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

post #81 of 91

2/23/13 at 8:36pm

anantksundaram

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,686
offline
Select All Posts By This User

Quote:

Originally Posted by igriv

(ii) The filing talks about something like "regulatory" assets. Who knows what it does/does not account for?

For someone who brags about being 'familiar with' the industry, it is laughable that you don't know what Regulatory AUM means! Especially considering it is the basic number an investment adviser has to report to the SEC. (It's actually quite straightforward, but I am sure you can ask your industry pals.)

'Nuff said with you. The rest of your points don't even merit a response.

Reply

post #82 of 91

2/23/13 at 8:40pm

anantksundaram

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,686
offline
Select All Posts By This User

Quote:

Originally Posted by iSteelers

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.

I don't disagree with you about Wall Streets 'meddling.'

But you'd also expect the 'best-run company in the world' to be a bit more savvy and sophisticated in the way that it deals with the noise from these meddlers.

Reply

post #83 of 91

2/23/13 at 9:16pm

anantksundaram

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,686
offline
Select All Posts By This User

Quote:

Originally Posted by igriv

I feel so wounded to be dismissed by such a great authority as yourself. But if there are regulatory assets, perhaps there are also non-regulatory assets which Greenlight also manages?!

There is no such thing as a 'non-regulatory' AUM in the SEC's reporting requirement for investment advisors. Essentially, it is a new definition of AUM that is a grossed-up number (as opposed to what is traditionally reported, which is Net AUM), and includes long plus short positions, and does not subtract liabilities or leverage.

You can easily look all this up quite easily in the SEC's website, you know.

Reply

post #84 of 91

2/23/13 at 9:43pm

anantksundaram

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,686
offline
Select All Posts By This User

Quote:

Originally Posted by igriv

And by the way, why exactly are you being rude?

Take a guess......

Quote:

Originally Posted by igriv

The rest of what you say is just false. ......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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by igriv

As are Apple's. What's your point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by igriv

And your point is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by igriv

I initially did not contest your claim, even though it sounded suspect

Quote:

Originally Posted by igriv

You reference (on answers.com) is useless.... you apparently can't read

Quote:

Originally Posted by igriv

Firstly, I don't give a flying f*** if I get censured.... you have no idea who I am, what I know, or what I do. ..... is an idiot in my book, but I am willing to give you a pass this once ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by igriv

And you know this how?

Reply

post #85 of 91

2/24/13 at 5:16am

jragosta

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,346
online
Select All Posts By This User

Quote:

Originally Posted by iSteelers

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.

1. Going private would be very difficult. Convincing Apple shareholders to sell would require a large premium over current share price. Obtaining the $700-900 B in capital to even begin such a venture would not be easy.

2. Apple retains access to capital if they should ever need it.

3. Employee incentive compensation is very easy with a publicly traded company. While a private company can give employees tracking stock (which behaves like stock for purposes of calculating distributions and value), there's no liquidity.

4. If the investment comes from a variety of different sources (as it would pretty much have to, given the size), management oversight becomes an issue. Getting the 20 different funds to agree on how to run things would be an endless battle.

There's not a chance that Apple would go private.

Reply

post #86 of 91

2/24/13 at 6:24am

anantksundaram

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,686
offline
Select All Posts By This User

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta

Quote:

Originally Posted by iSteelers

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.

1. Going private would be very difficult. Convincing Apple shareholders to sell would require a large premium over current share price. Obtaining the $700-900 B in capital to even begin such a venture would not be easy.

2. Apple retains access to capital if they should ever need it.

3. Employee incentive compensation is very easy with a publicly traded company. While a private company can give employees tracking stock (which behaves like stock for purposes of calculating distributions and value), there's no liquidity.

4. If the investment comes from a variety of different sources (as it would pretty much have to, given the size), management oversight becomes an issue. Getting the 20 different funds to agree on how to run things would be an endless battle.

There's not a chance that Apple would go private.

I agree wholeheartedly, especially with #3 and #4.

Moreover, the history of large private equity buyouts -- e.g., TXU, HCA, Harrahs, Hilton -- is replete with failures. (Dell is the next big disaster waiting to happen).

Reply

post #87 of 91

2/24/13 at 6:36am

Techboy

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 153
offline
Select All Posts By This User

Wall Street really dont give a shit about a company. Having cash is a big asset to any company's ability to stay competitive. Money in stockholder's pocket doesn't help create any new products. Leave Apple alone you effing bean counters!

Reply

post #88 of 91

2/24/13 at 9:39am

SolipsismX
Mogul Gaberator

Joined: Nov 2011
Location: The Ansible
Posts: 12,559
offline
Select All Posts By This User

Quote:

Originally Posted by igriv

You are maybe five years old?

Saying someone must be 5 years old when they do the unthinkable¡ by using what you've previously stated to prove their point is neither a salient nor mature rebuttal.

This is how you entered the thread:

Quote:

But you seem to miss the point: Einhorn is a money manager, therefore he is evil, therefore everything he says is wrong! Just because it makes sense, and will put money in the pockets of Apple shareholders, and will correct the gross inefficiencies in the management of the company is no reason to accept it.

In no way does that sound like you are coming it to have a civil discourse with others. In no way does it sound like you want to give any knowledge back to others or learn what they have to offer.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

post #89 of 91

2/24/13 at 11:19am

SolipsismX
Mogul Gaberator

Joined: Nov 2011
Location: The Ansible
Posts: 12,559
offline
Select All Posts By This User

Quote:

Originally Posted by igriv

Sorry, I did not realize sarcasm is viewed as unacceptable. Thank you for your gaberation.

So you admit you were conveying contempt and yet you don't see how this can be not lead to reasonable discourse? There is no problem with being sarcastic or sardonic but it's a hostile tone so if it's the only thing you bring to the table you can't expect to be taken seriously. I don't even know if you're sorry and thank you are stated sarcastically or not but they come across as such because of what I've read in this thread.