SmartMoney Blogs

Real-Time Advice
Our real-time advice on how market shifts and news impact you and your money

Why Apple’s ‘Record’ Dividend Looks Stingy

Apple’s newly announced dividend payments will transfer around $9.9 billion of its cash to shareholders each year. That shatters the previous record for largest dividend initiation–Cisco last year with $1.3 billion–and it vaults Apple (AAPL) to the No. 2 spot among all companies. AT&T (T) is No. 1, spending $10.4 billion a year on dividends.

Apple also authorized $10 billion for share repurchases, to be spent over three years. Share repurchases reduce the number of outstanding shares, thereby increasing earnings per share and, in theory, making remaining shares more valuable.

Yet Apple still deserves a place on the A&E show “Hoarders”. Here’s why.

Like a recluse with a house stuffed with unread newspapers and magazines, Apple is sitting on $98 billion in cash and investments. That’s a massive sum, just about equal to the stock market value of McDonald’s.

Apple earns enormous profits on the capital it puts to work–close to 40% returns over the past year. But it has more cash than it can possibly put to work, and since the company invests conservatively, at today’s rates it likely collects a yield of less than 1% a year on its portfolio.

The share repurchases should be a boon, because they will turn idle cash into a larger stake in what has recently been one of the market’s most lucrative stocks: Apple. But Apple says the primary goal of its plan is to offset the dilution from employee stock grants. In other words, Apple will use repurchases to sop up the supply of shares created from using its stock as pay. That’s not so much returning cash to shareholders as it is a transfer of balance sheet cash to employees (unless the repurchased shares far outnumber the newly issued ones).

The dividend gives stockholders an opportunity to invest the cash as they see fit, hopefully with higher returns than Apple is getting. That should be a good deal for investors, even if many will have to pay taxes up front. (The dividend tax rate is currently capped at 15%; next year’s rate has yet to be determined by Congress.) And Apple’s new dividend yield, 1.8% if the payment is calculated against Friday’s closing price, is close to the broad market’s yield.

But Apple will generate $75 to $80 billion in free cash over the next four quarters alone, according to estimates by investment bank Sterne Agee. That means its new dividend-and-repurchase plan, until it is made more generous, isn’t really a plan to spend down cash. It’s a plan to keep right on hoarding–even faster this year than last year–while placating investors who’ve been grumbling about the cash.

If the stock price keeps rising, however, investors will likely have few complaints.

Also See:


We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.

Comments (5 of 31)

View all Comments »
    • Nonsense for me. I have Apple stocks. With the dividends i will buy more of its shares.

    • my friend’s step-sister made $18999 past week. she makes money on the computer and moved in a $542400 house. All she did was get blessed and follow the clues made clear on this link

    • Thank you all for helping me to understand the economics of stock buybacks. I see what my online teachers are driving at but I’m still not convinced. Just on general principles, at some point there must be such a thing as too much unproductive cash, and getting rid of it ought to be as beneficial as closing a lagging division of a company where your capital is not producing for you. Thomas seems to agree with me but like Mathew, wants to add the question of what Apple might do and not really dissolve the stock but give it away as compensation. I’m ignoring that idea with my Pear Computer example — the bought back stock “disappears” as a return of capital to the owners. The Doc Finance comment about improving your value by not producing anything and just getting rid of cash seems to miss the point. You’re now producing the same amount with a smaller amount of capital — isn’t that better?

      I think I’ll research this issue myself now, but should any of you return to these comments I’ll be glad to hear more. Thanks.

    • Another article written for no purpose other than to fill space. It is NOT financial news, it’s an editorial, and a misguided one. Market price may be $600, but the book value of the company is not – the dividend is a return of more than 10% on invested capital. Further, the repurchase is not a transfer of shareholder capital to employees, it is a real reduction of the number of shares, because the employees have already been awarded the shares as a part of their compensation. Is there a financial reporter left at The WSJ ? Or have they all been “Murdoched” and gone to Bloomberg or CNBC or IBD ?

About Real-Time Advice

  • How breaking news — in the markets, Washington, and around the world — affects you and your money. Have a question about how current events may change your financial future? Email us at