Mon, May 28, 2012, 8:39 AM EDT - U.S. Markets closed for Memorial Day

These Charts Show Why Apple Doesn't Need To Pay A Dividend

RELATED QUOTES

SymbolPriceChange
AAPL562.29-3.03
MSFT29.06-0.01
CSCO16.33-0.06
ORCL26.140.02

A lot of tech companies are sitting on mountains of cash.

Apple's is the biggest -- more than $100 billion in cash and marketable securities -- and this week Fortune's Apple reporter Adam Lashinsky (who just wrote an insider's book on the company) reports that Apple is thinking about paying a dividend.

This would be Tim Cook's doing -- Steve Jobs thought returning cash to shareholders was a failure of imagination. Here's a passage from Lashinsky's book, Inside Apple: "He loathed stock buybacks, arguing, with good reason, that they are bribes to investors rather than good uses of capital … such topics were considered off the table with Jobs."

Jobs may have had a point.

In the tech industry, paying a dividend is akin to admitting you're no longer a high growth company.

That hasn't always been the case -- HP and Intel have both been paying dividends since the early 1990s, and both companies have shown fine growth since then.

But take a look at the stock performance of the last three big tech companies who decided to draw down their cash to pay a dividend. In each case, the stock price was flat or down before the dividend was declared.

Microsoft announced it would pay a dividend in January 2003 (the small blue Ds represent dividend payments). Before, its stock price had fallen significantly from a peak in 2000. The dividend does not seem to have helped:

Oracle followed suit in April 2009. Here, the dividend may actually have boosted the share price a bit.

Now, take a look at Cisco, which announced dividends last March. Once again, the stock price has been flat (it's too early to tell if the dividend will help raise it):

Now, look at Apple's stock performance over the last 10 years:

You can use just about any other metric, too -- revenues, profits, cash on hand. In each case, Apple is on a steep growth curve that's amazing for a company its size. These other three companies are much flatter.

So why would Apple pay a dividend?

It's certainly not to boost its share price.

Instead, it could be seen as a reward for the most loyal Apple shareholders. So far, the only way investors have made anything from Apple stock is by selling it. Returning cash to shareholders is a way of showing them value for sticking with Apple throughout its spectacular run -- and giving them a little more incentive to keep holding.



More From Business Insider
 

3 comments

  • demodave  •  Lubbock, Texas  •  3 months ago
    Quotation for author ("Array"?):"But take a look at the stock performance of the last three big tech companies who decided to draw down their cash to pay a dividend."Point is that Apple doesn't need to draw down its cash to pay a dividend, bu it wouldn't hurt to pay a dividend to draw down its cash. Subtle difference, no?DV:"except that so many shareholders are anything but loyal, buying and selling aapl through puts and calls, and/or riding the small peaks and valleys over the year. Hardly loyal investors that now deserve a dividend for their loyalty."DV, you clearly don't speak for all Apple investors. I bought in 2002 for $9 per share. I sold later at $55 a share to be "prudent" and "not greedy" and purchased a flat-lining (but very large) medical/consumer company. (Wish I could fix that thinking.) I still hold, because there was a split that has dropped my $18 to $9. And I've bought along the way up. I'm not going to complain about the appreciation in share value, but I don't want to have to sell in order to pocket a little liquid coin, and I don't believe in the shell game #$%$ that you are describing with puts and calls.I'd really like to see a dividend. I'd tolerate a stock split. Apple may not *need* to declare a dividend, but we loyal investors (and customers!) might just appreciate one.
  • mobiledevicedude  •  3 months ago
    I believe you are missing the point regarding the extraordinary amount of cash Apple has on hand, not applicable to HP and Intel . . . so I don't think your analogy applies. Steve Jobs never thought of Apple as a publicly held company; Apple was his company. The fact it was publicly held was an annoyance, and Jobs was against dividends. But what he abhorred even more were acquisitions . . . a another way to reward shareholders. If it wasn't invented at Apple, it wasn't worth the money (Siri being one of a few exceptions). Tivo, Adobe, Hulu, Netflix, etc., acquisitions that would further raise stock price / return. So Apple should either buy back or buy something.
  • DV  •  3 months ago
    except that so many shareholders are anything but loyal, buying and selling aapl through puts and calls, and/or riding the small peaks and valleys over the year. Hardly loyal investors that now deserve a dividend for their loyalty.
 
Recent Quotes
Symbol Price Change % Chg 
Your most recently viewed tickers will automatically show up here if you type a ticker in the "Enter symbol/company" at the bottom of this module.
You need to enable your browser cookies to view your most recent quotes.
 
Sign-in to view quotes in your portfolios.

Trading Center

Yahoo! Finance on Facebook

  YAHOO! FINANCE ON TWITTER