Editorial

Apple is close to an all-time high and I'm not selling a single share

Editorial

iWatch and trying to predict the market size of mythical products

Editorial

Should Apple consider adding new board members?

Editorial

Was Apple's Beats acquisition really a 'no brainer'?

Editorial

Apple once again speculated to be the first trillion dollar company — here's why

Editorial

Will Apple's hardware focus cause them to fall behind Google and Facebook?

Editorial

Apple raises a bunch more debt to fund its stock buyback program

Editorial

Apple's 7 for 1 stock split: What you need to know!

Editorial

Apple Q2 2014: Wow, were we wrong!

Editorial

How can Apple excite investors beyond Q2 FY14's boring quarterly report?

Editorial

Why all the fuss about the potential end of iPhone subsidies?

Featured

Why would Apple raise iPhone prices when all the money is in the mainstream?

Editorial

Does Apple owe it to shareholders to rush out a new product category?

Editorial

Cleanup on aisle 5: Why Apple is making an 8GB iPhone 5c and re-launching the iPad 4

Editorial

Why would Apple business development executives meet with Tesla Motors?

Editorial

Why Apple 'computers' outselling Microsoft may not be fair, but is incredibly important

Editorial

Why Apple is buying back stock faster than promised

Editorial

Q1 2014: Should Wall Street be hating Apple right now?

Editorial

Forget market share, here's a glimpse at Apple's poolside share!

Editorial

Forget the rumored iPad Pro, what 2014 needs is a better Apple TV

What’s with Apple’s cash and Greenlight Capital’s complaining?

What’s with Apple’s cash and Greenlight Capital’s complaining?

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal ran a story about hedge fund titan David Einhorn, and his firm Greenlight Capital’s view that Apple isn’t distributing enough cash to shareholders. Einhorn says Apple is behaving with a “depression-era mentality” according to the story.

Greenlight issued a formal press release outlining its concerns. You can read that release over at Yahoo Finance. The short version of things? Apple has an annual general meeting of shareholders coming up on February 27th and one of the proposals that shareholders will vote on (called “Proposal 2”) will, according to Greenlight, eliminate Apple’s ability to issue preferred stock. Investing pros refer to these as “prefs”, which I’ll do here since it’s way easier to type. Anyway, Greenlight is encouraging shareholders to vote against this proposal.

Instead, Greenlight wants Apple to issue high yielding perpetual prefs. The “perpetual” part of the name just means that the stock has no maturity date. Prefs are often considered to be a hybrid investment because while they are technically a form of stock (equity), they often have no voting rights and often have a fixed dividend (just like a bond coupon) and they usually have a maturity date, which means they behave more like bonds (debt). Perpetual prefs never mature, so they just collect dividends forever.

Greenlight says that prefs have favorable tax treatment. And since I’m no tax expert I did some digging into this. I can’t figure out why Einhorn’s crew is saying this. It’s true that dividends get better tax treatment than bond coupon payments, but I found nothing to show why pref share dividends are better than common share dividends.

Apple PR also issued a statement debunking Greenlight’s claims. Specifically, Greenlight’s press release says that Apple is trying to pass a proposal that eliminates the ability to issue prefs. That’s not true. According to Apple, they’re just proposing to eliminate the board of director’s ability to issue such instruments without shareholder approval. Apple says it can still issue prefs in the future, but they’ll need shareholder approval.

In my books that’s a good thing. That’s a shareholder-friendly move.

Finally, I must confess I don’t see the difference between Apple raising its common share dividend versus issuing new prefs to existing shareholders. In the end they are all just dividend payments, who why complicate the capital structure by issuing prefs at all? Keep it simple, stupid.

Chris Umiastowski

Chris was a sell side financial analyst covering the tech sector for over 10 years. He left the industry to enjoy a change in lifestyle as an entrepreneur, consultant, and technology writer.

More Posts

 

3
loading...
2
loading...
50
loading...
0
loading...

← Previously

Using the iPad mini as a phone

Next up →

Stuck between the Dropbox that was and the iCloud that isn't yet

There are 5 comments. Add yours.

1776_1865_RIP says:

On a side note any CEO worth his pay is hoarding cash reserves. When the decision was made to re-inflate the economy through "stimulus", bailouts and public sector job growth rather than let it rebuild on solid footing the die was already cast. This bubble will pop; the only question is when.

SteveW928 says:

When the depression hits, running the company with a 'depression-era mentality' might just be seen as a good thing.

Of course, this isn't as good for the short-term, take the money and run, Einhorn types.

maciejtarnowski says:

Those cash piles grew way beyond what we could call a safety buffer. From a financial perspective keeping too much cash is equally harmful as lack of liquidity. It may mean lower return on equity, high alternative costs and lost growth opportunities. It seems like the company doesn't really have any particular idea what to do with those resources. If that's the case, they probably should pay out a reasonably higher dividend and let shareholders manage their cash assets on their own.