Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Considers $10 Billion Dividend

Dreadnougat writes "Microsoft is considering paying out a $10 billion dividend, the largest corporate payout ever. Cynics (ok, anyone reading /.) might note that Bill Gates stands to make $1.18 billion himself off the $1 a share dividend, in comparison to the $95 million he makes in a normal year off the regular 8 cents a share dividend."

22 of 630 comments (clear)

  1. Ahh by jsgates · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If only I'd bought that Microsoft stock when I was born.

  2. /.-centric summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    MS is paying money to it's loyal investors because Bill Gates is greedy.

    Had MS not payed out, the summary would have been:

    MS is not paying out money to it's loyal investors because Bill Gates is greedy.

    1. Re:/.-centric summary. by 73939133 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, and in both cases, the /.-centric summary would be valid.

      In any case, the greed of Bill Gates doesn't start with dividend payouts, it starts with wanting to own the entire computer industry and crushing every competitor to dust through unfair competition and sleazy tricks.

    2. Re:/.-centric summary. by hpa · · Score: 3, Insightful
      No, he did not play by the rules. He broke the law -- the courts have so ruled.


      Furthermore, someone who donates stolen money to charity is still a thief.

    3. Re:/.-centric summary. by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Insightful
      And the truth of the matter is he played by the rules and won.


      If he played by the rules and won, why was his company found guilty of operating as an illegal, predatory monopoly? Or do you mean "the rules" in the Machiavellian sense of "the rules are whatever you can get away with"?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    4. Re:/.-centric summary. by TopShelf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Companies aren't allowed to sell IBM/PC compatible computers without an OS. The only way to buy one like this is to build it from parts.

      Say what? Go to any one of zillions of online computer merchants and you can order an OS-less PC. How does a comment like that get modded informative???

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    5. Re:/.-centric summary. by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "it starts with wanting to own the entire computer industry and crushing every competitor to dust through unfair competition and sleazy tricks. "

      And, as a fallback plan, they make products people want.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    6. Re:/.-centric summary. by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Yes thats the really sad thing. MS most likely could of won the desktop (and office suite) wars without any dirty tricks as they do understand what users want."

      According to the judgement, they did. They acquired their monopoly legitimately (I'm paraphrasing here), what they did wrong was they maintained it afterwards by doing the anti-competitive stuff.

      Frankly, I don't think the truth is as clear cut as that. It is arguable, though, that the vast majority of what got them to monpoly status was from consumer demand.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    7. Re:/.-centric summary. by 73939133 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And, as a fallback plan, they make products people want.

      So did Standard Oil and Ma Bell, and we still broke them up because they were ultimately harmful to the economy and not in the interest of consumers.

      And so do cigarette makers and drug dealers, for that matter.

    8. Re:/.-centric summary. by darien · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is arguable, though, that the vast majority of what got them to monpoly status was from consumer demand.

      To some extent, they were just lucky that the architecture they were already developing for was the one that won. If Commodore and/or Apple had been smarter, more responsive and more far-sighted we might all have been using Amigas or Macs now and MS would be a division of IBM or something. But Commodore pissed their technological advantage away, and Apple... well, I don't know what they were playing at. So between about 1992 and 1998 the PC had no credible opposition in the desktop market. MS were smart enough to capitalise on this good fortune, developing Windows 95 to vastly diminish the usability gap between theirs and competitors' platforms and then starting to cement its success in the various ways we all know about. But they were lucky to get that clear run that enabled them do that.

      Of course, developing for an open platform in the first place - one that couldn't be accidentally fumbled or killed by an idiot parent company - was a smart move. I'm not suggesting that it was sheer luck; in retrospect it looks like the obvious strategy. But in 1988 the price differential and technological gulf between a PC and an Amiga made it a lot less obvious which side the smart money would be on.

    9. Re:/.-centric summary. by slimme · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And, as a fallback plan, they make products people want.

      They make products people buy. I don't know anyone that wants Microsoft products. I know people that want a big house, a BMW, ...

      The people I know don't care for what's on their computer. It just happens to be Microsoft. That's why Bill Gates is rich. He makes a product that few people really want, but everybody buys.

  3. I doubt it's for his pocket by jonman_d · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Come on, people - I _highly doubt_ Bill really cares whether he makes a hundred million or a billion dollars. If anything, it'd probably be more of a hastle for him, with all the extra taxes. Besides, is he even the guy that makes this decision anymore? He's not CEO. Perhaps an accountain could help me out on this one?

  4. Damned if They Do .... by tealover · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why shouldn't Gates earn dividends on his shares? His dividend payment would be proportionate to the amount of shares he owns.

    I guess certain people have to find any excuse to attack the man.

    --
    -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
  5. Hopefully it'll be trend. by eidechse · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It'd be nice to see dividends once again be the main way most people expect to make money with stocks. Especially tech stocks. Focusing on the worth and stability of a company is a good thing. IMO, building money over time through dividends is more practical (read: safer) for small time investors than speculation.

    1. Re:Hopefully it'll be trend. by GigsVT · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well ultimately any stock has no real value other than dividends and future dividends.

      Think about it.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  6. Huh? Regular dividend? by ComputerSlicer23 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Hmmm, the poster says, "the regular 8 cents a share dividend". Uhh, didn't Microsoft just pay it's first dividend in the last 12 months. I don't believe they've paid out more then 4 of them, I'm reasonably sure they have only made one dividend payment in their entire corporate history. I'm too lazy to go track down the Slashdot story or the SEC filing on the matter.

    Now that there is no dividend tax and Microsoft is no longer a growth company, there isn't any good reason not to pay the stockholders. When there was a dividend tax, Microsoft could argue that by keeping the money, they could put it to more efficient use to build stockholder value in terms of share value, rather then giving some of it to the stockholder, and some of it for the gov't. The other point is, that Microsoft is done growing by leaps and bounds. They don't need any more capital to grow, or smooth out cashflow issues, or any other standard business reason why a company normally keeps money cash on hand.

    I believe the shareholders are starting to demand it, as that's the one way the shareholders can get their money out, without having the price go up or down. It's a sign that Microsoft is turning into an old school established company, like so many others, rather then being a hot commodity stock that creates value, because the company keeps growing, and building up more value.

    Kirby

  7. Re:Alternative uses of the money by reallocate · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dunno about the others, but I doubt Microsoft can afford to buy IBM. IBM reported $20.1 billion in revenue for the first quarter. That puts it at more than $80 billion in revenue for the calendar year.

    By comparison, Microsoft's revenue for the quarter was $7.1 billion.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  8. Long Overdue by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Microsoft has been sitting on a cash mountain they are essentially unwilling to spend. They can simply swap stock for acquisitions, so without a pressing capital expenditure this cash should be returned to the owners of the corporation.

    This may make the stock rise - too much cash on hand is often seen as a negative by analysts.

  9. Dear Slashdot, I am confused. by GoofyBoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > No, he did not play by the rules. He broke the law -- the courts have so ruled.

    Umm. So the legal system have the final say in what is right and wrong?

    Yet every week there are people here shouting how wrong and unfair DMCA/outragous legal settlements/patent cases are.

    So;
    We agree with legal rulings = The legal system is clearly the last word in what is right.
    We don't like legal rulings = The legal system is corrupt and change is needed now!

    --
    The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
  10. Paying Dividens is a Bad Sign by Nice2Cats · · Score: 4, Insightful
    A while ago, we had a review on Slashdot of a book by one Andy Kessler from Wall Street who wrote an article in December 2002 called "I hate dividends" (see, somebody does follow those links). He has a couple of interesting quotes there:

    [A]s an investor, I avoid companies that pay dividends like the plague, and you should too. Why? Because when they pay a dividend they are admitting they have nothing better to do with their money. If they won't invest in themselves, why should I?
    and
    Dividends entice investors into debt-laden, slow- or no-growth companies, more likely to cut their dividend, burning investors worse than conflicted research analysts. Run away. They are wearing a scarlet dollar sign. You want yield? Buy a bond.
    and
    Failing companies just bribe investors with dividends. Encourage companies with a future to invest in their operations, seeking high returns. If all that mattered were dividends, we (...) would still be investing in railroad stocks.

    I think we can rule out Microsoft being "debt-laden", but it still sheds an interesting light on how finanicial people with a tech background will be looking at this move: The growth days are over, and from here on, it is stagnation.

    (Disclaimer: Everything I ever needed to know I learned from Slashdot)

  11. gates is evil but he isn't stupid by zogger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The economy is being blown out. The value of everything is dropping vis a vis what the current manipulated artificial currencies say they are worth. Sitting on daily de-valuing cash is pointless, they are taking the cash and running with it NOW before it's worth much less, that cash can be converted to more wealth-preserving assets. In a month or three, perhaps that same valuation in forms of digits would be worth much less when it's compared to tangibles. This is what the real high rollers around the planet are doing, so it's not surprising that microsoft management would be doing it. that their smaller shareholders get a piece of it they can't avoid, that's out of their hands, but the larger holders want OUT, they want to get into safer things now. This is a serious economic clue, of much more worth than most nightly business reports puffery.

  12. Re:Bill Should Do More Good by haggar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    NOt exactly the same thing: the lower the income, the more that 1% matters. To bring this into perspective, think of a farmer in Asia, that gets about 1000 $US a year. For him, parting with 10 $US is a very big deal. On the other hand, Bill Gates could part with half of his money, and still have left 25 billion that he wouuld have no idea what the fuck to do with.

    --
    Sigged!