“Apple is truly one of the more interesting stocks out there. Some years ago it used to be the darling of the momentum traders,” Dividend Appreciator writes for Seeking Alpha. “Over time, the stock has slowly but surely shifted to become more of a dividend investor’s dream, with moderate yield and nice dividend growth year after year.”
“Apple started its most recent dividend history in the summer of 2012 after many years of no dividends at all,” Dividend Appreciator writes. “The first dividend was paid in August of that year at a quarterly split-adjusted level of $0.38 per share. Not even a year later investors got their first raise to a split-adjusted $0.436 or a 15% hike.”
“With the election of Donald Trump, there is the prospect of a possible one-time tax cut on repatriated cash. If that were to happen, up to $230bn of Apple’s cash could be brought back to the US,” Dividend Appreciator writes. “Certainly, some of this might go towards M&A activity – hopefully value accretive ones. Since there are not that many companies with a market capitalization at this level, one would have to be pretty naive not to think a good chunk of this would be used for buybacks and dividends. In other words, there is a potentially large upside to Apple’s future dividend growth.”
“I do believe the dividend hike will be in line with the percentage-wise, and not the dollar-wise, increase of recent years,” Dividend Appreciator writes. “If so, that would mean a hike of 10.5% to $0.63.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: As Jim Cramer often say of AAPL: Own it, don’t trade it.
SEE ALSO:
Analyst: Apple could double dividend, buy Netflix with repatriated cash under President Trump’s U.S. corporate tax changes – March 17, 2017
Apple’s real dividend yield is much higher than you might think – March 10, 2017
Apple preps to distribute dividends totaling $3.1 billion to shareholders – February 8, 2017
“…with moderate yield…”
Well, the yield is not so moderate to anyone who bought AAPL at historically low prices. The current dividend yield calculated on historically low AAPL share purchase prices can be absolutely amazing. The current AAPL dividends are returning 2.5 times (250% of) my original purchase price back in Spring 2003. Moderate yield, my ass!
I agree with you if one calculates the yield based on one’s purchase price than unless you both at the all time high recently your personal yield is much higher than the “moderate” yield (of about 1.8%). Mine is also much much bigher than 1.8%. BUT that is not the way one calculates yield. It has to be calculated based on the preseent price because that is what one would buy it for NOW. It is not surprisng that the increase will be about 10%. Tim Cook basically stated some time ago that they will raise the rate each year. I actually think Apple divy yield is much too low at present and should be higher. I don’t think we can count on the foreign money being repatriated this year and any divy increase at this time will not be reflective of a Trump repatriation of foreign money. Let’s first see some thing realistic out of Trump in any area first. Tax reform proposals are a joke at this point.
Big stinking deal. Companies should pay at a minimum 80% of the profits per quarter to stockholders.
The dividends should be between .75 and 1.00 dollar a share, with no buybacks ever.
WHY not 90…95% BOB? I don’t want to hear what you think the min wage should be.
I have no problem with 90% and they, the company, pay no taxes. Don’t even bother to hire a tax accounting firm. Why 80%, well it leaves the CEO enough to pretend he or she is a billionaire, and a few bonuses, but you are right, the bills have been paid, the money for research and development spent, employees compensated, hell, I am certainly willing to have 90% of the profits paid to shareholders. You know, yeah, you are right, it keeps the company hungry, cause with that 10% they have to make even more money for acquisitions and such. Make good sense. No more debt to kept a company hungry. yes, good idea.
I am sorry BOB but I don’t think your ideas are sound at all and your assumptions are wrong. Apple DOES PAY TAXES and it pays a higher rate than a bunch of companies.
RI Waterman have your eyes checked. Bob never mentions Apple. BOB DOES NOT SAY APPLE DOES NOT PAY TAXES!!!!
BOB DOES NOT SAY APPLE DOES NOT PAY TAXES!!!!
What are you reading? It seems to be a thought about how to pay no taxes, how to pay investors, and how a company could could do as Steve Jobs recommended, ‘stay hungry’, without incurring debt. You may be too young to remember RJR/Nabisco, but look up the movie about it; it was a good movie.
I like his thought. It appears to be a real way to measure how well a company is doing. No silly unexplainable multiples necessary. Simple logic. Check the dividend. 90% of the profits are being paid out. Companies not making a profit pay no dividend and perhaps their share price will reflect that lack of performance. And, still, in a free well regulated market, you are still free to speculate and buy those shares, but at least you know they are not performing based on actual measurable outcomes.
Really not a bad thought.
No, absolutely no dividents, you money grubbers Apple destroyers.
Dividends attract disloyal Apple investors.
As soon as a corporation kow tows to investors by allocating dividends, that corporation is showing weakness and is on a decline.
Why in the hell do you think people invest in businesses? Let me help with the answer, to make money. To buy stock, shares, in any company, with the prayer that you will sell your shares if and when the share price goes higher is gambling. Let’s be clear, every business would love for the sucker class to let them keep profits. No, no suckers here. It amazes me how many people whine about the government and taxes and somehow think it’s ok to be nickel and dime by a business who’s job it is to produce money for it’s stockholders.
You want a new day. Fine. Corporations want to pay no taxes. Fine. Corporations want to save money. Great. In order to have no taxes, They need to pay out 90 precent of the profits to shareholders. Employees, including the CEO, need more money than the agreed upon salary, fine. Buy shares. Their bonuses are reflected in the work they do. More profits, higher dividends, more money for them. 90% pay out of profits, no taxes, saving tens of millions, no need for tax accounting firms and tax lawyers. Now that’s a real savings that should be passed on to in the form of a higher dividend.
BOOB, I bet you’d feel differently if you were CEO of a public company. And, if you were a CEO of a public company, I think you’d have a lack of investors. I’m sure you find this incomprehensible, but the word is incentive (for the business). Related to your 1st sentence, why do you think people start a business? Where in the history of the market is dividend % that you propose ever been in effect? None, and why? Venezuela might be a place to consider for your relocation.
ripabo, what in the hell are you talking about? Do you think that if a company was paying 5, 6, 7, 8, … dollars a share per quarter as a dividend no one would buy those shares. Incentive, if I could pull you away from the trough of give me more and more money cause I did my job, you must be in sells huh, it is expected that the company would make money. No company hires you to do a mediocre job. Your incentive is in the profit paid through the dividend. I get it, this is new, to have those that want to make more money, make more money and that reward be paid in a dividend. instead of some arbitrary handed out bonus. Please, if the company is making money, the employees alone will buy up the stock. Maybe Venezuela is a better fit for you. See, when I loan money for a business, I expect that I will receive not just my money back, but a percentage of those profits until I am bought out, or the business closes. Hey, but if you know some suckers out there that want loan money and not make a return on that money, other than the russians, let me know.
Want to stop handouts, fine. Your bonus is in the dividend, buy shares if you want more money.
Maybe I’m getting played by you…you’re building a big, “just kidding? Business isn’t made/created for the purpose of paying the employee. It would be more than a little disincentive for a biz to pay the plush div % you’re advocating and products would cost more/fewer sold. You’re quite skilled at extrapolating things I never said, like; not making a return on $$. It’s all about reasonable, practicable and profitable percentages of return. Anything close to, or north of 80% is goofy and you know that, right? If not, I need a nap.