or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Hedge fund manager David Einhorn sues Apple over $137B cash hoard
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hedge fund manager David Einhorn sues Apple over $137B cash hoard - Page 2

post #41 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

 

Apple has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the Apple brand and stock price.  When baseless 'reports' come out about crashing demand Apple needs to speak up.  Cook spoke about it in the earnings call but it was already to late.

 

Apple has almost $150 Billion and are doing NOTHING with it.  The cost of doing nothing with the money is a 8-10% loss every year.  There is no reason Apple needs to hoard so much cash.  They need to return some of it to investors, make an acquisition, or at least tell investors what they plan to do in the future.

first of all, it's not just cash. It's investments. 1. dividends and buybacks. If you are too skittish, sell or have apple buy your stock. 2. They make strategic acquisitions. They aren't going to drop 12.5 billion on a has-been mobile company. 3. Um, investors don't need to know the details until AFTER the transactions are completed. Yeah, I can see Apple say we are looking to acquire x company. google or MS could steal that company out from under Apple. All the investors should know the product cycle right now. As for new products, why announce if it isn't shipping or ready?

post #42 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

Apple has almost $150 Billion and are doing NOTHING with it.  The cost of doing nothing with the money is a 8-10% loss every year.  There is no reason Apple needs to hoard so much cash.  They need to return some of it to investors, make an acquisition, or at least tell investors what they plan to do in the future.

But they *are* doing something with it. You're just arguing from a position of ignorance because you see the word cash and just seem to assume it's in a savings account somewhere. That "cash" is largely in the form of a variety of investments, short and long term.

Einhorn probably knows this but is lying about it.

Last I heard, dividends are taxed differently from capital gains, and paying out dividends deflates the stock's value by said amount, so the value of paying them seems negative.

This business about preferred vs. common stock seems to me he has some scheme in mind, hopefully shareholders carefully weigh his proposals with that in mind.

Suing the company you own a part of is pretty stupid too, either way, you lose. You're paying your legal team, or indirectly, your shares are paying their legal team. Or both.
Edited by JeffDM - 2/7/13 at 9:43am
post #43 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post


Shareholder voting rights to guide a company is a nice idea that's taken to unreasonable extents. Public ownership quickly abandons the idea of any given business and focuses entirely on profits and stock value. 

 

I'll say from the top what this hedge fund shark says is asinine in all senses, but what dysamoria said is equally as crazy. I think people forget what being a public company means, and what being a shareholder is. Shareholders OWN the company. Period. Apple is not Tim's company, or even Job's company, they don't have carte blanche to do whatever they want. You fork over money to own stock as an investment stake in a company for a financial return. There is nothing UNREASONABLE about that. Executives are charged with protecting the interest of shareholders. You can be as vocal about your interests as you want. Most are silent, but what this guy says isn't outrageous, he's (crazily) stating is interests. Don't like the rules? Don't take people's money and go private. 

I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #44 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by LazyEye View Post

What the... That's it! Einhorn is Finkle! Finkle is Einhorn! Einhorn is a man!
Oh, my GOD! Einhorn is a man!
[Que: The Crying Game music]

Laces Out!!!
post #45 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I'm siding with the hedge fund. 

 

Making the best products and devices doesn't mean anything if the stock is taking a severe beating. It is Apple's problem to fix and they haven't been proactive enough on that front.

 

Apple needs to convince me why I should put some of my money into AAPL and keep it there. I don't like the way that the stock has been performing for a while now. Apple has a duty to it's shareholders.

 

Let's see, Apple had one of the most profitable qtrs ever, had the most profitable calendar year ever, sells records iphones, ipads every quarter (yoy).

 

if Apple commented on every rumor, nothing will ever get done. In addition, if they don't comment on a rumor, does it make it true?

 

The stock took a beating because analysts like to make up numbers.

post #46 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frac View Post


Crap yourself!

Read this...
http://www.directorship.com/stout-shareholders-as-owners/

 

That was fascinating. I thought shareholders owned the company and the directors were, indeed, agents of the shareholders. I stand corrected.

post #47 of 175

If shareholders want to force management to change AAPLs cash-management approach, they have two direct ways of doing so: through a vote to that effect or by replacing the BOD.  Going to court is a stupid, counter-productive way to go about it.  I hope the suit get tossed out quickly.

 

I'm a long-term AAPL shareholder (since the return of SJ) and I'm sure that a larger proportion of my net assets are tied up in AAPL than Einhorn's.  I'm not happy about the recent share price drop, but I don't want management wasting time and effort on financial games to shore up the price.  Keep focused on the next generation of insanely great products and we'll be fine.  Or not, but that's still the right strategy.  Worrying about stock price based on the latest rumor and analyst prediction is a fool's game.

post #48 of 175

'Hedge Fund Managers' are part of the financial system that destroyed our economy.

 

If we can drone strike American born terrorists, why are these guys out of bounds?

 

 

 
post #49 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

It's unlikely that a hedge fund manager qualifies as a, "stable long time investor." It's exactly this sort of "shareholder action" that's screwed up many a company in this country, so hopefully they will stamp this out without him being able to do any damage.

Public ownership sucks. Fiduciary responsibility is just a catch phrase for wresting control of a company from those that comprehend it. IMO, most public companies should go private again (like Dell, curiously). The capitalist insanity disease in the USA needs a major remedy. Wall Street greed is self destructive to society. It's too complicated a system, and the complexity is in the interest of "lawyering what you want by force", over the people that actually comprehend the running of any particular business. Shareholder voting rights to guide a company is a nice idea that's taken to unreasonable extents. Public ownership quickly abandons the idea of any given business and focuses entirely on profits and stock value. There's a fundamental conflict of interest.

 

Mmm...  What do you, personally, invest in?

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #50 of 175
Well said malax.
post #51 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frac View Post


Read this...
http://www.directorship.com/stout-shareholders-as-owners/

 

Terrific contribution to this discussion.  I encourage everyone to read this short essay before posting on this topic.  It's very informative and somewhat surprising.

post #52 of 175
"There is no reason Apple needs to hoard so much cash."

Unless they want to use it for development to scoop the market with another big advance that no one sees coming. Nah, they'd never pull a stunt like that...

"Apple has $145 per share of cash on its balance sheet. As a shareholder, this is your money."

That assumes the only reason Apple has money is because the shareholders gave them some. It utterly ignores the idea that a company sees gains and is supposed to manage its assets for consistent return and opportunity.

"Maybe Apple really needs a little prodding to take care of its stable long time investors..."

I *didn't* buy 100 shares of Apple at $24 in 1984. Bought a $2,400 used Subaru. At the time, borrowing for the car would have cost me 10%, and Apple was returning a few percent per year. So no brainer, right? Unless I was thinking like a long-term investor. Which with the three splits, I'd now have 800 shares of AAPL at an effective purchase price of $3 and could have sold it maxed at $700 per share and be writing this from my island lair. I think Apple has taken great care of anyone who's been in it for the long haul.
post #53 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Making the best products and devices doesn't mean anything if the stock is taking a severe beating.

I can't believe somebody actually typed this.

post #54 of 175
Vote with the board folks.

This guy is a greedy SOB who cares only about ripping off all the money in the world for himself.

Tell him what to go do with himself.
post #55 of 175

I always laugh when people say Apple is doing nothing with their money.

 

Nobody knows what Apple has planned for the future. It's often rumored Apple wants to enter TV. Well, it could cost them huge $$$ to compete with the cable companies or to secure deals from all the networks. What if "the next thing" isn't TV at all but something completely different we haven't thought about?

 

I personally think Apple has something in the works. I don't see them looking to have the largest piggy bank in the tech world - at some point they're going to do something with their reserves.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #56 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

 

Let's see, Apple had one of the most profitable qtrs ever, had the most profitable calendar year ever, sells records iphones, ipads every quarter (yoy).

 

if Apple commented on every rumor, nothing will ever get done. In addition, if they don't comment on a rumor, does it make it true?

 

The stock took a beating because analysts like to make up numbers.

I agree, Apple has been doing pretty damn good and is treated unfairly by the street, but the main thing that matters is how the stock graph looks IMO, and it hasn't been looking good for a while now. Having faith in Apple and the products that they make is one thing, but I see having faith in AAPL as being something completely different.

 

Especially with the impressive results that Apple has had and continues to deliver, they should be able to combat some of the FUD and take the necessary steps to bring the stock back on course. I've written before that hoarding money is obviously not impressing anybody and it doesn't benefit AAPL, so I don't mind if they start spending more of that money.

post #57 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post


Oh wow! A whole YEAR?!!
Which means he bought high and is pissed about his own poor judgement. Poor baby.

Haha. For one, the US gov't thinks a year is considered a long-term capital investment. Two, for a hedge fund, a year is a particularly long time. Three, he bought the stock over year ago, which despite recent media frenzy, is still flat to up YoY. So... its not like he's sitting on a major loss (just lost profits). 

 

He thinks the stock is materially undervalued and that management has grossly mismanaged its balance sheet. Frankly, he's right. There's no conceivable use for $137bn in cash. It should be returned to shareholders. The stock trades at a 7 PE ex cash, which implies ~15% cost of capital. Apple is earning 0-1% on its cash balances. How is that efficient capital use?

 

Finally, Apple is self-funded from cash flows and is significantly cash flow positive meaning it can fully fund its massive growth without raising debt or drawing down on its bank account. 

 

You shouldn't attack someone for suggesting a public company has a fiduciary duty to his shareholders.  

post #58 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post

You can be as vocal about your interests as you want. Most are silent, but what this guy says isn't outrageous, he's (crazily) stating is interests. Don't like the rules? Don't take people's money and go private.

There's more to it than that. Suing the company because they don't bend to his will is a lot more than just "stating his interests". He didn't even take it to the shareholders before suing anyway, and now he's saying that he's doing it for the shareholder's interests? If anyone believes that, I have an island for sale.
post #59 of 175
is it me or does that picture of this guy make you think 'gormless idiot' something about his slightly askew smile maybe....
anyways, I agree Apple could do more to spend it's hoard, but I'd rather they spent it on making the Mac line even more awesome and also dedicating a ton of $$ on making the software line the very best there is. Couldn't do any harm and could do a lot for the PR of Apple.
I mean who really wanted a 'thinner' iMac?
post #60 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post


Oh wow! A whole YEAR?!!
Which means he bought high and is pissed about his own poor judgement. Poor baby.

They claim to have significant investments in Apple dating back to 2010 rather than just a year ago.

 

There's also some discussion that his letter may have been prompted as much by Braeburn Capital.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-27/600-billion-trades-four-years-how-apple-puts-even-most-aggressive-hedge-funds-shame

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #61 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadmatic View Post

I can't believe somebody actually typed this.

Believe it.

post #62 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I agree, Apple has been doing pretty damn good and is treated unfairly by the street, but the main thing that matters is how the stock graph looks IMO, and it hasn't been looking good for a while now. Having faith in Apple and the products that they make is one thing, but I see having faith in AAPL as being something completely different.

 

Especially with the impressive results that Apple has had and continues to deliver, they should be able to combat some of the FUD and take the necessary steps to bring the stock back on course. I've written before that hoarding money is obviously not impressing anybody and it doesn't benefit AAPL, so I don't mind if they start spending more of that money.

yes but I don't want Apple to spend money just to spend money. In addition, how may multi $billion companies are for sale?

 

Many investors are clueless and rely on analysts and the media. But if you give them facts without commentary, I bet most of those will be happy with Apple's performance and the stock wouldn't have jumped up or down so rapidly.

 

As I said before, if you fight the rumors, you'll lose no matter what. What if a rumor is true and Apple fights it? or if Apple fights all rumors, but let's another rumor fly, does that mean it's the truth?

post #63 of 175
From what I'm reading Apple wants to get rid of an option to issue preferred shares. Why I have no idea. Einhorn wants to keep that option open. How is that bad? Considering Cook sells his shares as soon as they vest I could see why he is against preferred shares....he doesnt have any. Personally I would be happy if they just got on the ball with innovation and creating a larger selection of phones to attract more market share. Eventually they will have to do something with the money and I would be shocked if they dont announce a dividend increase in March.
post #64 of 175
Publicly-Traded Company
A company issuing stocks, which are traded on the open market, either on a stock exchange or on the over-the-countermarket. Individual and institutional shareholders constitute the owners of a publicly-traded company, in proportion to the amount of stock they own as a percentage of all outstanding stock. Thus, shareholders have final say in all decisions taken by a publicly-traded company and its managers, especially through its annual shareholders' meeting. Publicly-traded companies have greater access to financing than other companies, as they have the ability to issue more stock. However, they are subject to greater regulation: for example, they must file 10-K reports with the SEC on their earningsand they are more likely to be subject to corporate taxes. A publicly-traded company is also called a public company.

Farlex Financial Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All Rights Reserved

 

post #65 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

yes but I don't want Apple to spend money just to spend money. In addition, how may multi $billion companies are for sale?

 

Many investors are clueless and rely on analysts and the media. But if you give them facts without commentary, I bet most of those will be happy with Apple's performance and the stock wouldn't have jumped up or down so rapidly.

 

As I said before, if you fight the rumors, you'll lose no matter what. What if a rumor is true and Apple fights it? or if Apple fights all rumors, but let's another rumor fly, does that mean it's the truth?

 

I agree that they shouldn't just spend money wildly on random things, but I'm fairly certain that there are good ways to spend some of that money, a higher share buyback amount, a higher dividend, buy up some good companies, expand into new territories, etc. I'm sure that Apple can manage to think of wise ways in which to use their money so that they will benefit from it.

 

I also agree that most analysts and media are clueless, but the bottom line is that the stock has been performing poorly as of late and Apple needs to address that problem, IMO. 

post #66 of 175
Time to abolish this concept of a Hedge Fund and their tax shelters.
post #67 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Time to abolish this concept of a Hedge Fund and their tax shelters.

Apple themselves have one of largest ones, Braeburn Capital.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #68 of 175

Ok, I guess being a investor for nearly a year makes you a "long time" investor... wrong!  He bought thinking it was going to go up, and loosing money in his year of stock, and is pissed. Period.

 

150B in the bank, um, how about using it for collateral on all the expanding they are doing... did everyone forget about the new buildings for corporate?  Did you forget about the new storage center for iCloud?  Did you forget about the assembly plant?  Doing all this banks want a bit of collateral for all these long term (going to be nearly a year on some of the buildings... so silly idiots definition for long term) construction.  How about all the other little "projects" going on to expand Apple?  Who's to say that after all the buildings and little "projects" going on next year or so they don't do a major kickback to all the stock holders?  They would not need all the cash on hand for collateral afterwords.  Guess the silly boy missed all those memo's about expanding, and new buildings, etc.

 

Oh and "projects" include all these law suits... you know like the one silly hedge fund manager is doing.

 

So, all I say side with the board, kick the silly boy on his butt, and let Apple do what it normally does... which put that 150B in the bank in the first place...

 

 

 

PS - Yes, it's people like this hedge fund manager that crashed our economy just to fill their own pockets.

You don't want to make me curmudgeon, you would not like me when I am curmudgeon.  I go all caps, bold, with a 72PT font and green lettering.  

Reply

You don't want to make me curmudgeon, you would not like me when I am curmudgeon.  I go all caps, bold, with a 72PT font and green lettering.  

Reply
post #69 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/155858/hedge-fund-manager-david-einhorn-sues-apple-over-137b-cash-hoard/60#post_2272976"]
I agree that they shouldn't just spend money wildly on random things, but I'm fairly certain that there are good ways to spend some of that money, a higher share buyback amount, a higher dividend, buy up some good companies, expand into new territories, etc. I'm sure that Apple can manage to think of wise ways in which to use their money so that they will benefit from it.

I also agree that most analysts and media are clueless, but the bottom line is that the stock has been performing poorly as of late and Apple needs to address that problem, IMO. 

How would apple address these problems. They don't comment on rumors. Should they confirm or deny them? If so then the media will keep playing 20 Qs.
post #70 of 175
In other news, Einhorn voted himself in as Head of the Apple Board of Directors.
post #71 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawkBlade View Post

Ok, I guess being a investor for nearly a year makes you a "long time" investor... wrong!  He bought thinking it was going to go up, and loosing money in his year of stock, and is pissed. Period.

 

150B in the bank, um, how about using it for collateral on all the expanding they are doing... did everyone forget about the new buildings for corporate?  Did you forget about the new storage center for iCloud?  Did you forget about the assembly plant?  Doing all this banks want a bit of collateral for all these long term (going to be nearly a year on some of the buildings... so silly idiots definition for long term) construction.  How about all the other little "projects" going on to expand Apple?  Who's to say that after all the buildings and little "projects" going on next year or so they don't do a major kickback to all the stock holders?  They would not need all the cash on hand for collateral afterwords.  Guess the silly boy missed all those memo's about expanding, and new buildings, etc.

 

Oh and "projects" include all these law suits... you know like the one silly hedge fund manager is doing.

 

So, all I say side with the board, kick the silly boy on his butt, and let Apple do what it normally does... which put that 150B in the bank in the first place...

 

 

 

PS - Yes, it's people like this hedge fund manager that crashed our economy just to fill their own pockets.

Could you point me to an example of a $150bn building? Thanks

post #72 of 175
A hedge fund manager who has never actually created anything in his whole life, ridden the coattails of companies that actually create real things, and complains when the free money he has gotten isn't as much as he thinks he can get. Sounds like the perfect way to decide how Apple should use its cash.
post #73 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

 

Apple has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the Apple brand and stock price. 

 

 

Not true.

 

Apple('s BOD and officers) has a responsibility to run the company successfully and profitably.

They have little control over stock price.  Stock prices can be run up to levels not justified by the balance sheet merely by the actions of folks (mostly institutional investors) trying to game the market. (It can also be run DOWN to levels not representative of the company's true value.)

It could be that the BOD saw $700 as an unrealistic price and therefore saw no need to try to maintain it... perhaps they see $500 as a more realistic price based on their REAL knowledge of how the company operates.

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #74 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post


Crap !

 

One may argue that the shareholders are the OWNERS of the company. The BOD and Management are servants of the owners. So if Einhorn can persuade the shareholder majority, or whatever the company rules of incorporation define,   to do anything, then that's the way the ball will roll. Thats the capitalist system. I agree that it's not always the smartest way to run things, but it IS the legal way. This is evidenced by the current market cap of APPL. Many here seem to think that it is seriously undervalued. I personally think its seriously overvalued, but whatever your position on that may be, it seems pretty clear that it is corporate investors and speculators who are driving/manipulating the share price in search of a quick buck. That's the American way.

 

 

It doesn't mean the shareholder is the CEO of the company. Cases in point: Palm, HP. Without shareholder interference, those would probably still be around. Well, HP is "still around". Sort of.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #75 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

 

 

Not true.

 

Apple('s BOD and officers) has a responsibility to run the company successfully and profitably.

They have little control over stock price.  Stock prices can be run up to levels not justified by the balance sheet merely by the actions of folks (mostly institutional investors) trying to game the market. (It can also be run DOWN to levels not representative of the company's true value.)

It could be that the BOD saw $700 as an unrealistic price and therefore saw no need to try to maintain it... perhaps they see $500 as a more realistic price based on their REAL knowledge of how the company operates.

Agreed. Anyone arguing that the company is not successfully and profitably run should go take a hike.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #76 of 175
At some point Apple should go private, imho.
post #77 of 175

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 7/5/13 at 3:15pm
post #78 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Creid1987 View Post

Could you point me to an example of a $150bn building? Thanks

You're forgetting also that with that cash, Apple can afford to never again borrow. Any idea how much all this borrowing has cost the economy over the last decades?

 

Case 1: you get money lent, and you have to repay it.

Case 2: you don't get money, and you die, or at least are impeded in your growth, possibly overtaken in the race to the top by a competitor, or bought out.

 

I keep my opinion: don't like the way the company is run, get the **** out. Apple's transparent towards shareholders, contrary to big banks, or (*coughs*) hedge funds. 

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #79 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

You can sit down and relax.

 

While the article cited does describe the technicalities in factual terms, in the real-world dynamics of influence a company needs to satisfy shareholders or risk losing that investment.

 

My AAPL shares are modest and I don't have an opinion on this specific suggestion; I see merit both ways.

 

But if enough shareholders agree with it, it would be troublesome for Apple to ignore them.

 

The regulars here can have all the fun they want with Dell's decision to go private, and indeed given Dell's history it's anyone's guess as to whether they'll be able to make use of their new-found freedom.

 

But freedom it is.  Investors are short-sighted and often distracting from a company's long-term goals.  If you want public money, you're beholden to the public. 

 

investors may not "own" a company in the strictest sense, but they do indeed pwn it.

It's a bit more complicated than that, afaik. The investors can vote to change the CEO, but they'd have to demonstrate that the CEO knowingly made wrong decisions for that suit to have any sense... (for profit, because his ego blinded him, whatever). Tim Cook's arguably the best supply chain expert in the world, an excellent leader of men, and respected by his whole company, and he's proven to have vision as regards the market. It would be a very, very hard proposition to make that he failed knwingly...

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #80 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Creid1987 View Post

Haha. For one, the US gov't thinks a year is considered a long-term capital investment. Two, for a hedge fund, a year is a particularly long time. Three, he bought the stock over year ago, which despite recent media frenzy, is still flat to up YoY. So... its not like he's sitting on a major loss (just lost profits). 

Whose problem is that? Einhorn's or the average AAPL shareholder's?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Creid1987 View Post

 

You shouldn't attack someone for suggesting a public company has a fiduciary duty to his shareholders.  

 

Of course a public company's fundamental fiduciary obligation is to its shareholders. Period. But the idea of a perpetual preferred is hare-brained.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Hedge fund manager David Einhorn sues Apple over $137B cash hoard