MS gives dividends for the first time ($870M), stock split, Xbox surprise performer

[JohnT]

.16/55.35 = .00289.

.29% Asher, not 2.9%.

Sorry, but numbers don't lie.

[Asher]

Also, Drake, for future reference:

Dividends are not paid out on the basis of the size of the company's cash reserves, but on the profit they make during a period...

[Asher]

Originally posted by JohnT
.16/55.35 = .00289.

.29% Asher, not 2.9%.

Sorry, but numbers don't lie.

Err...duh.

[Drake Tungsten]

.16/55.35 = .00289.

.29% Asher, not 2.9%.

Sorry, but numbers don't lie.

Damn, you beat me to it. I wanted to be the one who exposed Asher's pathetic math skills...

Still think it's a good deal, glonky?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Still think it's a good deal, glonky?

Absolutely, why is it a bad deal?

It was 0% before. People were expecting 0%.

16 cents per share is better than 0 cents per share. How is this a "bad deal"?

[Drake Tungsten]

Dividends are not paid out on the basis of the size of the company's cash reserves, but on the profit they make during a period...

If a company has huge cash reserves like MS does, they can obviously afford to give a significant part of their profits back to their shareholders in the form of dividends. To not do so serves no real purpose and is a disservice to stockholders.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
If a company has huge cash reserves like MS does, they can obviously afford to give a significant part of their profits back to their shareholders in the form of dividends. To not do so serves no real purpose and is a disservice to stockholders.

Nobody is forced to own MS stock, if the stockholders don't like it they don't need to buy MS stock.

Historically MS stock has done amazingly well, I can't think of a single stock holder who bought MS stock expecting dividends...so I also fail to see how this classifies as a disservice?

[Drake Tungsten]

16 cents per share is better than 0 cents per share. How is this a "bad deal"?

Microsoft can afford to give much more than 16 cents a share. It's better than nothing, but it's nowhere near being a "good deal".

[JohnT]

Oderin was spot on when he said:

"That cash hord has been building for more then a decade. Supposedly MS's stock price won't be as volitile after they start paying dividends since more "buy & hold" retires will aquire the stock as a way to pay for their retirement incomes."

That's why this is a good thing, Drake. It isn't about people getting a big payout for Q4 2002, but about price stability in the future and increasing the attractiveness of MS stock to a group of investors that is historically wary and susceptible to price volatility.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Microsoft can afford to give much more than 16 cents a share. It's better than nothing, but it's nowhere near being a "good deal".

It's a good deal -- unexpected money is always good.

MS can afford to give more, and I bet you can afford to give more to charity.

Just because we can afford to doesn't mean we will.

MS has a lot of **** to deal with, including entering a ton of markets with stuff like SPOT and Xbox, to a $1.1B settlement in California and impending settlements in like 20 other states.

It'd be stupid for MS to give out insane sums of money of cash to shareholders who weren't expecting any to begin with...

It sounds to me like someone's just fishing for something to hate MS for. They start releasing dividends, everyone cry about how they're not giving everyone a million dollars because they can afford to.

[Drake Tungsten]

That's why this is a good thing, Drake. It isn't about people getting a big payout for Q4 2002, but about price stability in the future and increasing the attractiveness of MS stock to a group of investors that is historically wary and susceptible to price volatility.

I'm not looking for a huge payout, just a realistic dividend yield that will slowly move money from MS's overstuffed warchest to investors pockets. Right now, Microsoft's dividend is a joke. .29% yield? Please. If they increase the yield in the future, I'll change my opinion, but right now this whole thing just looks a stunt to me...

[Asher]

I'm not looking for a huge payout, just a realistic dividend yield that will slowly move money from MS's overstuffed warchest to investors pockets.

It almost sounds like you're making the case that MS' investors are pressed for cash.

The people who have been investing in MS have probably had a huge return on them, I don't see why huge dividends are important.

[Drake Tungsten]

MS can afford to give more, and I bet you can afford to give more to charity.

Shareholders aren't a charity, you nitwit. You're supposed to make them money and to not do so when you have the opportunity is a disservice. But since when did MS care about ethics...

[Drake Tungsten]

The people who have been investing in MS have probably had a huge return on them, I don't see why huge dividends are important.

Ask the large institutional investors who have been pressuring MS to pay dividends for years. This was an attempt to placate them and not a very good one.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Shareholders aren't a charity, you nitwit.

I never said they were the same.

However, it's a similar philosophy when you actually think about it rather than troll.

Look at the average return rate investors have received from MS' stock. Compare that to virtually any stock out on the market.

Investors in MS have grown to not expect a dividend and to make lots of money off continually rising prices and stock splits. Anything more can almost be considered a charity move...

You're supposed to make them money and to not do so when you have the opportunity is a disservice. But since when did MS care about ethics...

This has nothing to do with ethics. Again, name one company that's made more money for more people other than MS in the past 15 years.

MS has always been providing that "service" to stockholders, dividends are not the only way to do that. That's why it's not a requirement to give dividends, you know.

To even begin to imply that it's ethical for MS to give a large percentage as a dividend is laughable at best.
1) Dividends are optional
2) People have never expected them from MS in the first place, and nobody forces you to buy MS stock -- you buy it under the assumption you're not getting a dividend from it

That's not unethical, it's just the way a lot of tech companies work.