well, Apple just made a statement that they are in discussions to return more $$ to shareholders.

 

I guess Apple is smoking the same thing as me???

 

Sure! For a typical example, see here: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/155839/apple-samsung-capture-103-of-handset-profits-as-rivals-lose-money#post_2272318

 

(In case the link is incorrect, my post was: Another pointless link from you. Who's Horace Dideu? (I know, I know, he says he has an MBA from Harvard! wow!!) Another blogger who's a cousin? Can you explain his methodology to us? What does he or his methodology have to do with the company whose numbers and methodology are being quoted in this story? Do you even bother to read the links you cite? Will you actually answer each of these five questions? )

Show me a man who invests for any other reason and I'll show you a man relying on Social Security for his retirement.

 

Brand loyalty is fun in a forum, but not the stuff of sound investing.  The only loyalty investors need is from the company whose shares they buy, not the other way around.

 

Thing is, he bought it on Wall Street, and it's Apple stock he's smoking.

 

Has a nice wooden flavor to it, but the experience is unlike any other. Don't be surprised if it's confusing to many.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Einhorn_(hedge_fund_manager)

 

imo, He's making a play. On one hand he's talking himself up by seeming to speak on behalf of AAPL shareholders and what benefit his wizard scheme could do for them. OTOH Greenlight Capital is suing in a move to - what ? Discredit the BOD ? Add more disruptive comment ? Talk the share price down further ?

 

I'd trust him about as far as I could throw him - he's got a plan with eyes firmly set on some that cash, that's for sure.

Gotta watch out for the Tall Poppy thing Einhorn ....

nice website, btw lol

https://www.greenlightcapital.com/

Hey David Einhorn, shut the **** up. I trust Apple to better manage its money for its long term success than some greedy hedgefund manager qho wants to make a quick buck. Suing Apple? What a tool. 

Typical Wall Street weenie.

1. Can't make money just buying and holding AAPL.

2. Can't make money shorting AAPL (now).

3. Can't make money spinning AAPL up or down (see #1 and #2.)

4. Can't make money on insider trading (because Apple is so secretive.)

Aha! Maybe he can make money suing Apple for having too much cash.

Yeah! That's the ticket! "Apple has too much cash! Nobody can deny that!"

Did Apple blink? From their public statement today:

 

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2013/02/07Statement-by-Apple.html

 

"...Apple’s management team and Board of Directors have been in active discussions about returning additional cash to shareholders. As part of our review, we will thoroughly evaluate Greenlight Capital’s current proposal to issue some form of preferred stock. We welcome Greenlight’s views and the views of all of our shareholders..."

Nothing wrong with being more shareholder friendly.

 

Jobs hated stockholders.

 

They are not doing NOTHING with it. 

Then how can you judge -- unless you can vouch for the credibility of the blogger and the site or unless you believe everything you read on the internet -- whether a link you provide is bogus or not?

 

FYI, here are Apple's investing policies for its cash and marketable securities (it is from p. 37 of Apple's 2012 10K, so you can look it up if you wish): "The Company’s marketable securities investment portfolio is invested primarily in highly-rated securities and its investment policy generally limits the amount of credit exposure to any one issuer. The policy requires investments generally to be investment grade with the objective of minimizing the potential risk of principal loss."

 

I can assure you -- or you are welcome to check around and come back and tell us what you found -- that's not how a 'hedge fund' operates. This policy is also the reason they're making 1% on their cash....

"FYI, here are Apple's investing policies for its cash and marketable securities (it is from p. 37 of Apple's 2012 10K, so you can look it up if you wish): "The Company’s marketable securities investment portfolio is invested primarily in highly-rated securities and its investment policy generally limits the amount of credit exposure to any one issuer. The policy requires investments generally to be investment grade with the objective of minimizing the potential risk of principal loss."

I honestly missed that particular set of questions nested in that 179 post discussion. The hot air in that thread was stifling and held no more interest for me nor most others I would guess!

 

Yes I read every link I cite. Horace Dideu heads up Asymco, a regularly cited source on Apple-centric sites. Surprised you aren't familiar with him.  No he's not a cousin. Not sure what you mean about his methodology that he himself didn't already explain (You actually read the linked article before asking questions, right?), Yes I actually answered all five questions.

 

Guess that means we can hold each other to the same standard from now on then? Great!

If you read the Greenlight press release, the lawsuit IS NOT suing Apple to force them to proceed with his preferred shares concept.  

 

The lawsuit IS suing to get Apple to "unbundle" the vote on Apple's decision to remove pref shares from allowable share capital.  Greenlight wants that decision to be voted on separately as opposed to together with two other initiatives that Greenlight supports.  

 

I repeat...he is not suing to get his idea accepted.  He is suing to enable the potential existence of preferred shares in Apple's capital structure to be voted on independent of any other decision.  

No, surely they are not. However, they will have gobs and gobs left over after taking into account all that they want to do with it.

 

Let's look at their uses of cash. In FY2013, their forecasted Capex is $9B -- Oppenheimer mentioned this in the conf call with analysts. (Their R&D spending comes out of revenue, not cash, so we need not count that). Their acquisitions amount to no more than a couple of billion dollars a year. Perhaps given their very flinty policies on receivables (get $$ as soon as possible) and payables (take as long as possible to pay) and almost no inventory, Apple's working capital needs are close to zero, and indeed, it's often negative (meaning it's a source of cash, not use of cash). Dividends will take up no more than $10B in 2013, and their previous announced repurchases, I am guessing, generously, $5B - $10B.

 

During the coming year, we can conservatively expect another $75B to come in as cash.

 

So what will they have left at the end of FY13? 137 + 75 - 9 - 2 - 20 = $181B. At least that much, but actually perhaps much more.

 

Even if they use just the US portion (estimated to be one-thirds), that's $60B. Plenty to do a nice $40B buyback without touching the low tax stuff abroad.

I completely agree.

 

I was simply attempting to convince gatorguy that Apple does not run a 'hedge fund' with its cash, as he had claimed in an earlier post in this thread.

That's why I post links to the actual sources. Read 'em for yourself to see if they have any value. For that one your vote is obviously no. Others may find it enlightening.

It depends which kind. The shareholders who started the company or at least have driven the company to success deserve that association but stockholders looking to sell at a profit are really more like middle managers - not much talent, don't contribute much, like their payout to be higher, make a lot of noise and demand things are done their way or they start throwing their weight around and ultimately have a damaging effect on the company.

If you bought / invested in a diamond, gold or limited edition comic to get more security over future resources than a fictional monetary system, you have a responsibility to look after those things and so your entitlement as an owner has more weight to it. When you buy into a company, you don't have to make any sacrifice to create value. To then start hollering about what should and shouldn't be happening just doesn't seem like a privilege that's been earned.

It's a shame Apple can't afford to go private.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Industries

"Charles and David H. Koch each own 42% of Koch Industries, and Charles has stated that the company will publicly offer shares "literally over my dead body""

The Apple staff benefit from cashing in their shares so they probably aren't complaining too much but it must really suck having to pay out to investors whose only interest in the success of the company is how well it pays out.

Sony just needs to agree to a takeover. Apple owns Playstation, Blu-Ray, TVs, music, movies. Then take over Square Enix and they have one of the top games studios. 100 million people won't even think twice about Android with Playstation exclusives and first-run movies streaming to iOS.

Wouldn't every company earning less than them be overvalued too? Why would they be valued lower than companies that make less money? Everybody needs fuel but everybody also needs phones.

Does this 1% ROI include capital gains?

Apple's entire press release from today is as follows:

 

 

Of course not. Which is rather weird, since you responded with oblique stuff to my posts after that one! I am sure it was accident....

 

Anyway, as the rest of your post shows (and as the 'hedge fund' example shows), you simply provide links without knowing whether they are credible or not (i.e., no clue about methodologies, definitions). Anyone can do that. That's the reason I've been calling out your links.

 

For example, you just posted a link to Apple's response to Greenlight with some sort of conspiratorial implication..... "Did Apple blink"? LOL. What if I were to tell you that it's the profroma response that every management puts out when a hedge fund wolf shows up at the door? I.e., there's no blinking involved. It's just the standard lawyer boilerplate for (cue sarcasm): "Gee! Thanks Mr. Einhorn. We loved hearing from you today! We will take your concerns seriously, talk about it amongst ourselves, and get back to you! Have a nice day!"

 

(Do a search for "Herbalife Bill Ackman hedge fund battle" and look at Herbalife's formal SEC-filing response to Ackman, if you don't believe me! There hasn't been a more nasty, drawn out, ugly hedge fund attack recently....)

If they did, they would be wrong.

It only includes realized gains. However, given the types of securities Apple invest in -- certainly judged by the realized gains -- I'd venture a guess that capital gains are likely to be modest at best.

Then that would be a useful comment. Thus the question"did Apple blink" rather than a statement that they did.

 

I like the idea of buying Sony.  But that is only $15 Billion.  That leaves Apple with $160 billion at the end of the year.

Hmmm. Intriguing. They do bring high-quality TV manufacturing....

Baloney. No Sony. (I hope you remember that ad campaign.)

Sony is an unfocused mess, and to the Japanese, it would be like a Chinese company buying GM to Americans. Or worse. Imagine the backlash as Apple tried to whittle Sony into a focused company. Unthinkable.

Anyway, Apple is probably going to do new things never before seen, such as expanding iMessage, iTunes and FaceTime into their own networks. If they need three data centers in the U.S. at $1 billion each to start, they're going to need six in China, four in Europe, three each in South America, India and so on. They will have to invest in the fiber, the cell networks and who knows, the satellites.

Total science fiction, but I'm pretty sure they're thinking at the decade and century level about this mobile computing they helped to start, more than any other entity I can think of offhand.

Jobs did not hate stockholders, he hated stockholders who weren't investors. He hated those who were just looking for a short term increase in value. I hate them too. They're just leeches. They don't create anything of value, their interests are short term and run totally contrary to creating a successful long term business. The only benefit they potentially provide is to consolidate capital so that it can be better invested, but they actually just use that capital for more short term purchases to generate more cash to make more short term purchases. They create nothing.

That pretty much speaks for itself about the quality of your advice about what Apple should do with its cash.

 

 

Of course it is. Presumably, Apple would sell off the pieces that it does not need/want. That's what acquirers generally do after making strategic acquisitions.

 

People like you are hilarious, who are so concerned with how much money Apple has and would prefer they just shit it away frivolously, or buy companies for the hell of it. I'm sure if Apple had its eye on a massive acquisition and believed it would enchance their brand and product line in a positive way, they would go for it. But spending mass amount of money on stuff that may not be of real benefit- just because they HAVE the money- screams of irresponsibility.  Believe it or not, Apple has a shitload of insanely intelligent people working there that whose sole job it is to assess potential acquisition of talent. No doubt they know about what the right moves are than a random person like you screaming at them to buy something expensive or "give money back to the shareholders". Apple has earned its success and has earned the right to do with its cash hoard as it sees fit. It doesnt owe you a damn thing. 

No, I think YOU should read up on those things then understand the definition of "fiduciary duty". Internet armchair lawyers are always worth exactly what you pay them. First, a Michigan state court ruling means exactly that ... Michigan. Second, some independent organization that says what it thinks the principles of corporate governance should be means exactly that. Nothing.

 

I stepped outside for a little bit and I saw that AAPL had popped up in the last few minutes before close. Now I see why, and I guess it's thanks to Apple responding to the lawsuit, so it's a good thing that this guy sued Apple, IMO.

 

And I'm not pretending to know what Apple should do with it's huge cash pile, but here's one crazy idea, spend a Billion or so and announce a new Apple produced mini series, something that is as good as Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, Band of Brothers and other premium series. Apple can produce some of their own content, which will tie in nicely when they release their TV. If somebody wants to be a major player, don't they need some of their own programming? Even Netflix has gotten into the game now, and I believe Amazon too.

 

If Apple is starting to stabilize and is not going to be a super growth company anymore, then surely, it needs to look into expanding into other areas, IMO. There's only so many phones that you can sell to people.

I like this response from Apple - fair bit of spin in there yet polite.

The court case should prove interesting, tho.

 

Anyone heard of a date being set ?

On the surface of the statement it would appear Greenlight don't have a case and would be wise to withdraw.

C'mon Einhorn - whatcha gonna do ?

 

edit: oh wait. - I know one thing you could do !

Redesign your website :-)

Edited by RobM - 2/7/13 at 3:04pm

So that you're not under some misunderstanding, I am not a lawyer, let alone an armchair one. I just consider myself a reasonably informed citizen of my country.

 

If you don't understand the importance of State Supreme Court decisions that are not challenged all the way to the SCOTUS in a system of Common Law where the underlying legal principle is stare decisis, all I can say is that you're fundamentally clueless about how the law works in the US.

 

Suffice it to say that Dodge v. Ford (1919) is considered one of the founding cornerstones of corporate law in the US. Indeed, it is the starting point for hundreds of Delaware Chancery (look up the significance of that) decisions. 

 

You deepen your ignorance -- and simply reveal your willingness to wallow in it -- if you are dismissing the role that American Law Institute and its Principles play in the formation of US law. If you live in the US, you might be interested to know that just about any major piece of law that governs your life -- family law, criminal law, commercial law, etc -- are drawn from a wide-ranging set of of ALI Principles. (I gave you the one just for corporate law). That's what every state legislature uses in this country as a reference guide to craft legislation. That's the first thing you would be handed if you were asked to become a board member or officer of a public company in the US. Look up 'ALI' and you might actually learn something.

 

You compound that ignorance by dismissing outright the Model Business Corporation Act (and its subsequent revision), which goes back to the 1950s and precedes ALI. Basically, I tried to give you three huge landmarks in the development of US corporate governance over the past century, and you throw back Wikipedia at me. Pathetic.

 

As to your puling up a random law review article, know that there are hundreds and hundreds of law review articles on Dodge v. Ford. If you want to PM me, I'd be happy to give you review/synthesis articles that summarize a sizable number of these. I know the literature well, and the same can't be said about you.

 

Ugh. Actually, no more for you.

if apple listened to shareholders would it really be where it is now ? no

 

apple please go private and get rid of the disease of bad shareholders.

This is another typical example of Hedge Fund greed. As an Apple Investor I would like to get more for my shares obviously, perhaps in the form of a dividend or preferably a stock buyback coupled with a split.

Either way, if your sick and tired of these jerks yanking the stock around... note that this guy is a short seller by preference... so who is to say they didn't push it down to make the company more pliable and receptive to their attempted raid on the kitty?

Me personally I am sick of this crap. So I did something about it, and you can too! If your an Apple Investor or employee go here and sign the petition to ask Congress to stop hedge funds from manipulating the stock prices of public companies like Apple.

https://www.change.org/petitions/stop-the-manipulation-of-stock-prices-by-hedge-funds

And then go here and send a copy of the letter posted there to members of the Senate Banking Committee.

http://stop-stock-manipulation.blogspot.com/2013/02/letter-to-congress.html

Thanks
AFBI

So lumping all cash and investments to get 1% ROI in just dividends and interest is stupid then considering cash only add to 16bn.

Just so we're clear, I am a lawyer and your understanding of stare decisis is exactly as you describe ... one of a citizen and rather misinformed. A Michigan Supreme Court decision is exactly that, a ruling for Michigan. And it doesn't even say what you claim it says. There is no other settled law that the creation of shareholder value is a fiduciary duty of the board or officers in a corporation. You can write as long of a treatise as you want, but it's still not true. If you want to argue that there's an obligation that's a different thing but when you claim to the "legal obligation" standard you just don't have anything. Just imagine the complete mess that would be created if your premise were true. Every time a stock decreases in value, you are suggesting that shareholders have a valid civil claim. It's so ludicrous that it's hard to take the premise seriously. Beyond that, it's just not the law. Yes, it's true. I am stating outright that it's not the law. Even in Michigan. When you cite a single statute or even ruling court decision that says it is, then we can argue it. Otherwise, your premise is nothing more than your personal "informed citizen" view. That's worth twice as much as your legal knowledge. Anyone who argues a published article in the University of Chicago's Law Review - articles which are often referenced and footnoted in high court decisions - carries little weight while private institutes define settled law is ... well ... there's not even a way to describe it.