or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Einhorn successfully blocks Apple proxy vote in bid for preferred stock [u]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Einhorn successfully blocks Apple proxy vote in bid for preferred stock [u] - Page 2

post #41 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

This may sound stupid, but sometimes I wish Apple could just buy back all of its stock and go private. Then it could focus on Apple being Apple and not having to worry about all of these stupid things like this.

Not stupid at all. Public ownership sucks.
post #42 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I am always honest, and finance is not exactly my field, even though I do dabble in stocks here and there.

 

Now, if the subject was about Fandroids or about how much Android sucks, then I consider myself to be highly qualified, and I have no problems with sharing those sorts of opinions.

 

I agree that you are an expert about all things that suck. And If Apple would just ignore that pollution stuff with their suppliers that is happening on the other side of the world, (you know, that third-world place) then APPL's climb back to $1000 will be that much quicker.

 

Just sayin'

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #43 of 91
"iPrefs" "GO-UPs" ...really?

Einhorn's proposal seems needlessly complicated, and that's reason enough to be suspicious. Does it really need to be just to disburse dividends? Why bother with preferred stock at all?

Something bigger must be done, but I would prefer it wasn't a hedge fund manager promoting an alternative plan.
Edited by JeffDM - 2/22/13 at 2:54pm
post #44 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen View Post

Einhorn won his lawsuit. Fine. But, is he getting his iPrefs? No way.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

 

No he hasn't. He won a hearing and an injunction until that hearing. But the judgement hasn't been made. It might not go in his favor in the end. 

 

And even if he won, nothing in the suit would result in dividends or buyback. Hell it wouldn't even result in preferred shares since the issue was who has the power to control them. A win would leave it in the hands of the Board and they could drop issuing preferreds

 

 

Yes, Charlie.  Einhorn won his lawsuit.  The judge granted an injunction that Einhorn wanted to prevent bundling of proposals for the purposes of a proxy vote.  That's it.  There is no hearing scheduled.  Apple will either have to reprint the proxy materials (I don't think there is time for that), in effect "unbundling" the proposals, or bring the three proposals up for separate votes at the next annual meeting.

 

So, for the time being, Einhorn got what he wanted.  An injunction.  Nothing more.  And, nothing forces the Board to issue iPrefs.  In fact, I bet they will not, just to send a signal to Einhorn that he can just go and f**k himself.  And, to kill the idea of iPrefs permanently, they will do as I said before - increase dividends, or buybacks, or both.  

post #45 of 91
``Einhorn successfully blocks Apple proxy vote in bid for preferred stock
Code:
[u]'
'

Fix this crap in your code templates. It looks unprofessional.
post #46 of 91

This A-hole is driving this preferred BS to shelter billions tax free.


Screw him and his shareholders.

post #47 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by AKaplan123 View Post

Irrelevant. No preferred stock and Apple will submit a modified amendment giving SH right to vote on preferred stock issue. Irrelevant.

 

Right and it will be voted down.

post #48 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


"This is a significant win for all Apple shareholders and for good corporate governance," Einhorn said, according to Financial Times reporter Tim Bradshaw.

I just read the judge's ruling, and I'll guarantee Einhorn is hoping most people will not.
In his own argument, Einhorn declares that he wanted the Apple board to use its "blank check" power to issue his opportunistic infection securities. He wants the proposals unbundled so he can vote his shares against Apple's plan to eliminate the board's "blank check" power. This is the opposite of a win for all Apple shareholders and good for corporate governance. He knows he has a better chance of strong arming the board than he does of feeding a shit sandwich to all the other shareholders.
post #49 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

This A-hole is driving this preferred BS to shelter billions tax free.


Screw him and his shareholders.

Very good point. Anyone who reads the judge's ruling will see that several of Einhorn's corporate entities are "offshore".
post #50 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

``Einhorn successfully blocks Apple proxy vote in bid for preferred stock
Code:
[u]'
'

Fix this crap in your code templates. It looks unprofessional.

They're frantically reading ahead in "Teach Yourself HTML and JavaScript in 21 Days" to fix it.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #51 of 91
Apple simply needs to create a true policy with what it intends to do with cash in the bank.

It is entirely within its rights to maintain a GROWING savings, regardless of how many billions.

The company makes a lot of money, but SPENDS a lot to do so.

I am happy that the company i invest in is so well managed that it has ammassed a hedge against economic hard times for the forseeable future.

Anyone trying to divest Apple of any percentage of that hedge is not only undermining Apple, but undermining shareholders and stakeholders at the same time. It weakens the company against the prospect of uncertain economic shifts.

So Apple needs to create bylaws with what to do with it's savings.

Best thing would be to allow for some appeasement each time a savings milestone is reached.

That would allow for some to get a little extra in their pocket while at the same time allowing apple to continue to grow its savings.

If Apple were to have 2 trillion in the bank, everyone should shut up about it. 3 trillion may sound like too much to have in savings, but at the rate Apple's competitors copy them and get away with it added to the rate at which Apple's business is expanding, 3 trillion doesn't seem so excessive. Especially for a company who's cap surpassed Exxon for a while.
post #52 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post

So Apple needs to create bylaws with what to do with it's savings.

Best thing would be to allow for some appeasement each time a savings milestone is reached.

Care to show us an example of a large, well-run public company that does this? And, details of such bylaws?

post #53 of 91
Well.. that's his 15 min of fame over !!!
post #54 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post

Apple simply needs to create a true policy with what it intends to do with cash in the bank.

It is entirely within its rights to maintain a GROWING savings, regardless of how many billions.

The company makes a lot of money, but SPENDS a lot to do so.

I am happy that the company i invest in is so well managed that it has ammassed a hedge against economic hard times for the forseeable future.

Anyone trying to divest Apple of any percentage of that hedge is not only undermining Apple, but undermining shareholders and stakeholders at the same time. It weakens the company against the prospect of uncertain economic shifts.

So Apple needs to create bylaws with what to do with it's savings.

Best thing would be to allow for some appeasement each time a savings milestone is reached.

That would allow for some to get a little extra in their pocket while at the same time allowing apple to continue to grow its savings.

If Apple were to have 2 trillion in the bank, everyone should shut up about it. 3 trillion may sound like too much to have in savings, but at the rate Apple's competitors copy them and get away with it added to the rate at which Apple's business is expanding, 3 trillion doesn't seem so excessive. Especially for a company who's cap surpassed Exxon for a while.
 

I agree with you. I feel that Apple act in the best interest of the company and their shareholders, as conservative as it may be, although, I do feel that they should be a little bit less vague than they have been. An aggressive  share buy-back will send a clear signal to all concerned that they are more than confident in their future, on top of Tim Cook's words that he is confident in the company's product pipeline..

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #55 of 91
This guy has one of the most shit-faced expressions I've ever seen. You can just tel he's a smug, obnoxious, annoying asshole.
post #56 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

What an utterly clueless post.

 

If this kind of financial alchemy could so easily create value, what makes you think that hundreds of companies wouldn't have done this long ago?

 

Value creation from Apple's core business, and the belief that market values will converge to intrinsic value, in a sensible market with a reasonable horizon, is the sole reason to hold the stock. All else is financial engineering b-s.

The last paragraph, particularly, echoes my own view! When I expressed that view to a friend, there was Yes, plus this Comment: 

 

It's not meritocracy! 

 

So, between the Analysts, and Talking Heads on CNBC…, there is so much Verbal BS Fog!!!! It keeps snowballing into greater AAPL Negativity! Then the usual Pump and Dump Conspiracy Thinking comes up again:

 "They" are trying to Talk Down AAPL, so that they can come back and Buy it for less later!!! A self-fulfilled, guaranteed profit!"

I also refuse to believe that Apple Board, and the rest of Apple's Leadership Team are Old Fashioned, Clueless bunch, that they have not considered Einhorn's Ideas, before this topic went public!!! Just look at how far they've taken Apple already! And, even with it's current losses, Apple is still Huge, and Envy of too many to mention! Apple will find its own way to return Cash to its Shareholders! It might use some ideas from Einhorn, or not!


Apple has their own Game Plan, Vision, and Einhorn and others can only guess what it is, and share those guesses via headlines! 

 

It would be sad to find out if all this EinhornGate is about Ego Clashes, PR Stunts, or some AAPL Manipulation!!!

During the recent Wall St. Crash, words like Financial Instruments, Derivatives etc were frequently used in the media! For my own Ease Of Use, I translated them into House Of Cards, I-OWE-USE, with a Ton of Convoluted Legalese, giving Legal Outs, so nobody goes to jail…. I don't know if Einhorn's Ideas fall into that Category! Maybe he is trying to have Apple's Cash make More Cash, i.e. Put That Cash To Work? But then I come back to the same Question as you have asked: 

 

"If this kind of financial alchemy could so easily create value, what makes you think that hundreds of companies wouldn't have done this long ago?"

 
So there must be some Questions about the Details of what Einhorn is proposing!!! Either way, he is definitely making a name for himself, but I don't understand this stuff enough to call it a PR Stunt, or to get into Conspiracy Theories!!!!
 
I can't wait for a Speedy Resolution of this EinhornGate Topic!
I can't wait for the Wall St. BS vs AAPL to stop! 
 

Among Apple's Biggest Strength is SUPPORT!!!!  

AppleCare, Stores!!!! Android, Samsung etc - are mostly Catch Me If You Can, Do It Yourself Hell!

Apple has to Remind The World about their SUPPORT in the LOUDEST WAY, AT ALL TIMES, WORLDWIDE!!!

That SUPPORT REMINDER should be LOUDER than any and all Wall St.  anti AAPL BS!!!

 

As to another Buzz Word, Innovation: 

 

Most people who invoke that word, are likely very Light Tech Users! To them Innovation is probably some New Button, or some Meaningless Spec that they heard about! The Tech Glitz as such is often meant to fool the Average Users, who hardly know the Full Potential of their Devices!

To me, even if there were no New Products from Apple for a while, Innovation is when the Current Stuff works a lot better, does a lot more, in a more efficient way etc!!! 

Besides Support, Apple must do even more Educational Outreach as to Apple Entire Echo System!!! That way, it will hopefully be harder for Wall St. manipulators to dumb down things for those who don't know any better!!!


Edited by macologist - 2/22/13 at 5:15pm

Go  Apple!!!

Reply

Go  Apple!!!

Reply
post #57 of 91
I really get tired of stock market folks trying to run Apple the way typical companies run...with a focus on the quarterly numbers rather than a long term vision.

Hopefully people will see through his self-serving charade and vote down the proposal and allow the most successful company in the world continue doing what they do that got them there.
post #58 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

It won't make that much of a difference in the end. They will rule against the bundling and at the next. meeting there will be three items to vote on. Meanwhile the Board won't issue any preferreds.

Exactly. He just cost Apple some money in legal fees and nothing's going to change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by applesupertramp View Post

The Proposal:  Apple issues $430 billion worth of preferred stock with a 4% yield and par value of 460 dollars per share. After issuance, Apple will have an additional $430 billion in cash which it will immediately pay out as a one time dividend to the common stock holders. That is, if you purchase one share of common today for 460 dollars, Apple will return to you 460 dollars of dividend tomorrow. Got that?
 
Now, where do we stand?  You just received 460 dollars cash dividend for each share of common that you own. You still own the share, same as before, but now, Apple is obligated to pay from earnings to the preferred stock holders 17.2 billion dollars per year (that's 4% of the 430 billion dollars worth of preferreds).

You forgot to mention - you pay $150 in taxes on the $460 dividend you received. So you end up paying a fortune in taxes and are no better off.

The entire thing is ridiculous. Preferred shares don't affect Apple's ability to distribute money to shareholders one bit. Apple could distribute their entire cash holdings to shareholders today if they wanted to - even without preferred shares.

Ultimately, it's advantageous for people like Einhorn because most of the population doesn't understand it and can easily be duped by people who know how it works. Your post is a great example.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #59 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

That is not a remotely realistic proposal, given Apple's size.

 

Also, many shareholders will vehemently oppose it legally, since the long-run upside potential is huge, and people want a piece of it. Taking it private will deny them -- people like me -- that opportunity, and it will be fought, believe me. (Look at what's happening with a company with low growth potential, like Dell -- large shareholders are already fighting the move).

 

The only ones wanting those sorts of outcome are people whose investing horizons are no longer than the lifespan of a gnat.

however, it would keep the shareholders from trying to tell Apple how to run its business.

post #60 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Exactly. He just cost Apple some money in legal fees and nothing's going to change.

You forgot to mention - you pay $150 in taxes on the $460 dividend you received. So you end up paying a fortune in taxes and are no better off.


The entire thing is ridiculous. Preferred shares don't affect Apple's ability to distribute money to shareholders one bit. Apple could distribute their entire cash holdings to shareholders today if they wanted to - even without preferred shares.


Ultimately, it's advantageous for people like Einhorn because most of the population doesn't understand it and can easily be duped by people who know how it works. Your post is a great example.
He forgot to mention that you pay $150 in taxes, because it is false. Dividends are taxed at a lower 15% rate, so you pay $69 in taxes. The rest of what you say is just false. Einhorn discusses why you can't just distribute the cash at length in his presentation (the fact that Apple would have 33% tax on most of it is only part of the problem). And if "this is bad because I am too dumb to understand it" were a legitimate argument, I know a place when you can get a reasonably priced stone axe.

Actually Einhorn's preferreds have quite a bit of tax-related self-interest. As a corporation, Greenlight capital does not have to pay taxes on 80% of any preferred dividends received. But individuals have to pay taxes on all of their preferred dividend. That's the law.
post #61 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

  Further, if the stock just appreciates without ANY dividends paid out, Greenlight pays no taxes at all, until they liquidate (at which point it is cap gains, netted against losses from tcheir other long term positions), so if the stock would just go up, Greenlight would do better than any dividend scheme.

uh huh - yes, Im back.

I think you've just exposed your motivation for posting on this board.

Forgive my lack of comprehension....

post #62 of 91

err, champion of Einhorn.

 

Look many of the points you raise are well reasoned and well explained.

Full respect. It's just I disagree that Apple needs some kind of financial advice.

 

Ill shut up now and vote accordingly.

cheers, and I mean that sincerely

post #63 of 91

What ever comes out of this - I hope it leaves Apple free to continue to develop great products that we all benefit from in our lives. Thats what we pay for.

Without all the noise and ongoing scrutiny of recent times.

 

At the end of the day whatever the board decides is fine with me.

If it goes to a vote on some issues - whatever comes out of those is what I'll accept. Whether or not I believe those results to be right or wrong.

 

Ive trusted Apple and its board for over 15 years and have absolutely no reason to doubt them going forward.

post #64 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

This guy has one of the most shit-faced expressions I've ever seen. You can just tel he's a smug, obnoxious, annoying asshole.

 

Well, he looks like Eastern European-descent douchemaster Adam Sandler, so no surprises there.

iMac Intel 27" Core i7 3.4, 16GB RAM, 120GB SSD + 1TB HD + 4TB RAID 1+0, Nuforce Icon HDP, OS X 10.9.1; iPad Air 64GB; iPhone 5 32GB; iPod Classic; iPod Nano 4G; Apple TV 2.
Reply
iMac Intel 27" Core i7 3.4, 16GB RAM, 120GB SSD + 1TB HD + 4TB RAID 1+0, Nuforce Icon HDP, OS X 10.9.1; iPad Air 64GB; iPhone 5 32GB; iPod Classic; iPod Nano 4G; Apple TV 2.
Reply
post #65 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post

Apple simply needs to create a true policy with what it intends to do with cash in the bank.

Apple has a plan. It is apparently discussed at every Board of Directors meeting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post


It is entirely within its rights to maintain a GROWING savings, regardless of how many billions. The company makes a lot of money, but SPENDS a lot to do so.

I am happy that the company i invest in is so well managed that it has ammassed a hedge against economic hard times for the forseeable future.

Anyone trying to divest Apple of any percentage of that hedge is not only undermining Apple, but undermining shareholders and stakeholders at the same time. It weakens the company against the prospect of uncertain economic shifts.

So Apple needs to create bylaws with what to do with it's savings.

They have no obligation to make their plan public. In fact, making it public will often work against the interests of the company. For example, what if the plan were to buy Sony (not a great idea, but as an example)? Making it public would simply drive up the price. Even if they say "a large consumer electronics company", the price would be driven up.

They've already outlined the plan in general terms - they want money for future investment in technology, acquisitions, for leveraging component purchases, and to pay dividends. They also want enough cushion so that they don't have to stop investment in bad times. There's no reason for them to publicize more detail than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post

Best thing would be to allow for some appeasement each time a savings milestone is reached.

That would allow for some to get a little extra in their pocket while at the same time allowing apple to continue to grow its savings.

If Apple were to have 2 trillion in the bank, everyone should shut up about it. 3 trillion may sound like too much to have in savings, but at the rate Apple's competitors copy them and get away with it added to the rate at which Apple's business is expanding, 3 trillion doesn't seem so excessive. Especially for a company who's cap surpassed Exxon for a while.

I don't know the correct amount. That's the Board of Director's job. If you don't like what they're doing with the company's money, sell the stock and buy something else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

He forgot to mention that you pay $150 in taxes, because it is false. Dividends are taxed at a lower 15% rate, so you pay $69 in taxes. The rest of what you say is just false. Einhorn discusses why you can't just distribute the cash at length in his presentation (the fact that Apple would have 33% tax on most of it is only part of the problem). And if "this is bad because I am too dumb to understand it" were a legitimate argument, I know a place when you can get a reasonably priced stone axe.

The 15% rate is temporary, but it doesn't matter. The point is that you pay taxes on the dividends. Einhorn's proposal creates debt just to pay a dividend which is just ridiculous. The proposal I am referring to has Apple creating a new class of stock and distributing dividends from sale of that stock. Either way, the recipient pays extra taxes - and it does nothing to strengthen the company.

The people who fall for Einhorn's proposal seem to be the ones who are "too dumb to understand it". Apple's board (which has shown itself to be pretty good at running a company and enriching shareholders) and almost every pension fund (including Calpers - possibly the largest in the country) are soundly against it.

Bottom line it that it serves no useful purpose. If Apple wants to increase dividends, they can do so now. Even if they want to borrow money to pay dividends, they can do so now. All the proposal does is created added complexity and expense - and enough confusion that big firms like Einhorn's can take benefit at the expense of smaller investors.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #66 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

 

I initially did not contest your claim, even though it sounded suspect, but now I have checked. This Dividend received exclusion applies only to C corps owning stock of other C corps. A hedge fund is always a partnership, so for the purposes of taxation it is the same as an individual, so you are just plain wrong. It gets better: this exclusion does not apply to preferred stock even for C corps, see:

 

http://macabacus.com/taxes/drd

Groan. You're plainly wrong. It's not just C corps. Please, all you've got to do is search for the phrase "corporate dividend exclusion for preferred stock." You'll find dozens of answers. (See, e.g., http://www.answers.com/topic/dividend-exclusion).

 

Second item where you pulled things out of your hat: Greenlight Capital is registered as a corporation, not a partnership. http://investment-advisors.findthebest.com/l/38103/GREENLIGHT-CAPITAL-INC

 

Stop posting incorrect information on these boards.

post #67 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

You reference (on answers.com) is useless, it gives much less info than my reference (http://macabacus.com/taxes/drd), and my reference is quite specific on the subject.

 

As for Greenlight Capital being a C corp, you apparently can't read. Your reference does not in any way describe their corporate structure. However, if you look at one of Einhorn's letters to investors (http://www.manualofideas.com/files/blog/greenlight2008.pdf), you will see that the letter begins with

 

Dear Partner,

 

  Greenlight Capital, L.P, Greenlight Capital Qualified, L.P., and Greenlight Capital Offshore Ltd returned...

 

Indicating that Greenlight is a limited partnership. There is also an S-corp (I assume), which is the management company, but that does not actually hold any assets.

First, a piece of advice, for future reference: don't call posters "idiots." You'll get reported and likely be warned. (I have absolutely no issue if you want to challenge a post -- including mine -- as being 'idiotic'.)

 

Second, here's the actual statement from the US Code. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/243. It refers to 'corporations'. That was the basis for my original comment.

-----

 

(a) General rule

In the case of a corporation, there shall be allowed as a deduction an amount equal to the following percentages of the amount received as dividends from a domestic corporation which is subject to taxation under this chapter:

(1) 70 percent, in the case of dividends other than dividends described in paragraph (2) or (3);

(2) 100 percent, in the case of dividends received by a small business investment company operating under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 661and following); and

(3) 100 percent, in the case of qualifying dividends (as defined in subsection (b)(1)).

-----

Third, here's the actual registration filing from Greenlight Capital, Inc. with the SEC, not some PDF of a letter from five years ago that you pulled out: http://www.adviserinfo.sec.gov/iapd/content/viewform/adv112011/Sections/iapd_AdvFormOfOrgSection.aspx?ORG_PK=157083&RGLTR_PK=50000&STATE_CD=&FLNG_PK=015F731800080160015AFC2003B6AC19056C8CC0

Go to Page 3: They are registered as a Corporation (the form also makes it supremely clear that they are not a sole proprietorship, not an LLP, not a partnership, not an LLC, not an LP).

 

Got it?


Edited by anantksundaram - 2/23/13 at 10:18am
post #68 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

First, a piece of advice, for future reference: don't call posters "idiots." You'll get reported and likely be warned. (I have absolutely no issue if you want to challenge a post -- including mine -- as being 'idiotic'.)

Second, here's the actual statement from the US Code. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/243. It refers to 'corporations'. That was the basis for my original comment.



(a) General rule
In the case of a corporation, there shall be allowed as a deduction an amount equal to the following percentages of the amount received as dividends from a domestic corporation which is subject to taxation under this chapter:
(1) 70 percent, in the case of dividends other than dividends described in paragraph (2) or (3);
(2) 100 percent, in the case of dividends received by a small business investment company operating under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 661and following); and
(3) 100 percent, in the case of qualifying dividends (as defined in subsection (b)(1)).


Third, here's the actual registration filing from Greenlight Capital, Inc. with the SEC, not some PDF of a letter from five years ago that you pulled out: http://www.adviserinfo.sec.gov/iapd/content/viewform/adv112011/Sections/iapd_AdvFormOfOrgSection.aspx?ORG_PK=157083&RGLTR_PK=50000&STATE_CD=&FLNG_PK=015F731800080160015AFC2003B6AC19056C8CC0
Go to Page 3: They are registered as a Corporation (the form also makes it supremely clear that they are not a sole proprietorship, not an LLP, not a partnership, not an LLC, not an LP).

Got it?

Just to explain it further to the other person, it is not uncommon for these large corporations to have similar sounding names in their subsidiaries so it's easy to be confused. It might have Megagroup, Inc (corporation) for the holding company and then have lots of different Megagroup subsidiaries with similar names. Some of these might be LLC or LP organizations - which is probably the case with the letter he cited.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #69 of 91

Downside to 'applesupertramps' mutation of the Einhorn proposal -- a sudden huge cash dividend like that would

create a tax nightmare for many.    When holding AAPL in a taxable account (even if classified as a "qualified dividend")

this could slingshot some modest holders into paying 23.8% of that to the feds, plus another 10% in state tax

in several states).   Many of us would prefer a steady dividend that doesn't boost one into a higher tax bracket.

post #70 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

 

Finally, for the personal matters. Firstly, I don't give a flying f*** if I get censured, but I don't appreciate being threatened. Nor do I appreciate being called a liar, or being talked down to (as in "Got it?", or "let me give you some advice") -- you have no idea who I am, what I know, or what I do.  Any person who does any of these things, and does not expend the effort to make sure his factual statements are correct, to boot is an idiot in my book, but I am willing to give you a pass this once -- we all have bad days, and this may have been one of yours. 

 

Got it?

Got it. You don't 'appreciate' being at the receiving end of things that you clearly like to dish out yourself? 

 

Who "threatened" you over what? Paranoid much?

post #71 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

 

Greenlight Capital in your SEC filing is the management company, which is an investment advisor running all these partnerships. It owns nothing, except the services of David Einhorn and his associates. For providing these services, it gets a management fee, which is a flat percentage of AUM, and is (minus the expenses, such as people's salary, rent on office space, and so on) taxed as ordinary income. 

Perhaps you can then explain why this corporation reports "regulatory assets under management (AUM") -- see Box F of the SEC filing -- of $8.837B?

post #72 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

 

As for the second: "You'll get reported and likely be warned". What would you call that?

I was simply explaining what the norm here at AI is -- generally, these things get reported, posters get warned (I've had that happen to me, so nothing personal there), and AI moderators often edit such content. (Indeed, I see that your insult got edited out).

 

The fact that you chose to interpret that as a "threat" is a bit creepy, to say the least......

 

One more thing: To say that a post contains "incorrect information" (which is what I said) is not the same as accusing you of 'dishonesty'. If so, many of your posts in thread, where you repeatedly accuse people of making "false" statements would fall squarely into that category, no? (You may want to go back and re-read what you've written here).

 

If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

post #73 of 91
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

Finally, for the personal matters. Firstly, I don't give a flying f*** if I get censured, but I don't appreciate being threatened. Nor do I appreciate being called a liar, or being talked down to (as in "Got it?", or "let me give you some advice") -- you have no idea who I am, what I know, or what I do. 

 

Went back through; where were you threatened?


Any person who does any of these things, and does not expend the effort to make sure his factual statements are correct, to boot is an idiot in my book…

 

That's fine; you just can't call them such here. lol.gif

 

EDIT: people posted while I was reading the thread… 

 

Originally Posted by igriv View Post

As for the second: "You'll get reported and likely be warned". What would you call that?

 

Ah, that's what I thought you meant by that. Of course, then what would you call this, from the above:


but I am willing to give you a pass this once

 

Sounds vaguely like the "talking down to" and "threatening" you've claimed earlier. 

 

Since both sides seem guilty, let's just drop it back down to the actual argument, yeah?

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #74 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

Yes, I can. The various hedge funds (of which there are about five, I think), retain the management company to manage their assets (note that the management co is an "investment advisor"). The sum of the assets of these funds is, presumably, the number you mention. Sort of like Apple retains Tim Cook to manage itself, but Tim does not actually have a $500B market cap himself (much though he wishes he did). 

 

(i) You're saying it could possibly be as you claim; then again, it need not be; that does not allow you to claim "Yes, I can." (You can try, however.) 

 

(ii) It is not just "presumably" -- it's in the filing; look it up;

 

(iii) Your Tim Cook example sort of makes no sense whatsoever: He does not do a separate SEC filing as though he is an 'advisor' to Apple.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by igriv View Post
 
If it WERE the general partner, then because of passthrough taxation of fund P/L, it might have a tax benefit vis-a-vis dividends

 

(iv) Glad to see you allowing for the fact that my original substantive point might be right!

post #75 of 91
I agree with macxpress. It would be nice for Apple to be privately owned. Investors & analyst are an unhealthy distraction from Apple's core direction.
post #76 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnviroG View Post

I agree with macxpress. It would be nice for Apple to be privately owned. Investors & analyst are an unhealthy distraction from Apple's core direction.

Yep. To many crooks stirring the pot… or something like that.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #77 of 91
"We don't know what Apple's plans are, but iPrefs don't interfere with Apple's using the existing cash hoard," Einhorn said.

If you don't know what Apple's plans are then how do you know if your idea interferes with their plans?

     197619842014  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5s • iPad mini Retina • Chromebook Pixel • Nexus 7

Reply

     197619842014  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5s • iPad mini Retina • Chromebook Pixel • Nexus 7

Reply
post #78 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by wubbus View Post

Reminder:  Einhorn is suing to ultimately get the vote unbundled, not to get his preferred share idea done.  So much misinformation around this on prior threads.

No, he is suing so that he can use the free press from it to push his agenda.

     197619842014  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5s • iPad mini Retina • Chromebook Pixel • Nexus 7

Reply

     197619842014  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5s • iPad mini Retina • Chromebook Pixel • Nexus 7

Reply
post #79 of 91
Pie in the sky question but what does Apple gain by remaining a public company? I know they will not go private but what is the current advantage? Wall Street never let's up on them no matter how good they perform. It is not enough to put out great products and make great profits. There is always someone badgering them for more. What a pain in the ass for Cook and Co to have to deal with. Innovate don't litigate Einhorn.
post #80 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

That is not a remotely realistic proposal, given Apple's size.

Also, many shareholders will vehemently oppose it legally, since the long-run upside potential is huge, and people want a piece of it. Taking it private will deny them -- people like me -- that opportunity, and it will be fought, believe me. (Look at what's happening with a company with low growth potential, like Dell -- large shareholders are already fighting the move).

The only ones wanting those sorts of outcome are people whose investing horizons are no longer than the lifespan of a gnat.

I wouldn't go that far. True it won't happen, but that doesn't mean he can't want it to happen. I have no Apple stock, at least not directly so this issue means nothing to me either way. I just hate seeing these people interfering with the best run company in the world. Wall Street makes a mess of everything they touch and they are never held accountable. I know this issue will not effect the daily operations at Apple but nothing good comes from Wall Street meddling.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Einhorn successfully blocks Apple proxy vote in bid for preferred stock [u]