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."
This is the main way of funnelling profits from your company account to your personal account in Railroad Tycoon.
Bite the hand.
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.
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?
--
http://nemilar.net - Not your grandmother's soup kitchen
Guess that's the short end of the stick, huh.
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
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.
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
There was an interview with Scott McNealy in one of the Linux magazines a few months back. In it, he said (paraphrasing) "if Sun ever pays out a sizeable dividend, it means we've run out of R&D ideas and the company's in trouble". I don't remember the exact wording, but that's the gist of it.
Essentially, Sun's policy is to reinvest all profits back into the company. Putting it another way, they're banking on being able to keep growing the company indefinitely and thus keeping shareholders happy solely through upward movement in the share price.
It seems that this may have been Microsoft's policy as well until now. Conspiracy theories aside, it'd be interesting to know what changed to make them issue a big dividend after all these years.
No, dividends are taxed at the (now reduced) capital gains rate, instead of the ordinary income rate.
Now I have to go find my Railroad Tycoon CD. Now thanks to you, my three-day weekend has just became drastically shorter.
And consider this: a lot of companies, institutions, foundations, trusts, etc. regularly buy securities for endowments and other investment purposes. Now, if Microsoft stock is a good performer, it would give Microsoft an "in" with those companies and institutions for software sales.
No matter what you think of Microsoft (and for the record, I do not have a single Microsoft product under my roof) this is a smart business move. And I might add that Linux cannot compete on these grounds, either. Smart move... seriously.
IAAL
Where'd that "$1 per share" stuff come from? All the reports I've seen today speculate about an increase from 8 to 26 cents per share, max.
But then, Slashdot could only troll about Gates taking 2 billion, not 10 billion. I'm sure it was just an editorial typo. Heh.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Microsoft is made up of a load of long-timers who have made enough money through stock options that they don't really have to work and the newcomers whose stock options have been underwater for several years.
Without stock options (and the money generated with a rising stock price) neither the money or the work environment is much to write home about. Neither the old-timers or newcomers are particularly motivated and most of the "innovation" goes on by buying smaller companies.
Issuing a dividend is one way to pump the stock price up and thus motivate some employees.
With Windows you can get Money.
With Linux you can get Enlightenment.
Really.
This may make the stock rise - too much cash on hand is often seen as a negative by analysts.
So I'm going to get $1 for the one share of MSFT I own! Wow, now I only lost $24.34 to MSFT!!!
hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
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)
Over 600 million each donated to child health, and HIV/AIDS/TB. As staggering as the absolute magnitude of those numbers are, even in percentage terms they are quite remarkable. Given his total career earnings of, say, $50 billion or so (to date), this represents more than 1% to each of those causes.
To put it in perspective, do you know any other moderately well off computer geek, who may make $3 million in their career, pledging 1% ($30,000) to each of those causes? He's also indicated that global HIV/AIDS/health is a top priority, so expect him to give a lot more in that area before he's done.
Slashdot is entertaining like pro wrestling is entertaining
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!