer parks, living off liberal California and New York money as they wait for their coal jobs to come back...aren't exactly Apple's customers.
Apple has progressive "values" because as with all valuable tech companies it was created with forward thinking people (does Steve Jobs ring any bells with any of you?) Pro-enviroment should not be a progressive only topic since we all breath the same air, get water from the same place and nobody wants to live next to a chemical dump last time I checked. The smokescreen of being green is bad for business is nonsense going forward in time as we ween our industries and our homes of the dependency of fossil fuels. Clean, reusable energy will benefit everyone on earth someday including industry. Look towards South Asia and China to see how industrial waste is ill affecting the health of those people. I was raised in a blue collar textile city which at one time was the largest in the world, My grandmother told of the crossing a bridge each day as a child and looking to see what color the river was that day, it changed because the mills dumped dyes there. Only the people which one companies that produce toxic waste will benefit financially from the lifting of environmental safe guards while are families which live "downstream" suffer the health consequences.
I think that Al Gore is extremely smart, did a lot as a politician and policy maker, and in all likelihood played an important role with Jobs in shaping Apple's post-iPod destiny.
However, I think -- and I've thought this for a few years now -- Apple needs some younger, newer blood on its board. He is one among at least a two-or-three people that have been around for too long.
In 1984 The World Watch Institute began issuing annual books called the State of the World. These science based, academic works dealt with many and assorted environmental issues, as understood at that time. The writing has been on the wall for any to observe and for leaders to contemplate and address for some time. Al Gore was an early proponent of taking action both politically, individually and as a nation. Way back then, the knuckle draggers had just enough momentum to scuttle the consideration of logical science based political decisions to course correct even while the evidence continued to mount. To the honest scientist/observer, the evidence was clear that irreversible climate change was in full ascension. Yet no one would listen.
Some things never change. Delusion and ignorance in national leadership is now on full display in this great nation. Pathetic.
Thanks Al for your effort. And thanks to Mssrs. Jobs, Cook and all dedicated to maintaining truth and progress in a devolving corporate state and degraded planet.
fasc•ism (făshˈĭzˌəm)
n.A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
This is no doubt royalties from his invention of the internet. How on earth a former politician would honesty earn $29 million is beyond me.
Speaking fees, big movie, big book. And read the previous link about him being the one politician who first took up the Internet idea when it mattered.
Not to claim that Apple is doomed, it's not. But I do wonder why he'd sell half his shares before the lead up to what is being predicted to be the mother of all upgrade cycles this summer.
He's done little for Apple as far as keeping them ahead of political trends.
Hey.... if it weren't for Al, we wouldn't have the Internet... and no Apple. /s
Seriously, imho Al has been a dead weight on the board. Does anyone have any info on what Gore has done in the past decade?
I'd be more interested in what you did in the last decade. I at least know who Al Gore is. Steve Jobs also personally picked Al Gore for Apple's board. I wonder why he didn't call you?
He personally picked Tim Cook for CEO and a lot of people don't like that.
As a long time shareholder I'm sure glad to see my shares being diluted by this guy. What has he done for the company? You'd a thought he would have used his valuable political pull to open up repatriation or something...looks like Trump might be giving us that free of charge. And who made this jetsetter the environmental expert? I'm sure his 2¢ on the matter don't add up to half of one.
Trump may be giving that "free of charge" but the big problem is that Apple plans to use a major portion of what comes back to buy back it's own stock...not pay out dividends, and Apple hasn't paid dividends in roughly twenty years or more. So, that profit that went overseas and is returning is, in reality, really being "traded" for the stock you own. Don't sell your Apple stock---at least not until you get those dividends... (Unless Apple has paid out dividends sometime over the past while and I just missed it...)
Not to claim that Apple is doomed, it's not. But I do wonder why he'd sell half his shares before the lead up to what is being predicted to be the mother of all upgrade cycles this summer.
Being on the board doesn't he have to put in his desire to sell well in advance?
As a long time shareholder I'm sure glad to see my shares being diluted by this guy. What has he done for the company? You'd a thought he would have used his valuable political pull to open up repatriation or something...looks like Trump might be giving us that free of charge. And who made this jetsetter the environmental expert? I'm sure his 2¢ on the matter don't add up to half of one.
and Apple hasn't paid dividends in roughly twenty years or more.
Bullshit. They've paid out every quarter for the past 5 years.
As a long time shareholder I'm sure glad to see my shares being diluted by this guy. What has he done for the company? You'd a thought he would have used his valuable political pull to open up repatriation or something...looks like Trump might be giving us that free of charge. And who made this jetsetter the environmental expert? I'm sure his 2¢ on the matter don't add up to half of one.
Trump may be giving that "free of charge" but the big problem is that Apple plans to use a major portion of what comes back to buy back it's own stock...not pay out dividends, and Apple hasn't paid dividends in roughly twenty years or more. So, that profit that went overseas and is returning is, in reality, really being "traded" for the stock you own. Don't sell your Apple stock---at least not until you get those dividends... (Unless Apple has paid out dividends sometime over the past while and I just missed it...)
A few things...
(1) Apple's been paying dividends for nearly 5 years now. In that time it's paid out around $50 billion worth of dividends.
(2) The earnings that we're talking about didn't go overseas, they were made overseas. With Apple we aren't talking about a company using accounting tricks to pretend that money that was really made in the U.S. was made overseas.
(3) Apple has been returning capital to shareholders (through share repurchases and dividends) at an incredible rate for the last 4 years, even without a (re)patriation tax holiday. I would expect it to continue doing that with or without a tax holiday in the near term. My point is, while it may expand its capital return program somewhat (beyond what it would have been anyway) if there's a tax holiday, I wouldn't expect it to expand that capital return program a huge amount because of a tax holiday. As I said, it's already returning capital at an incredible rate - it's returned an amount roughly equivalent to all of the profit that it's made over the last 4 years.
(4) To the idea of Apple returning capital to shareholders through share repurchases rather than through dividends: There are a number of ways that we can think about share repurchases, i.e. a number of ways that we can conceive of what they really represent. But in this context - when considering them as an alternative to dividends - here's a pretty good way of thinking about what they mean...
Some people reinvest their dividends because, rather than wanting cash, they want additional equity share in the company. In order to have the latter, they have to take the additional step of buying more shares of the company with the money they received in dividends (or they can have an automatic reinvestment plan set up). But having been paid (cash) dividends, those shareholders typically have immediate tax consequences - they owe taxes on the dividends they are paid.
If the company instead buys back shares, it is giving all shareholders extra equity share in the company. So in that case, if those shareholders want cash instead, they have to sell that extra equity share. It's more or less the reverse situation from being paid in dividends. In the one case they get A, but if they'd prefer B instead they have to take an additional step themselves. In the other case they get B, but if they want A instead they have to take an additional step themselves. At the end of the day the choice is theirs (i.e. the shareholders'), it's just that the company decides that one or the other (A or B, shareholders getting cash or getting more equity share in the company) will be the default (i.e. what the shareholders get if they take no additional action). That decision leaves the shareholders to take certain actions if they'd prefer the other option. If a shareholder wants extra equity share (rather than cash), then share repurchases gives them the advantage of deferred tax liability since they don't have to pay taxes immediately on the value of their increased equity share (whereas they would have had to pay taxes on dividend payments).
In made-up round numbers (and oversimplifying to demonstrate in conceptual terms): A company has 1 million shares outstanding and those shares sell at a price of $100. The company has $10 million it wants to return to shareholders. If it uses all of it to pay dividends, shareholders get $10 per share. Someone who owns 100 shares can keep the $1,000 or use it to buy an extra 10 shares. If they do the latter, they now own 10% more of the company (and of its future incomes streams) than they did before. (They own 0.011% of the company instead of 0.010% of the company.) On the other hand, if the company uses all of the $10 million to repurchase shares, that same shareholder would now own the same 10% more of the company - (about) 0.011% of it instead of 0.010% of it. That's because there would now be 900,000 shares outstanding instead of 1 million. If they instead want the cash, they can sell 10 shares for $1,000 and continue to own (about) 0.010% of the company (with 90 shares instead of 100). The tax consequences of the two different scenarios can be different though.
In reality it's obviously somewhat more complicated than that and there are moving pieces that affect one another. For instance, share prices can change as a result of share repurchases. Those 90 shares from the second scenario should, ultimately, be worth about what the 100 shares from the first scenario would have been worth as they represent (about) the same portion of the company's income streams and assets. And, of course, from the perspective of the companies there are other considerations when it comes to which method of returning capital is preferable.
The point is, share repurchases represent capital returned to shareholders just as cash dividends do. Particular shareholders often prefer one over the other depending upon, among other things, their own circumstances. There are advantages (for shareholders) from each method, but cash dividends aren't inherently better for shareholders. The two methods are more alike than they are different, at least if particular shareholders are willing to take the fairly simple steps which would make the (non-tax) end result of either method much the same as the other. When it comes to tax consequences, share repurchases generally leave more flexibility for shareholders.
As I indicated, there are other ways to think about share repurchases and what the effects of them are. But this way can be helpful when considering how they compare to paying dividends, from the perspective of shareholders.
Comments
https://www.algore.com/news/al-gore-apha-climate-reality-harvard-global-health-institute-and-others-to-fill-gap-left-by-canceled-cdc-climate-health-meeting
He's funding it.
How exactly do you judge "dead weight" of the other board members that aren't actively working at Apple , involved in daily operations or products ? Specifically independent directors like Gore.. what information do you use to consider them useful or dead weight?
http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/when-its-too-late-to-stop-fascism-according-to-stefan-zweig
(meaning they would have done the same thing, had they had the stock options...
Pro-enviroment should not be a progressive only topic since we all breath the same air, get water from the same place and nobody wants to live next to a chemical dump last time I checked. The smokescreen of being green is bad for business is nonsense going forward in time as we ween our industries and our homes of the dependency of fossil fuels. Clean, reusable energy will benefit everyone on earth someday including industry. Look towards South Asia and China to see how industrial waste is ill affecting the health of those people. I was raised in a blue collar textile city which at one time was the largest in the world, My grandmother told of the crossing a bridge each day as a child and looking to see what color the river was that day, it changed because the mills dumped dyes there. Only the people which one companies that produce toxic waste will benefit financially from the lifting of environmental safe guards while are families which live "downstream" suffer the health consequences.
However, I think -- and I've thought this for a few years now -- Apple needs some younger, newer blood on its board. He is one among at least a two-or-three people that have been around for too long.
Some things never change.
Delusion and ignorance in national leadership is now on full display in this great nation.
Pathetic.
Thanks Al for your effort. And thanks to Mssrs. Jobs, Cook and all dedicated to maintaining truth and progress in a devolving corporate state and degraded planet.
fasc•ism (făshˈĭzˌəm)
n.A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
May truth, justice and humanity prevail!A few things...
(1) Apple's been paying dividends for nearly 5 years now. In that time it's paid out around $50 billion worth of dividends.
(2) The earnings that we're talking about didn't go overseas, they were made overseas. With Apple we aren't talking about a company using accounting tricks to pretend that money that was really made in the U.S. was made overseas.
(3) Apple has been returning capital to shareholders (through share repurchases and dividends) at an incredible rate for the last 4 years, even without a (re)patriation tax holiday. I would expect it to continue doing that with or without a tax holiday in the near term. My point is, while it may expand its capital return program somewhat (beyond what it would have been anyway) if there's a tax holiday, I wouldn't expect it to expand that capital return program a huge amount because of a tax holiday. As I said, it's already returning capital at an incredible rate - it's returned an amount roughly equivalent to all of the profit that it's made over the last 4 years.
(4) To the idea of Apple returning capital to shareholders through share repurchases rather than through dividends: There are a number of ways that we can think about share repurchases, i.e. a number of ways that we can conceive of what they really represent. But in this context - when considering them as an alternative to dividends - here's a pretty good way of thinking about what they mean...
Some people reinvest their dividends because, rather than wanting cash, they want additional equity share in the company. In order to have the latter, they have to take the additional step of buying more shares of the company with the money they received in dividends (or they can have an automatic reinvestment plan set up). But having been paid (cash) dividends, those shareholders typically have immediate tax consequences - they owe taxes on the dividends they are paid.
If the company instead buys back shares, it is giving all shareholders extra equity share in the company. So in that case, if those shareholders want cash instead, they have to sell that extra equity share. It's more or less the reverse situation from being paid in dividends. In the one case they get A, but if they'd prefer B instead they have to take an additional step themselves. In the other case they get B, but if they want A instead they have to take an additional step themselves. At the end of the day the choice is theirs (i.e. the shareholders'), it's just that the company decides that one or the other (A or B, shareholders getting cash or getting more equity share in the company) will be the default (i.e. what the shareholders get if they take no additional action). That decision leaves the shareholders to take certain actions if they'd prefer the other option. If a shareholder wants extra equity share (rather than cash), then share repurchases gives them the advantage of deferred tax liability since they don't have to pay taxes immediately on the value of their increased equity share (whereas they would have had to pay taxes on dividend payments).
In made-up round numbers (and oversimplifying to demonstrate in conceptual terms): A company has 1 million shares outstanding and those shares sell at a price of $100. The company has $10 million it wants to return to shareholders. If it uses all of it to pay dividends, shareholders get $10 per share. Someone who owns 100 shares can keep the $1,000 or use it to buy an extra 10 shares. If they do the latter, they now own 10% more of the company (and of its future incomes streams) than they did before. (They own 0.011% of the company instead of 0.010% of the company.) On the other hand, if the company uses all of the $10 million to repurchase shares, that same shareholder would now own the same 10% more of the company - (about) 0.011% of it instead of 0.010% of it. That's because there would now be 900,000 shares outstanding instead of 1 million. If they instead want the cash, they can sell 10 shares for $1,000 and continue to own (about) 0.010% of the company (with 90 shares instead of 100). The tax consequences of the two different scenarios can be different though.
In reality it's obviously somewhat more complicated than that and there are moving pieces that affect one another. For instance, share prices can change as a result of share repurchases. Those 90 shares from the second scenario should, ultimately, be worth about what the 100 shares from the first scenario would have been worth as they represent (about) the same portion of the company's income streams and assets. And, of course, from the perspective of the companies there are other considerations when it comes to which method of returning capital is preferable.
The point is, share repurchases represent capital returned to shareholders just as cash dividends do. Particular shareholders often prefer one over the other depending upon, among other things, their own circumstances. There are advantages (for shareholders) from each method, but cash dividends aren't inherently better for shareholders. The two methods are more alike than they are different, at least if particular shareholders are willing to take the fairly simple steps which would make the (non-tax) end result of either method much the same as the other. When it comes to tax consequences, share repurchases generally leave more flexibility for shareholders.
As I indicated, there are other ways to think about share repurchases and what the effects of them are. But this way can be helpful when considering how they compare to paying dividends, from the perspective of shareholders.