Apple should either do a special dividend or do what Oracle just did and issue all of 2013's dividends now. For some the tax will go from 15% plus whatever state tax is to over 43% plus whatever state tax is. In some states this will be over 50% of the dividend taxed.
Keep in mind this tax is AFTER the profits were already taxed on apple's earnings. So dividends come from after tax dollars for those who do not know. I think Apple should be prudent and distribute a special dividend and/or next years dividends before years end. Those dividends will be worth a lot less come '13 thanks to Washington's lack of compromise as we head over the fiscal cliff.
Dividends are for investors, widows, retirees. They need this money now that banks earn zero basically. It would be a travesty for apple to hold this cash, doing nothing with it, for years while it earns zero in treasuries and gets eroded from inflation each year. If Apple does this they are completely fiscally irresponsible to their shareholders.
OK, then, I give up. I guess I won't get my 150 billion when I wake up (if I want to keep my job), but 29? AND keep my job? Done deal!
I kid, of course. To be quite honest, much as I love all things Apple I question the morality of sitting on such wealth. Perhaps an Apple tax should be levied against Apple. Perhaps Apple should be required to hand over an iPad mini to every financially struggling family in the US. Or perhaps they should have to pay an annual tax to subsidize college education for hard up kids. It wouldn't make Apple any less successful. Perhaps over time it would turn out to be a great investment that could benefit even more people as well as Apple.
I was going to let it go, figuring he didn't get the bigger picture, but if he has a defender I'll clarify: He replied to the ideas for what Apple could buy with the cash as if they were reasonable ideas that might get shot down for one reason or another. The correct response is that they are idiotic ideas for a shareholder-return maximizing company. Might as well suggest that they buy WalMart so they never have to worry about distribution again.
And yes, the USA needs to stop with the ridiculous tax holidays. It only encourages companies to game the system. Come up with a REASONABLE tax regime and put in place real incentives to make sure that taxes are paid, not avoided. This should be the goal of tax policy. Thankfully this year we have a real chance at some real tax law overhaul, and hopefully we'll join the rest of the civilized world and stop taxing profits that were earned overseas. Whether our idiot politicians will actually get around to common sense things like that, I doubt, but one can hope.
"Reasonable" is a subjective term. Politicians, regardless of party, will never do anything to optimize the tax code at the expense of their cash cow contributors. What you will end up with are taxes that on the surface supposed to make businesses pay their "fair share" whatever that is, but in the end those extra costs will be passed on to the consumer aka "middle class" which in turn squeezes the middle class yet again.
Other than both being publicly traded corporations, what do you think Enron and Apple have in common to make your reference relevant?
My comment wasn't related to Apple at all. It was more about a publicly traded company tanking quickly, and overall, it was just me trying to bust TS's chops a bit.
OK, then, I give up. I guess I won't get my 150 billion when I wake up (if I want to keep my job), but 29? AND keep my job? Done deal!
I kid, of course. To be quite honest, much as I love all things Apple I question the morality of sitting on such wealth. Perhaps an Apple tax should be levied against Apple. Perhaps Apple should be required to hand over an iPad mini to every financially struggling family in the US. Or perhaps they should have to pay an annual tax to subsidize college education for hard up kids. It wouldn't make Apple any less successful. Perhaps over time it would turn out to be a great investment that could benefit even more people as well as Apple.
Just thinking aloud....
Seriously? Do you really want to go there? As a shareholder, you would have a right to express your dissatisfaction that they haven't done something with the cash that benefits shareholders (or the company in general), but to classify it immoralto KEEP what you've earned?? Great scott, you have no idea how the free enterprise works.
If you remove the incentive to make more money by taking it away when they get it, companies will stop making money. What follows would be ugly (loss of jobs, depression , etc). Lots of history here in the US and other countries.
And $70 or less to do it yourself? Go right ahead but don't pretend that vendors don't charge more than you can buy separately.
No, the 21/5" iMac does not support 32GB because there are now 16GB sticks at this time. There is no conspiracy, Apple isn't out to get you so stop spreading this bullshit!
You are correct about the 21.5" but unfortunately, you assumed I thought Apple was out to get me and I was only pointing out the excessive cost to their upgrades.
I was going to let it go, figuring he didn't get the bigger picture, but if he has a defender I'll clarify: He replied to the ideas for what Apple could buy with the cash as if they were reasonable ideas that might get shot down for one reason or another. The correct response is that they are idiotic ideas for a shareholder-return maximizing company. Might as well suggest that they buy WalMart so they never have to worry about distribution again.
And yes, the USA needs to stop with the ridiculous tax holidays. It only encourages companies to game the system. Come up with a REASONABLE tax regime and put in place real incentives to make sure that taxes are paid, not avoided. This should be the goal of tax policy. Thankfully this year we have a real chance at some real tax law overhaul, and hopefully we'll join the rest of the civilized world and stop taxing profits that were earned overseas. Whether our idiot politicians will actually get around to common sense things like that, I doubt, but one can hope.
I've read a number of your posts that suggest you may have invested in AAPL or at least do frequent reading on the topic. Other countries do in many cases tax corporations on international sales and profits of subsidiaries whether or not those funds are repatriated. It varies. The other things you haven't acknowledged are not all of these profits have to originate overseas, and you can make deductions for international costs. Companies with foreign ownership have the ability to take out loans from the parent company and deduct the interest, although there are restrictions. Companies can set up discounts to receivables with subsidiaries. Anyway the structure is there to accommodate things such as international investment, but there are a lot of negative consequences, partially due to the complexity of the tax code. I'm not sure how they would solve all of its issues, especially when you add in the lobbying problems mentioned by iSteelers.
I am also long AAPL, yet I would like a special dividend. I'd much rather pay 15% tax now on a dividend (a historic low) than a higher (perhaps 40%) rate in the future. (And no, I'm not some 'manipulator', just a guy that's bought, and bought AAPL for years.) And if you use a DRIP, you're buying more of the stock at an undervalued price. Don't get me wrong, AAPL should keep as much money as they think they will ever need on hand. But they already have more cash on hand than the market capitalization of the smallest 466 companies in the S&P500. Perhaps that's a bit much.
I agree with you. I have no idea what is meant by "manipulators" wanting a special dividend. If he means day traders, algorithmic traders or hedge funds, who are in & out of a stock at a moment's notice, they're seldom around long enough to even collect the dividend - although there are some traders who buy on the record date so that they can collect the dividend. But this is risky, as theoretically and all things being equal, the stock price will be discounted by the amount of the dividend.
No, I'm with you. As an investor, I want to have as much (real) money in my hand as soon as possible, and paying the lowest tax rate possible. If Apple was earning 3-4% on its liquid investments, that would be one thing. But Apple tends to have the great majority of this money in very, VERY conservative instruments, which yield next to nothing. So this is dead money... might as well be under a (well guarded) mattress. If the stock price goes to $1000 on Monday, the only way that I can benefit from that is to sell some or all of my position. But with the dividend (a special dividend or an increase in the regular), the benefit is real and immediate. For some odd reason, there are people who just never seem to come to terms with that fact.
If Cook has some grand strategy and needs $50 billion for this or $50 billion for that, then fine. But if the grand strategy is just to sit on all that cash for 5-10 years, while he thinks about it... nah! That dog don't hunt!
I'd rather Apple keep the money in it's battle with Google and Samsung...and let's not count M$ out of it either. Without Jobs at the helm, they're going to need it. Though I don't doubt the world class team Jobs put together. He's left them with a product legacy. But the next wave of products building on that legacy? They need every cent (in my view) to capitlise. (Looking at the phone market...they're not having it all their own way as they did in the music player market...)
5 billion for patents here...or there. The odd big acqusition. Maybe even buying out Hollywood and the 6 major media outlets in the US...that 'billion' money can get used up quicker than we might think. (Thinks of the spending in the US economy for a start...) Maybe a fab for a competitor to Samsung? They may have to support firms like Sharp in their battle for components against Samsung. (BOOOOOOOOO to them.)
I'd rather they add 30 billion to the 120 billion and have 150 billion and race to the 200 billion mark as soon as they can.
Why?
While they're 'hot.' Apple are still 'hot' and selling every iPHone they can make. But the recent push by Samsung shows Apple aren't invincible...(though they command profits...) and despite patenting the 'crap' out of the iPhone there have been few 'telling' blows landed on Android bar the HTC 'agreement.'
(As an aside, I'm awaiting Apple to turn their R&D) big guns around on Google and Samsung (notes the increase of 3-4 billion? in R&D spending recently?)
In this thermo nuclear war...a bigger war chest assures me more than a few quid from Apple dividends. Want more Apple profit or stock? Just buy it at the right time and profit.
200 billion in the bank assures me a lot more than 120 billion.
...Apple have used their cash pile to nail down volume pricing to squeeze out competitors eg on the Macbook air...the iPad etc. It's been made it hard for Google and Intel lapdogs to get traction in those markets.
To the point that most Android, Amazon products have to be sold at cost to get any traction what so ever. Apple pours on the agony with an iPad Mini.
Meanwhile, Apple prints money.
How long Apple will be 'cool' without Jobs is my main concern. I have faith in Cook.
But Jobs was the magician.
..but I feel Cook 'gets it' enough to at least execute on building on the product portfolio Jobs left him.
Maybe Jobs left Apple with one final golden egg..? The Apple TV?
Comments
Keep in mind this tax is AFTER the profits were already taxed on apple's earnings. So dividends come from after tax dollars for those who do not know. I think Apple should be prudent and distribute a special dividend and/or next years dividends before years end. Those dividends will be worth a lot less come '13 thanks to Washington's lack of compromise as we head over the fiscal cliff.
Dividends are for investors, widows, retirees. They need this money now that banks earn zero basically. It would be a travesty for apple to hold this cash, doing nothing with it, for years while it earns zero in treasuries and gets eroded from inflation each year. If Apple does this they are completely fiscally irresponsible to their shareholders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
OK, then, I give up. I guess I won't get my 150 billion when I wake up (if I want to keep my job), but 29? AND keep my job? Done deal!
I kid, of course. To be quite honest, much as I love all things Apple I question the morality of sitting on such wealth. Perhaps an Apple tax should be levied against Apple. Perhaps Apple should be required to hand over an iPad mini to every financially struggling family in the US. Or perhaps they should have to pay an annual tax to subsidize college education for hard up kids. It wouldn't make Apple any less successful. Perhaps over time it would turn out to be a great investment that could benefit even more people as well as Apple.
Just thinking aloud....
Please say you are joking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj
I was going to let it go, figuring he didn't get the bigger picture, but if he has a defender I'll clarify: He replied to the ideas for what Apple could buy with the cash as if they were reasonable ideas that might get shot down for one reason or another. The correct response is that they are idiotic ideas for a shareholder-return maximizing company. Might as well suggest that they buy WalMart so they never have to worry about distribution again.
And yes, the USA needs to stop with the ridiculous tax holidays. It only encourages companies to game the system. Come up with a REASONABLE tax regime and put in place real incentives to make sure that taxes are paid, not avoided. This should be the goal of tax policy. Thankfully this year we have a real chance at some real tax law overhaul, and hopefully we'll join the rest of the civilized world and stop taxing profits that were earned overseas. Whether our idiot politicians will actually get around to common sense things like that, I doubt, but one can hope.
"Reasonable" is a subjective term. Politicians, regardless of party, will never do anything to optimize the tax code at the expense of their cash cow contributors. What you will end up with are taxes that on the surface supposed to make businesses pay their "fair share" whatever that is, but in the end those extra costs will be passed on to the consumer aka "middle class" which in turn squeezes the middle class yet again.
Should read, "I personally do not think Apple will issue a special dividend. Just my thoughts, and I'm an analyst." (So what do I know?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney
Other than both being publicly traded corporations, what do you think Enron and Apple have in common to make your reference relevant?
My comment wasn't related to Apple at all. It was more about a publicly traded company tanking quickly, and overall, it was just me trying to bust TS's chops a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
OK, then, I give up. I guess I won't get my 150 billion when I wake up (if I want to keep my job), but 29? AND keep my job? Done deal!
I kid, of course. To be quite honest, much as I love all things Apple I question the morality of sitting on such wealth. Perhaps an Apple tax should be levied against Apple. Perhaps Apple should be required to hand over an iPad mini to every financially struggling family in the US. Or perhaps they should have to pay an annual tax to subsidize college education for hard up kids. It wouldn't make Apple any less successful. Perhaps over time it would turn out to be a great investment that could benefit even more people as well as Apple.
Just thinking aloud....
Seriously? Do you really want to go there? As a shareholder, you would have a right to express your dissatisfaction that they haven't done something with the cash that benefits shareholders (or the company in general), but to classify it immoral to KEEP what you've earned?? Great scott, you have no idea how the free enterprise works.
If you remove the incentive to make more money by taking it away when they get it, companies will stop making money. What follows would be ugly (loss of jobs, depression , etc). Lots of history here in the US and other countries.
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
So where is this $600 you mention?
And $70 or less to do it yourself? Go right ahead but don't pretend that vendors don't charge more than you can buy separately.
No, the 21/5" iMac does not support 32GB because there are now 16GB sticks at this time. There is no conspiracy, Apple isn't out to get you so stop spreading this bullshit!
You are correct about the 21.5" but unfortunately, you assumed I thought Apple was out to get me and I was only pointing out the excessive cost to their upgrades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj
I was going to let it go, figuring he didn't get the bigger picture, but if he has a defender I'll clarify: He replied to the ideas for what Apple could buy with the cash as if they were reasonable ideas that might get shot down for one reason or another. The correct response is that they are idiotic ideas for a shareholder-return maximizing company. Might as well suggest that they buy WalMart so they never have to worry about distribution again.
And yes, the USA needs to stop with the ridiculous tax holidays. It only encourages companies to game the system. Come up with a REASONABLE tax regime and put in place real incentives to make sure that taxes are paid, not avoided. This should be the goal of tax policy. Thankfully this year we have a real chance at some real tax law overhaul, and hopefully we'll join the rest of the civilized world and stop taxing profits that were earned overseas. Whether our idiot politicians will actually get around to common sense things like that, I doubt, but one can hope.
I've read a number of your posts that suggest you may have invested in AAPL or at least do frequent reading on the topic. Other countries do in many cases tax corporations on international sales and profits of subsidiaries whether or not those funds are repatriated. It varies. The other things you haven't acknowledged are not all of these profits have to originate overseas, and you can make deductions for international costs. Companies with foreign ownership have the ability to take out loans from the parent company and deduct the interest, although there are restrictions. Companies can set up discounts to receivables with subsidiaries. Anyway the structure is there to accommodate things such as international investment, but there are a lot of negative consequences, partially due to the complexity of the tax code. I'm not sure how they would solve all of its issues, especially when you add in the lobbying problems mentioned by iSteelers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by moooooser
I am also long AAPL, yet I would like a special dividend. I'd much rather pay 15% tax now on a dividend (a historic low) than a higher (perhaps 40%) rate in the future. (And no, I'm not some 'manipulator', just a guy that's bought, and bought AAPL for years.) And if you use a DRIP, you're buying more of the stock at an undervalued price. Don't get me wrong, AAPL should keep as much money as they think they will ever need on hand. But they already have more cash on hand than the market capitalization of the smallest 466 companies in the S&P500. Perhaps that's a bit much.
I agree with you. I have no idea what is meant by "manipulators" wanting a special dividend. If he means day traders, algorithmic traders or hedge funds, who are in & out of a stock at a moment's notice, they're seldom around long enough to even collect the dividend - although there are some traders who buy on the record date so that they can collect the dividend. But this is risky, as theoretically and all things being equal, the stock price will be discounted by the amount of the dividend.
No, I'm with you. As an investor, I want to have as much (real) money in my hand as soon as possible, and paying the lowest tax rate possible. If Apple was earning 3-4% on its liquid investments, that would be one thing. But Apple tends to have the great majority of this money in very, VERY conservative instruments, which yield next to nothing. So this is dead money... might as well be under a (well guarded) mattress. If the stock price goes to $1000 on Monday, the only way that I can benefit from that is to sell some or all of my position. But with the dividend (a special dividend or an increase in the regular), the benefit is real and immediate. For some odd reason, there are people who just never seem to come to terms with that fact.
If Cook has some grand strategy and needs $50 billion for this or $50 billion for that, then fine. But if the grand strategy is just to sit on all that cash for 5-10 years, while he thinks about it... nah! That dog don't hunt!
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney
Other than both being publicly traded corporations, what do you think Enron and Apple have in common to make your reference relevant?
Not building '7'... *cryptically. :P
Lemon Bon Bon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
Don't give 'em jack shit, after what they did to the stock recently. Manipulators, the lot of 'em.
As a regular reader of Macdailynews...I'm amazed analysts get away with the 'job' they do.
Smack talk the stock low. (Nobody will buy when it takes a hit, right? :P
Then...'oh...we kind of got it...not right....'
Apple posts record profits.
Naturally, nobody profits out of that scenario... :P
Easy to play the casino when it's rigged.
Lemon Bon Bon.
As for the dividend.
I used to own Apple stock in the past.
I've recently bought some.
I don't want a dividend.
I'd rather Apple keep the money in it's battle with Google and Samsung...and let's not count M$ out of it either. Without Jobs at the helm, they're going to need it. Though I don't doubt the world class team Jobs put together. He's left them with a product legacy. But the next wave of products building on that legacy? They need every cent (in my view) to capitlise. (Looking at the phone market...they're not having it all their own way as they did in the music player market...)
5 billion for patents here...or there. The odd big acqusition. Maybe even buying out Hollywood and the 6 major media outlets in the US...that 'billion' money can get used up quicker than we might think. (Thinks of the spending in the US economy for a start...) Maybe a fab for a competitor to Samsung? They may have to support firms like Sharp in their battle for components against Samsung. (BOOOOOOOOO to them.)
I'd rather they add 30 billion to the 120 billion and have 150 billion and race to the 200 billion mark as soon as they can.
Why?
While they're 'hot.' Apple are still 'hot' and selling every iPHone they can make. But the recent push by Samsung shows Apple aren't invincible...(though they command profits...) and despite patenting the 'crap' out of the iPhone there have been few 'telling' blows landed on Android bar the HTC 'agreement.'
(As an aside, I'm awaiting Apple to turn their R&D) big guns around on Google and Samsung (notes the increase of 3-4 billion? in R&D spending recently?)
In this thermo nuclear war...a bigger war chest assures me more than a few quid from Apple dividends. Want more Apple profit or stock? Just buy it at the right time and profit.
200 billion in the bank assures me a lot more than 120 billion.
Lemon Bon Bon.
...Apple have used their cash pile to nail down volume pricing to squeeze out competitors eg on the Macbook air...the iPad etc. It's been made it hard for Google and Intel lapdogs to get traction in those markets.
To the point that most Android, Amazon products have to be sold at cost to get any traction what so ever. Apple pours on the agony with an iPad Mini.
Meanwhile, Apple prints money.
How long Apple will be 'cool' without Jobs is my main concern. I have faith in Cook.
But Jobs was the magician.
..but I feel Cook 'gets it' enough to at least execute on building on the product portfolio Jobs left him.
Maybe Jobs left Apple with one final golden egg..? The Apple TV?
Lemon Bon Bon.