The Div Discount model works better for cash-cow, slower growth firms. Right now, even if Apple maintained flat earnings, it could easily have nice div growth for 10 years and still have a payout under 60%. The PE suggests lower forward growth, but so far, hasn't happened. Take out the $100 in cash, and the PE is near 11...still trying to figure out why the market doesn't value this firm higher, but either way, makes it hard to feel it is overvalued at this time.
A discounted cash flow model would likely be more appropriate. Going solely off Apple's dividends is questionable, as they could afford to pay double what they are starting at. Also, their growth rate continues to exceed their cost of capital, so the DDM model fails. [ Div / (discount rate - growth rate) ]. Assuming a $15 div, 8% cost of capital, and a measly 4% growth rate gives you: $375 + the $120 cash/share, is $500. Not fully accurate, given that I'm making up the numbers, but since Apple could afford $15 div and its growth is well over 4%, makes me very comfortable owning AAPL in terms of valuation.
As for the article, I agree with previous posters. The article at the end mentions the cash pile, but neglects to connect this to the discussion of reinvesting all the profits. Apple has too much money, hence a dividend is quite appropriate.
I concur, mtrader87. There's a difference between having enough cash to run operations, to invest in R&D and strategic arrangements, and to have a rainy day fund, and having a ridiculous amount of excess cash. Apple is doing all of the things I mentioned, and yet the pile leftover continues to grow; even Tim Cook says they have more than they need. It's not an issue of having an MBA, it's an issue of shareholders getting the best value. Given the low PE, and even lower if you back out the $100 cash from the price, I don't believe that shareholders are getting $100 value for the $100/sh cash on the balance sheet. Time to give some back and let investors decide where to put it, perhaps back into Apple, which would drive up the price.
User, I think you just hit one of my main issues with indices. While they supposedly represent the market, they are arbitrary. Someone decides which firms are in it and how to weight them. As I recall, the Dow is weighted with a weird formula based on price (not market cap), so firms that split their stock get penalized, which is the opposite of what we probably want. I think I'll stick to choosing my stocks. There was a recent article about the S&P vs Dow methods below. Long: AAPL.
Apple: Steve Jobs Will Be Missed, But The Best Is Yet To Come [View article]
Just curious why you own DIS instead of AAPL given the articles you've written. Given your case and projections, seems like AAPL would be the better choice. Disclosure: Long AAPL.
I have to agree with DemoDave, this is not a dividend strategy, this is day trading and capital gains accumulation. At the point you make your "dividend", you no longer own the stock. Selling covered calls would seem more appropriate to me. In addition to the previously mentioned brokerage fees, if this is being done in a taxable account, you will not qualify for the reduced cap gains tax rates. In my experience, people interested in dividend streams usually don't want so much volatility, so I would not recommend this strategy for them.
No To Apple Dividends [View article]
No To Apple Dividends [View article]
As for the article, I agree with previous posters. The article at the end mentions the cash pile, but neglects to connect this to the discussion of reinvesting all the profits. Apple has too much money, hence a dividend is quite appropriate.
MBAs, Gimmicks and Apple's Culture [View article]
Is Apple Too Big For This Market? [View article]
http://bit.ly/wMG4SW
How To Hedge Your 2011 Apple Gains [View article]
Apple: Steve Jobs Will Be Missed, But The Best Is Yet To Come [View article]
Apple's Tim Cook Just Had A Defining Moment [View article]
http://dthin.gs/re2teJ/
Turn Apple Into a Dividend Stock [View article]