I have been using Apple products since the 1970s and despite a rocky time in the 1990's, they have and always will be in my opinion the most valuable company in the world. Their innovative style and trend setting ways have made them virtually impossible to compete with. Even with Steve out, the fundamental values that they began with will live on.
it doesn't hurt to have bought a boatload of stock at $9.25 when it was at it's lowest point. Thank you Apple for the nest egg!
Been saying for years - this company has unimaginable potential even for crazy fan boys like most of AI forum posters
It's like Cook & co says: even we are amazed.
Just brace yourselves - if there's no cataclysm, AAPL is going through the roof and I don't even have the guts to guess away where AAPL will be a year from now.
Challenge: any guesses? $600 anyone?
Agreed. No problem hitting $600 by the end of 2012. Even higher if they take their hobby to the next step...
This whole discussion about how Apple should give something back has really helped me understand thinking in the US a bit better.
It seems that a lot of people believe that it's the role of companies to take care of them (help fund schools, etc). So now it makes sense to me why people don't feel government is important, don't vote, and would be happier to just get rid of government altogether and not pay any taxes.
When in reality, the goal of a company is simply to make as much money as possible. If being charitable is cheaper than advertising as a means to get people to buy their products, or if it provides them some other benefit which outweighs the cost, they'll do it. Otherwise they won't. Sure there are exceptions to the rule, but in general, that's the guiding principal of any business.
IMO, it's the role of government to balance private interests (re. profit) against things which are in the general interest of the public (access to good education, health care, decent city infrastructure, etc) through taxation or other means. So people really need to look to government for these things, not industry.
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 prime example of a shibboleth.
Companies are in a position to pay dividends when they can't reinvest all of their profits in additional growth. It's got nothing to do with share value not increasing.
Ever heard of the term ex-dividend? When a company pays a dividend the share price usually drops to reflect the fact that the company is worth less than it was before it paid the dividend. If they don't pay a dividend then in AAPL's case the value of the company increases and this is reflected in the market cap. Yes the PE ratio is dropping and on that basis yes a dividend may increase value to shareholders. But which other company would you have invested in over the last 10 years???
No. The effect you are describing is the modest tendency for investors to buy into a stock shortly before a dividend is declared and to sell after they collect it. The net effect is not measurable. The dividend itself does not have any impact on the market cap of the company. Not any. Zero, zilch, nada. None.
Companies are in a position to pay dividends when they can't reinvest all of their profits in additional growth. It's got nothing to do with share value not increasing.
You really should not make such categorical statements, since they are not true.
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.
Wow. So astute of you to say. You must be a personal friend with Mr Jobs or know him oh so very well. You must be smarter then Mr. Jobs and all of Apple for you to make such clever comments.
Wow. So astute of you to say. You must be a personal friend with Mr Jobs or know him oh so very well. You must be smarter then Mr. Jobs and all of Apple for you to make such clever comments.
Clearly something is missing in your life.
Yeah, your comment makes sense since you can bring your money to your grave and all...
I am an avid Apple backer and satisfied stockholder but AI is pushing things a bit too far.
Apple is the world's most valuable company but Apple most certainly is not the world's largest company unless you use very narrow and very specific criteria to substantiate that claim.
This whole discussion about how Apple should give something back has really helped me understand thinking in the US a bit better.
It seems that a lot of people believe that it's the role of companies to take care of them (help fund schools, etc). So now it makes sense to me why people don't feel government is important, don't vote, and would be happier to just get rid of government altogether and not pay any taxes.
When in reality, the goal of a company is simply to make as much money as possible. If being charitable is cheaper than advertising as a means to get people to buy their products, or if it provides them some other benefit which outweighs the cost, they'll do it. Otherwise they won't. Sure there are exceptions to the rule, but in general, that's the guiding principal of any business.
IMO, it's the role of government to balance private interests (re. profit) against things which are in the general interest of the public (access to good education, health care, decent city infrastructure, etc) through taxation or other means. So people really need to look to government for these things, not industry.
Yes, people know this. Corporations are like robots, and you don't make money by giving it away. Apple is just a corporation that seeks to control as much as it can without working alongside anyone. They have good customer service because they only support a handful of products, all of which are so dumbed down to begin with that supporting them isn't hard at all. Not being able to change your battery, for instance, is just an example of a step Apple took to ensure that idiots don't mess up their devices. These measures have profits in mind alone, which is fine for the stockholders, but what does it really do for everyone else?
Steve Jobs once said what he envied most about Microsoft is their ability to work well with other companies. It's apparent Apple doesn't want to have anything to do with anything that isn't Apple, in as many areas as they possibly can, and this self-absorbed prick attitude spills over to their outlook on charities and whatnot. I personally don't care, because I see all corporations in America as heartless robots lacking basic humanity, but when you hear news like this, it's REALLY hard to like a corporation like Apple.
FWIW, I'm no fan of Klugman either. Just posting that it was he (or Bloomberg) that indicated it would be world-wide.
Since you posted it, I felt it important to point out the distinction - it was irrelevant whether Krugman said it, you said it, or you said Krugman said it.
Oh, I am a huge fan of KRugrman. That doesn't mean he's always right.
You really should not make such categorical statements, since they are not true.
I only make them when they are categorically true, as in this case.
Noting your lack of contrary evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
There is an entire theoretical, and more importantly, well-tested empirical literature on a phenomenon known as 'dividend signaling' in finance.
You should look it up before making such sweeping/categorical assertions.
You should read the post to which I was responding before making assertions, categorical or otherwise. He argued that cash was factored into a company's market value. This is not done by any measure currently in use by anyone. Neither is debt. Not that either are not considered in some existential sense by investors, but they are not reflected in market cap in any way that you can measure, and particularly not cash, which is utterly meaningless to stockholders unless the company pays some of it out as a dividend.
Again, noting your lack of contrary evidence. If anyone is making sweeping assertions here, it is you. My argument is based on facts, yours on nothing that I can see.
He argued that cash was factored into a company's market value. This is not done by any measure currently in use by anyone. Neither is debt. Not that either are not considered in some existential sense by investors, but they are not reflected in market cap in any way that you can measure, and particularly not cash, which is utterly meaningless to stockholders unless the company pays some of it out as a dividend.
Perhaps you're not expressing it well, but if you're arguing against the fact -- actually, the identity -- that Mkt Cap = Value(Equity) = Enterprise Value - Debt + Cash, then I am afraid there are some basic gaps in your knowledge.
I am sure I must be misinterpreting what you're saying!
Comments
it doesn't hurt to have bought a boatload of stock at $9.25 when it was at it's lowest point. Thank you Apple for the nest egg!
Been saying for years - this company has unimaginable potential even for crazy fan boys like most of AI forum posters
It's like Cook & co says: even we are amazed.
Just brace yourselves - if there's no cataclysm, AAPL is going through the roof and I don't even have the guts to guess away where AAPL will be a year from now.
Challenge: any guesses? $600 anyone?
Agreed. No problem hitting $600 by the end of 2012. Even higher if they take their hobby to the next step...
This whole discussion about how Apple should give something back has really helped me understand thinking in the US a bit better.
It seems that a lot of people believe that it's the role of companies to take care of them (help fund schools, etc). So now it makes sense to me why people don't feel government is important, don't vote, and would be happier to just get rid of government altogether and not pay any taxes.
When in reality, the goal of a company is simply to make as much money as possible. If being charitable is cheaper than advertising as a means to get people to buy their products, or if it provides them some other benefit which outweighs the cost, they'll do it. Otherwise they won't. Sure there are exceptions to the rule, but in general, that's the guiding principal of any business.
IMO, it's the role of government to balance private interests (re. profit) against things which are in the general interest of the public (access to good education, health care, decent city infrastructure, etc) through taxation or other means. So people really need to look to government for these things, not industry.
Spot on!
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 prime example of a shibboleth.
Companies are in a position to pay dividends when they can't reinvest all of their profits in additional growth. It's got nothing to do with share value not increasing.
Ever heard of the term ex-dividend? When a company pays a dividend the share price usually drops to reflect the fact that the company is worth less than it was before it paid the dividend. If they don't pay a dividend then in AAPL's case the value of the company increases and this is reflected in the market cap. Yes the PE ratio is dropping and on that basis yes a dividend may increase value to shareholders. But which other company would you have invested in over the last 10 years???
No. The effect you are describing is the modest tendency for investors to buy into a stock shortly before a dividend is declared and to sell after they collect it. The net effect is not measurable. The dividend itself does not have any impact on the market cap of the company. Not any. Zero, zilch, nada. None.
Even Krugman is on board now with a 50/50 chance of the world entering another recession.[/I]
The world?
US+EU ≠ 'World'
Countries like China and India will be humming along fine, thank you.
This is prime example of a shibboleth.
Companies are in a position to pay dividends when they can't reinvest all of their profits in additional growth. It's got nothing to do with share value not increasing.
You really should not make such categorical statements, since they are not true.
The dividend itself does not have any impact on the market cap of the company. Not any. Zero, zilch, nada. None.
There is an entire theoretical, and more importantly, well-tested empirical literature on a phenomenon known as 'dividend signaling' in finance.
You should look it up before making such sweeping/categorical assertions.
The world?
US+EU ≠ 'World'
Countries like China and India will be humming along fine, thank you.
Quote: The risk of global recession is "quite high, maybe 50 percent," Krugman told Bloomberg.
FWIW, I'm no fan of Krugman either. Just posting that it was he (or Bloomberg) that indicated it would be world-wide.
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.
Wow. So astute of you to say. You must be a personal friend with Mr Jobs or know him oh so very well. You must be smarter then Mr. Jobs and all of Apple for you to make such clever comments.
Clearly something is missing in your life.
Apple is doomed.?
Funny how the simplest most repeated joke still cracks up the simplest around here.
Wow. So astute of you to say. You must be a personal friend with Mr Jobs or know him oh so very well. You must be smarter then Mr. Jobs and all of Apple for you to make such clever comments.
Clearly something is missing in your life.
Yeah, your comment makes sense since you can bring your money to your grave and all...
Apple is the world's most valuable company but Apple most certainly is not the world's largest company unless you use very narrow and very specific criteria to substantiate that claim.
This whole discussion about how Apple should give something back has really helped me understand thinking in the US a bit better.
It seems that a lot of people believe that it's the role of companies to take care of them (help fund schools, etc). So now it makes sense to me why people don't feel government is important, don't vote, and would be happier to just get rid of government altogether and not pay any taxes.
When in reality, the goal of a company is simply to make as much money as possible. If being charitable is cheaper than advertising as a means to get people to buy their products, or if it provides them some other benefit which outweighs the cost, they'll do it. Otherwise they won't. Sure there are exceptions to the rule, but in general, that's the guiding principal of any business.
IMO, it's the role of government to balance private interests (re. profit) against things which are in the general interest of the public (access to good education, health care, decent city infrastructure, etc) through taxation or other means. So people really need to look to government for these things, not industry.
Yes, people know this. Corporations are like robots, and you don't make money by giving it away. Apple is just a corporation that seeks to control as much as it can without working alongside anyone. They have good customer service because they only support a handful of products, all of which are so dumbed down to begin with that supporting them isn't hard at all. Not being able to change your battery, for instance, is just an example of a step Apple took to ensure that idiots don't mess up their devices. These measures have profits in mind alone, which is fine for the stockholders, but what does it really do for everyone else?
Steve Jobs once said what he envied most about Microsoft is their ability to work well with other companies. It's apparent Apple doesn't want to have anything to do with anything that isn't Apple, in as many areas as they possibly can, and this self-absorbed prick attitude spills over to their outlook on charities and whatnot. I personally don't care, because I see all corporations in America as heartless robots lacking basic humanity, but when you hear news like this, it's REALLY hard to like a corporation like Apple.
FWIW, I'm no fan of Klugman either. Just posting that it was he (or Bloomberg) that indicated it would be world-wide.
Since you posted it, I felt it important to point out the distinction - it was irrelevant whether Krugman said it, you said it, or you said Krugman said it.
Oh, I am a huge fan of KRugrman. That doesn't mean he's always right.
Funny how the simplest most repeated joke still cracks up the simplest around here.
It cracked you up? Gee, thanks!
You really should not make such categorical statements, since they are not true.
I only make them when they are categorically true, as in this case.
Noting your lack of contrary evidence.
There is an entire theoretical, and more importantly, well-tested empirical literature on a phenomenon known as 'dividend signaling' in finance.
You should look it up before making such sweeping/categorical assertions.
You should read the post to which I was responding before making assertions, categorical or otherwise. He argued that cash was factored into a company's market value. This is not done by any measure currently in use by anyone. Neither is debt. Not that either are not considered in some existential sense by investors, but they are not reflected in market cap in any way that you can measure, and particularly not cash, which is utterly meaningless to stockholders unless the company pays some of it out as a dividend.
Again, noting your lack of contrary evidence. If anyone is making sweeping assertions here, it is you. My argument is based on facts, yours on nothing that I can see.
He argued that cash was factored into a company's market value. This is not done by any measure currently in use by anyone. Neither is debt. Not that either are not considered in some existential sense by investors, but they are not reflected in market cap in any way that you can measure, and particularly not cash, which is utterly meaningless to stockholders unless the company pays some of it out as a dividend.
Perhaps you're not expressing it well, but if you're arguing against the fact -- actually, the identity -- that Mkt Cap = Value(Equity) = Enterprise Value - Debt + Cash, then I am afraid there are some basic gaps in your knowledge.
I am sure I must be misinterpreting what you're saying!
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/09/...eration-ipads/