Have no idea why someone said a company paying out big dividend is going out of business. Look at IBM, Microsoft, Apple. They have not gone out of business.
Check out these companies' dividend history.
http://investor.apple.com/dividends.cfmYou do realize, of course, that Apple is famous for not paying a dime in dividends under Steve Jobs, the period in which they grew most and became the largest company in the world?
You do realize, of course, that from the time Apple started paying dividends again, their value has dropped drastically?
You do realize, of course, that Apple really has no market in which to grow anymore?
You do realize, of course, that one of the primary reasons why Apple has been so successful is their large capital base that allows them to squeeze virtually every vendor and supplier with whom they work and protect their IP through numerous patents and legal actions against breaches of those patents?
I believe I was the one saying what you erroneously paraphrase, though, but what I said was that taking money out of a
growth company limits the growth, thus undermining the company's ability to survive in the long term. It's simple math, feel free to argue against it, and for practice, you can start arguing against 2+2=4.
You may also want to look up histories of non-dividend paying companies like, I don't know, Berkshire Hathaway? You may have heard about Warren Buffett? Ask him when you'll get dividends from his company, which is now the higest priced share in the US at least, trading at around $170,000 per share (yeah, that's ~฿1500 per share). When Warren Buffett bought them, they cost $11.75 (฿0.1)
If AM ultimately turns out to be a ponzi, I am not saying it is, all those people who bought shares knows full well any company can go tomorrow. It can be getting sued by patent lawyers, IP trolls, people who claim the ASIC hardware next door can make them go crazy with radio waves. That's the risk of investing.
You do realize, of course, that having the largest pile of cash in the known world sorta reduces the risk that a patent troll can turn a company into dust tomorrow?
Honestly, do you think that the reason why Apple and its peers have billions of dollars in their accounts is that they just like seeing those huge sums at their bank statements each month? Do you also believe that investors think "You know, that Jobs guy is really swell, I'll help him achieve his dream of seeing 10 digits on the Available Balance for no other reason than being nice"?
As for people selling large numbers of shares, my educated guess is that they purchased at IPO price, probably at 1/20th of what the market value is. After the stock has run up 100% or 200%, it's not unusual to see large share holders to sell some shares to decrease the risk. Diversify. What they are doing is getting their original capital investment back, and the rest of the shares are lottery tickets. If the company goes away next week, then they still have their original capital in BTC. Their position is "hedged".
Yes, because the people who have been with this share since its inception and know it like they know the insides of their own foreskins
most likely think that the price will continue to rise and they'll just throw that extra money out the window.
Could it possibly be that, and let's just be purely hypothetical here for a moment, that people that sell out at these very low levels (according to the logic of those buying) have done the math and think that the price won't rise anymore? That, perhaps, they believe the policy of paying out every last dime of available cash may not be the best strategy for future growth?
I'm sorry to say, but with the latest dividend payout, my confidence in AM has fallen dramatically. I think it is irresponsible of them to pay out the equivalent of ฿60K in dividends per month, the equivalent of almost 50% of the entire Bitcoin coin production.
I'll happily admit I've sold most of my AM holdings after running numbers again that show me there is no possible way to recouperate a share price of ฿1.7, much less yield a profit, when you think beyond 2016.
At these price levels, investors have a negative ROI of 8% per year if friedcat manages to get his projected 10% of the total hash rate on average and only manages to sell ฿1000 worth of hardware per month. Even at 15% of the total hash rate, the annual yield looks like around 1%. At 20% of the hash rate on average, AM yields slightly better than a NASDAQ composite index fund.
.b
