Apple Inc. shares reach ex-dividend as it gears up to distribute $2.9 billion to shareholders

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 37
    tkell31tkell31 Posts: 216member
    The dividend increase was nice, but the bigger story is the iPhone7 looks to be the least exciting upgrade released since the iPhone was invented and if it is what impact is that going to have on sales?  They are spending more on R&D then ever but it doesnt seem to be translating to improvements that excite customers.  You would think the 6S might be the floor as far as sales go, but with the bigger screen phone being out for two years how many people are out there that will buy the 7 just for the larger screen plus the incremental upgrades to the battery, camera, size and style?  In short I see 2017 as another year of declining iPhone sales and don't think it's going to be that close.  I'm sure Cook doesnt see it that way, but by all means where is the logic wrong?
    ValueAnalyst
  • Reply 22 of 37
    jonljonl Posts: 210member
    tkell31 said:
    jonl said:
    The part you quoted is sort of correct, but you're right, it's again an overall inaccurate, misleading article, but good for a quarterly lol. I say "sort of" because it implies investors have to actively "settle ownership," which is wrong.

    Here's the deal. AAPL went  ex-dividend on May 5. You needed to have owned the stock through the end of May 4 to collect the dividend. People who purchased the stock on May 5 were excluded from the dividend, hence the term, "ex-dividend". Those who were eligible for the dividend were free to sell it on May 5; they will still get the dividend.

    To be fair, Apple itself reports only the settlement date, not the ex-dividend date, which is rather stupid, because you have to get out a calendar, count backwards, and account for weekends and holidays to turn it into usable information.

    http://investor.apple.com/dividends.cfm

    Still no excuse for AI to incorrectly use the term "ex-dividend" quarter after quarter in these articles.
    It takes about 5 seconds to google Apple's ex date.  Why you would get a calendar and count backward is bizarre.
    I think it's bizarre that you would make that excuse for the Apple page, since a lot of people would probably end up there after googling. Why would Apple make people jump through any hoops instead of providing the information that's directly usable on their page devoted to dividends? Apple's page should be the primary, authoritative source, and it ought to be easy to use, right?
    edited May 2016
  • Reply 23 of 37
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,353member
    What's really kind of sad is that they're now calling Amazon ($703) to be a $3 trillion company within 10 years and just think a couple of years back Apple was supposed to be the first trillion dollar company and look where it is today.  Barely worth half a trillion dollars and falling fast.  It's very likely Amazon will at least become a trillion dollar company while Apple's stock price continues to fall.  Thanks to Jeff Bezos planning for the future, his company will continue to expand in all directions.  What is Tim Cook doing?  Still trying to sell more iPhones in a smartphone market that's completely saturated.

    Apple had so much money to expand its revenue base but has done almost nothing with it.  AppleWatch is claimed to be a huge failure (I really don't know).  AppleMusic has certainly fallen short of Apple's hoped for 100 million users.  Investors are buying Amazon ($703) like it is a bargain stock and investors won't touch Apple for under $100 a share.  It's really crazy.  I totally don't understand Wall Street but I'm not a big investor so they're probably much smarter than I am.  I sure wish I could see the distant future as well as those big investors can but it's difficult for me to see past tomorrow.  To me, Apple still seems like a solid company but yet it's become a poisoned investment to most of Wall Street.  Apple's investment competition is just too good.  They're always devising ways to sell themselves to investors while Apple seems to be driving investors away.  It's just downright weird how Apple has fallen so fast and still retains a large and loyal customer base.
    Basically, you're conflating Apple with AAPL.  Two different things, with two different goals.
    If you think AAPL has nothing to do with Apple, I really don't know what to say...
    cnocbui
  • Reply 24 of 37
    delreyjonesdelreyjones Posts: 333member
    What's really kind of sad is that they're now calling Amazon ($703) to be a $3 trillion company within 10 years and just think a couple of years back Apple was supposed to be the first trillion dollar company and look where it is today.  Barely worth half a trillion dollars and falling fast.  It's very likely Amazon will at least become a trillion dollar company while Apple's stock price continues to fall.  Thanks to Jeff Bezos planning for the future, his company will continue to expand in all directions.  What is Tim Cook doing?  Still trying to sell more iPhones in a smartphone market that's completely saturated.

    Apple had so much money to expand its revenue base but has done almost nothing with it.  AppleWatch is claimed to be a huge failure (I really don't know).  AppleMusic has certainly fallen short of Apple's hoped for 100 million users.  Investors are buying Amazon ($703) like it is a bargain stock and investors won't touch Apple for under $100 a share.  It's really crazy.  I totally don't understand Wall Street but I'm not a big investor so they're probably much smarter than I am.  I sure wish I could see the distant future as well as those big investors can but it's difficult for me to see past tomorrow.  To me, Apple still seems like a solid company but yet it's become a poisoned investment to most of Wall Street.  Apple's investment competition is just too good.  They're always devising ways to sell themselves to investors while Apple seems to be driving investors away.  It's just downright weird how Apple has fallen so fast and still retains a large and loyal customer base.
    Basically, you're conflating Apple with AAPL.  Two different things, with two different goals.
    I think you're correct and it's a problem that happens a lot.  People say "Apple is doing terribly" whereas it's usually the case that Apple is doing fine but AAPL is under-performing.  And yes, there is a relationship between the two, and yes, AAPL does affect employee morale, but still, the relationship is weak.  The market behaves much like a drunk, hysterical adolescent.   A lot of nonsense arguments are made when Apple and AAPL are conflated.  Steve Jobs hardly cared about AAPL at all, in fact he was almost contemptuous of the market.  Tim Cook does care a bit about AAPL, but Apple itself is many times more important.  
    baconstangapres587steveh
  • Reply 25 of 37
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    jonl said:
    Rayz2016 said:

    It could be that Apple's primary concern is serving its customers rather than its investors. Apple's share price has zero impact on the company's ability to deliver. But if their customers vanish…
    Wrong. The stock price matters greatly to employees whose compensation is (partly) in the form of stock.

    I don't think the vast majority of Apple employees who are responsible for maintaining their customer base are that bothered about the stock price. The chaps on the ground are still there (I'm not really sure the retail workers have enough shares to really care) and the likes of Jony Ive haven't left either. (The higher-ups already have more money than they can spend in a lifetime)

    Mid-level workers are more concerned with the benefits they can get for their family and themselves. To these people, good health and pension packages are more attractive than Apple stock. 

    And despite the share price, Apple still seems able to attract talent and acquire businesses. 

    Apple continues to operate despite the plunge.  I just don't think the company is as focussed on the stock as Wall Street is. 



    edited May 2016 baconstangtmay
  • Reply 26 of 37
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    Basically, you're conflating Apple with AAPL.  Two different things, with two different goals.
    I think you're correct and it's a problem that happens a lot.  People say "Apple is doing terribly" whereas it's usually the case that Apple is doing fine but AAPL is under-performing.  And yes, there is a relationship between the two, and yes, AAPL does affect employee morale, but still, the relationship is weak.  The market behaves much like a drunk, hysterical adolescent.   A lot of nonsense arguments are made when Apple and AAPL are conflated.  Steve Jobs hardly cared about AAPL at all, in fact he was almost contemptuous of the market.  Tim Cook does care a bit about AAPL, but Apple itself is many times more important.  
    I think Cook's biggest mistake was introducing dividend payments. That's what brought the drunk, hysterical adolescents into the kitchen. Without dividends, the wolves paid little attention to Apple, aside from begging for a dividend every quarter.

  • Reply 27 of 37
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    tkell31 said:
    The dividend increase was nice, but the bigger story is the iPhone7 looks to be the least exciting upgrade released since the iPhone was invented and if it is what impact is that going to have on sales?  They are spending more on R&D then ever but it doesnt seem to be translating to improvements that excite customers.  You would think the 6S might be the floor as far as sales go, but with the bigger screen phone being out for two years how many people are out there that will buy the 7 just for the larger screen plus the incremental upgrades to the battery, camera, size and style?  In short I see 2017 as another year of declining iPhone sales and don't think it's going to be that close.  I'm sure Cook doesnt see it that way, but by all means where is the logic wrong?
    That's a fair point. One thing I would say is that no one seems to have any solid information about this phone. We've had more analyst guesswork than ever before: it's got no headphone jack, now it has; it has a smart connector, no it doesn't. 

    One other thing to remember is that Apple is not aiming to attract 6s users; they'll be aiming to attract 5s users and below, Android users (a huge market) and Windows Phone users (both of them). 

    Personally, I think the days of increasing phone sales have come to an end. I'm not sure what else you can build into a phone that will attract people in huge quantities. 

    What Apple is doing now is looking at the next market to disrupt. It remains to be seen if they can succeed. 
    baconstang
  • Reply 28 of 37
    baconstangbaconstang Posts: 906member
    Basically, you're conflating Apple with AAPL.  Two different things, with two different goals.
    If you think AAPL has nothing to do with Apple, I really don't know what to say...
    Where did I say AAPL has NOTHING to do with Apple?   
    AAPL has a goal of providing return for investment.  Apple has a goal of providing desirable products for consumers.
    Successfully providing good products will generally provide good returns, but not always.  Conversely, business decisions that generate greater profits, usually short term, often do not improve user experience.  

    'gravytrain' was lamenting AAPL's stock price, tying it to market manipulation, then thinking it's 'weird' that loyal customers haven't left because the stock price is low.
    Happy customers don't give a rat's ass what the stock is doing.  Fund managers could care less about what jack is being used for headphones.
    To mix those up is conflation.
    tmay
  • Reply 29 of 37
    jonljonl Posts: 210member
    Rayz2016 said:
    jonl said:
    Wrong. The stock price matters greatly to employees whose compensation is (partly) in the form of stock.

    I don't think the vast majority of Apple employees who are responsible for maintaining their customer base are that bothered about the stock price. The chaps on the ground are still there (I'm not really sure the retail workers have enough shares to really care) and the likes of Jony Ive haven't left either. (The higher-ups already have more money than they can spend in a lifetime)

    Mid-level workers are more concerned with the benefits they can get for their family and themselves. To these people, good health and pension packages are more attractive than Apple stock. 

    And despite the share price, Apple still seems able to attract talent and acquire businesses. 

    Apple continues to operate despite the plunge.  I just don't think the company is as focussed on the stock as Wall Street is. 



    Of course the very low and very high ends don't care as much. It's the people in-between who are in demand who can be influenced. Apple wouldn't be buying back a $100+ billion worth of stock if it didn't matter a great deal, and frankly, it's absurd they believe their stock is so vastly more valuable than the companies they could have been acquiring. It betrays an IBM-level lack of imagination, and I'm afraid it's going to end up the same way for them.

    Oh, and if Apple wasn't extremely concerned about the stock, Tim Cook wouldn't have beclowned himself by going on Cramer's show.
    edited May 2016
  • Reply 30 of 37
    crossladcrosslad Posts: 526member
    I really think Apple needs to stop with the buy backs and dividend payments. What is the point on making $10bn profit, paying $3bn in dividends and another huge chunk in buy backs?  They probably end up with less in the bank than  Google who are still not paying dividends and will soon be passing Apple in value. I would rather see Apple reduce its margins slightly to increase sales than be manipulated by the stock market. 
  • Reply 31 of 37
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,363member
    crosslad said:
    I really think Apple needs to stop with the buy backs and dividend payments. What is the point on making $10bn profit, paying $3bn in dividends and another huge chunk in buy backs?  They probably end up with less in the bank than  Google who are still not paying dividends and will soon be passing Apple in value. I would rather see Apple reduce its margins slightly to increase sales than be manipulated by the stock market. 
    What advantage is there to Apple having hundreds of billions of dollars in the bank?  If they aren't planning on using it then holding it accomplishes nothing. There's an argument to hold some cash for a rainy day, but you'd need a biblical scale flood for Apple to burn through its reserves.
  • Reply 32 of 37
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    Rayz2016 said:
    I think you're correct and it's a problem that happens a lot.  People say "Apple is doing terribly" whereas it's usually the case that Apple is doing fine but AAPL is under-performing.  And yes, there is a relationship between the two, and yes, AAPL does affect employee morale, but still, the relationship is weak.  The market behaves much like a drunk, hysterical adolescent.   A lot of nonsense arguments are made when Apple and AAPL are conflated.  Steve Jobs hardly cared about AAPL at all, in fact he was almost contemptuous of the market.  Tim Cook does care a bit about AAPL, but Apple itself is many times more important.  
    I think Cook's biggest mistake was introducing dividend payments. That's what brought the drunk, hysterical adolescents into the kitchen. Without dividends, the wolves paid little attention to Apple, aside from begging for a dividend every quarter.

    Rubbish.  Cook's biggest mistake was listening to Icahn and instituting buybacks.  If the money spent on those useless buybacks had been disbursed to shareholders as dividends - as it should have been - the share price would be well over $200.
  • Reply 33 of 37
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    Here's something Neil Cybart posted on Twitter that I think perfectly sums up Wall Street right now:

    Wall Street narratives
    AAPL = zero visibility
    GOOG = FB & AMZN better positioned
    MSFT = recovery play winding down
    FB & AMZN = unstoppable

    Apple had an easier time with secrecy when Jobs was running the show. Now Wall Street is skeptical about Apple's pipeline. They're basically treating Apple as Nokia or Blackberry in the mid 2000s.
  • Reply 34 of 37
    tkell31tkell31 Posts: 216member
    Rayz2016 said:
    tkell31 said:
    The dividend increase was nice, but the bigger story is the iPhone7 looks to be the least exciting upgrade released since the iPhone was invented and if it is what impact is that going to have on sales?  They are spending more on R&D then ever but it doesnt seem to be translating to improvements that excite customers.  You would think the 6S might be the floor as far as sales go, but with the bigger screen phone being out for two years how many people are out there that will buy the 7 just for the larger screen plus the incremental upgrades to the battery, camera, size and style?  In short I see 2017 as another year of declining iPhone sales and don't think it's going to be that close.  I'm sure Cook doesnt see it that way, but by all means where is the logic wrong?
    That's a fair point. One thing I would say is that no one seems to have any solid information about this phone. We've had more analyst guesswork than ever before: it's got no headphone jack, now it has; it has a smart connector, no it doesn't. 

    One other thing to remember is that Apple is not aiming to attract 6s users; they'll be aiming to attract 5s users and below, Android users (a huge market) and Windows Phone users (both of them). 

    Personally, I think the days of increasing phone sales have come to an end. I'm not sure what else you can build into a phone that will attract people in huge quantities. 

    What Apple is doing now is looking at the next market to disrupt. It remains to be seen if they can succeed. 
    Well said.  And to be clear my point is is people haven't upgraded yet the 7 doesnt give them much more reason to upgrade/switch than than the prior to phones...and probably less.  
  • Reply 35 of 37
    There's a very good reason for buybacks and dividends that is rarely mentioned, and that comes from removing unproductive excess cash from the balance sheet. Lets look at Apple, with a $510 billion market cap and about $160 billon of cash and equivalents on the books, net of debt.  A dollar invested in Apple represents about 70 cents invested in the actual operating business, which is where the profits come from, and about 30 cents invested to buy a bit of that cash pile, earning about 1%.  Arguably a less-than-ideal allocation of each invested dollar. 

    So a smart investor wants that cash removed from the books, which would either reduce the market cap of the company or, if the cash isn't being valued at even 1x its value, which could be argued is the case with Apple, removing that cash would leave the market cap where it is, which would then imply a higher earnings multiple against the productive operating side of the business, while also taking shares off the market, which would increase earnings per share going forward.

    And a higher earnings multiple means that as earnings grow in the future, the stock will climb faster.  Carl Icahn must have had all of these effects in mind - more efficient allocation of investor's dollars, increase in earnings multiple against operating business, and reduction in shares netting an increase in earnings per remaining share - when he approached Tim Cook a couple years ago.  He gave up, and I have too, to a large extent.  I hold a lot less Apple than I used to.  Pity.

    Are the positive effects you mentioned still not true? Why give up on the stock?
  • Reply 36 of 37
    crossladcrosslad Posts: 526member
    crowley said:
    crosslad said:
    I really think Apple needs to stop with the buy backs and dividend payments. What is the point on making $10bn profit, paying $3bn in dividends and another huge chunk in buy backs?  They probably end up with less in the bank than  Google who are still not paying dividends and will soon be passing Apple in value. I would rather see Apple reduce its margins slightly to increase sales than be manipulated by the stock market. 
    What advantage is there to Apple having hundreds of billions of dollars in the bank?  If they aren't planning on using it then holding it accomplishes nothing. There's an argument to hold some cash for a rainy day, but you'd need a biblical scale flood for Apple to burn through its reserves.
    Then let them spend it some other way. Reduce prices to increase market share. Give us more memory, better batteries etc. Apple needs to increase its market share if it wants to compete on its services.
    edited May 2016
  • Reply 37 of 37
    H-manH-man Posts: 5member
    Why doesn't Apple make a more informative TV commercial and explain some of the features that the iPhone has? I have an iPhone 6+ that has a " Hands Free " feature that you have to enable in Settings. Once you turn this on, you can command Siri  ( Hey Siri ) to tell you the time, weather, play music, etc. It's like Amazon's Echo, but you use your iPhone instead of a separate device. Amazon is pushing "Echo" on TV commercials all the time. Even Microsoft and Google are coming out with a similar product. Their commercials show and explain the features far better than Apple's "artistic or hip" commercials. I think by showing the iPhone's new features with each upgrade, it would help sell "upgrade replacement" iPhones to those that don't see a need to upgrade.
Sign In or Register to comment.