I love this. The guy made a prediction. This isn’t even a rumor. I’d imagine this is an attempt to start beating this drum… I’ll believe it when I see it. (Perhaps though: they might have SOOO much cash…)
-
Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
GotWake 2:55 pm on December 20, 2011 151 days ago Reply
I always like it when they start the “must give a dividend” banter. It’s always fun to take a look at their darlings that give dividends. Of course, they use a time frame that supports their argument.
If I’m on the board of a company, I want to see how the dividend helps the stock price in the long term. When you look at the two companies this guy uses as the leaders of the dividend stocks and aapl over the last 5 years, I wonder which stock he would have picked?
http://bit.ly/sxOxcE
I kind of like the one that has 372% return.
Senator Gronk 3:26 pm on December 20, 2011 151 days ago Reply
Sure. I will admit that if they have a MASSIVE quarter that they might award a one-time dividend (assuming such a thing exists) simply to off-load some cash. They might even start a dividend. Steve might have hated the idea and steve’d it. Oppenheimer might see a strategic advantage to it moving forward. So yeah, it MIGHT happen. And we can quietly discuss those reasons.
But to go on record and claim that it WILL happen? Ridiculous.
Apple never does what people want it to do. They never do what “conventional wisdom” (contradiction in terms?) dictates. If they offer a dividend it will be on their terms for their reasons on their time. No other way to frame it
I’m fascinated by the talking heads. They will say anything to fill silence.
conshmillo 8:43 pm on December 20, 2011 151 days ago Reply
If anything, buyback is more probable than dividend. But I think Apple is not letting go of any of its cash until Google is punished for Schmidt’s backstab. If Apple is still Steve Jobs’ company, this thing is on the list and it doesn’t have a low priority.
Nicu 9:25 pm on December 20, 2011 151 days ago Reply
I think one goal should be to kill the stolen product (which is stealing market), not obsess over a person. I wouldn’t like “my money” (technically not true, because I do not own shares, only calls) to be spent on a man hunt.
conshmillo 10:17 pm on December 20, 2011 151 days ago Reply
It’s not man hunt for man hunt. It’s man hunt for broken principle that have put in jeopardy the whole company. It’s man hunt for breaking the trust. Unpunished will encourage similar behavior in the future. Godfather like, huh?
Nicu 10:37 pm on December 20, 2011 151 days ago Reply
I still prefer to see the guy and Google as collateral damage, not the main target. But if the only way to kill the stolen product is by killing Google, so be it.