Originally Posted by anantksundaram
(i.e., targeted repurchases, like Yahoo did with Loeb a couple of days ago)
It seems Loeb orchestrated the change of management at Yahoo with ~5% shareholding:
His company was the largest Yahoo shareholder but still a minority shareholder and just got some Wall Street goons to side with him to change out the management:
"Carol Bartz was fired from the post in September 2011. Instead of going quietly, she memorably told staff she had been “f--- over” by a board of “doofuses” running scared from Wall Street”."
Loeb was also part of the stock dump that affected Apple:
It's a shame that companies are put under pressure from investors looking for their inflation-beating returns. On some level if it brings the company to higher profitability then it's a good thing but the pursuit of money can be at the expense less profitable but more valuable ventures. I was just reading about Eric Veach who came up with algorithms to improve rendering used in movie visual effects, he got hired by Google and was behind their Adsense/Adwords and made millions from that:
"The concept of MIS is not new. Eric Veach first discussed it in his Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, December 1997. This was followed by a key SIGGRAPH presentation the next year. So key is this work that Arnold founder Marcos Fajardo says he re-reads it every year or two, “…and ever since he published it, every single researcher has been reading that thesis – which is amazing by the way,” points out Fajardo. Veach’s understand of rendering is so deep and what is all the more remarkable is its 1997 publication date (as an aside, Veach went on to Google to develop algorithms for Adsense and made millions of dollars according to Fajardo who could not be more happy to see Veach rewarded)."
It's good that he got rewarded for his talent but from the pursuit of shoving ads in everyone's faces instead of his contribution to the arts. Somewhere along the line we've lost track of what's important.
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
They're taking themselves private!
The people at Apple aren't interested in increased shareholdings by employees:
The proposal was voted against:
"The proposal, brought by small individual shareholder and corporate-governance advocate James McRitchie, asked Apple to "adopt a policy requiring that senior executives retain a significant percentage of shares acquired through equity-pay programs until reaching normal retirement age." The proposal recommended a share-retention percentage requirement of 33% of shares acquired through equity grants.
In its Jan. 7 proxy statement, Apple's directors urged shareholders to vote against the measure on the ground it "could undermine the company's ability to attract and retain executives." The statement also said the company believed the measure would provide "no benefit to the company" and noted that Mr. Cook and board members already have stock-holding requirements.
The proposal failed to pass, garnering only 29.7% of the votes tallied before Wednesday's shareholder meeting."
Apple could only go private with outsiders buying shares from existing shareholders - in the case of Dell, Michael Dell himself, Microsoft and other investors. Apple's value is based on profitability plus cash assets. 51% of the shares would have to be worth less than their cash to keep control away from outside influences and they'd still have to give them to people. If they distributed $200b between 50,000 employees, there could be a few early retirements depending on the terms.
I think Apple is pretty safe from something happening like what happened with Yahoo. People can see record quarters under Tim's leadership and there are few people who could be trusted to do as good a job. They have more money than they know what to do with so doing the buyback while the stock is lower is a good use of it, I don't think it's indicative of any major strategy.