3 ms·
True. But you pay a lot for the 3b as an investor. 1% earnings & negligible dividend for a 'monopoly' is not great, even in this low-interest environment. It in
by sharpn 17y ago
True. But you pay a lot for the 3b as an investor. 1% earnings & negligible dividend for a 'monopoly' is not great, even in this low-interest environment. It indicates that the market (and I would guess most HN readers) do not believe MS's 'monopoly' is secure.
- tc 17y agoyou pay a lot for the 3b as an investor....It indicates that the market do not believe MS's 'monopoly' is secure. Your argument makes zero sense. You may believe MS's monopoly is insecure, but if the markets believed that as well, then you wouldn't have to pay so much to own MS. The short term dividend returns would be greater because investors would be expecting capital loss.
- sharpn 17y agoI agree, you're right about the low dividend. But the argument against paying a high price for MS's future earnings stands. I conflated two ideas, but although I actually believe MS's conservative cash position is perhaps their best strength - I still believe they had a valuable monopoly & lost their way.
- rolaec 17y agoMicrosoft has paid "special dividennds", some quite large ones (it paid 3 dollars per share , or 32 billion dollars juste a couple of years ago), so it's historical dividends aren't that bad.