talk about nasty. did i get to you. did you see gild at a high and lxrx at a low.
poor warren if he only got on wickapedia like zinc and understood dividends he could be as rich as zinc.
i bought gild the same month you did so what's a little drop. you have me confused with someone that gives a hovno.
now get out there and score this weekend and improve your vile disposition.
ask tiny about dividends. see if he doesn't agree with me. i know you will be truthfull.
i can't come up with a good idea of what management should get. as you know warren has never been asked to be on a compensation committee. he thinks the pays are way over the top.
as far as "just the dividend" it doesn't make a difference to stockholders. another varialbe is tax rates and thanks to dubya, dividend and cap gain rates are same. in the bad old days of income rates being far higher companies jsut bought back stock with the dividend money. was good for stockholder who got low tax rates on selling and then only if they wanted. buying back over priced stock was a issue.
let's not get into it helping the execs options and double taxation of dividends/earnings.
don't want to confuse you but gild stockholders have become rich with no dividend and lxrx stockholders have become poor with no dividend.
as said before you're smart and i'm right so you will see i'm right.
The little oddments of knowledge, which flow into the general culture about arcane subjects, are as persistent and incurable as the common cold. As they pass from person to person and, indeed, from generation to generation, they accrue the aura of inherited wisdom. In fact, they provide a substitute for understanding while imparting the sensation of knowledge. The understanding of stock splits and dividends is one of these subjects.
Both of the above subjects are easy to explain.
With stock splits my favorite analogy is from Yogi Berra. When asked if he wanted his pizza cut in four or eight slices, he replied: �Four. I don�t think I can eat eight.�
When an investor receives a $1. cash dividend from their company, their bank account goes up by one dollar and the company's goes down by one dollar and then is reflected in the price of the stock..
In each case the investor is not better off.
Some times it helps to exaggerate a point to make a point. If cash dividends increased an investors net worth, it is easy to set up a strategy to buy a stock the day of the dividend and then sell repeating the process each day of the year. The investor would be getting 250 dividends. If someone tries this, let us know how much you have left at the end of the year.
The main functions of a dividend are to give investors an idea of what management is thinking. There are only a few things management can do with your money. Buy back the company stock, expand the company or give it to the investor as a dividend and let the investor figure out what to do with it.
But don�t take my word for it ask your tiny republican brother. Warren Buffet, being fairly conversant in this subject, has never paid a dividend, split his stock or bought his stock back. He has said numerous times he will not pay a dividend as long as he can invest his stockholder�s money better than they can and the burden of proof is on him. As always, in Warren we trust.
> When an investor receives a $1. cash dividend from their
> company, their bank account goes up by one dollar and the
>company's goes down by one dollar and then is reflected in
>the price of the stock.
>In each case the investor is not better off.
Your argument is only true for a brief instant in time.
After that, market forces determine the value of the stock, and the volitility of a dollar's worth of stock is virtually always more than a dollar bill.
In stable industries, such as utilities, dividends are about the only way for a company to return value. Having the comoany holding on to the money does nobody any good, especially if the amount exceeds current needs.
For growth stocks, dividends are counter productive, as they are in industries where there is a huge R&D budget.
I don't think you can make a blanket statement that the stockholder is never better off with or without dividends without taking into account complex present value calculations, and market effects.
why doesn't GILD just GIVE away money? I mean, if all shareholders are 'stealing money' from the company, then why not just give it away.
I mean, if you are saying that these 'neo-cons' are stealing money from the company in the form of stock, etc. (which you HAVE stated as one of your conspiracy theories) then aren't ALL shareholders 'stealing'???
If you want dividends, buy some GM - what is it about dividends anyway - do you think divs are the best way to spend the money raised through PRODUCT sales?
Go look at the data it doesn't help PPS either