or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Carl Icahn says he'll consider shareholder proxy vote if Apple rejects his buyback plan
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Carl Icahn says he'll consider shareholder proxy vote if Apple rejects his buyback plan - Page 3

post #81 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

 

I would love to see this 'plan' and what they will do with $800,000,000,000 in the next 10 years.

You went from projecting 700Bn to projecting 800Bn in cash and marketable securities over ten years. I hope that's not how you balance your household budget. Also, yours is an "ideal" projection-like my taking out a 10 year second mortgage for 33% of the value of my home because I anticipate ten years of additional paychecks down the line. What happens if I get laid-off or if the economy collapses? That's the problem with arguments such as yours and which led directly to the last economic collapse. 

 

Greed has a way of creating overly-optimistic projections about future earnings and investment appreciation. Get a clue. Apple knows full-well how strategies such as what you suggest have a way of weakening its position in the market, making the company more susceptible to being raided by outside investors or competitors. 

 

I suggest you divest your holdings in AAPL and invest your earnings in a growth stock. 

For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
post #82 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post
 

Why did Carl invest in Apple if he didn't trust Apple to make good decisions? If he doesn't wants to keep his money in his pocket he should do it.

 

This has nothing to do with whether Apple makes good decisions or not. He is following his well-rehearsed and oft-repeated script.

post #83 of 153
Vulture
post #84 of 153
I'm sick and tired of this greedy asshole!
post #85 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

Good point.  But neither Tim nor the Board of Directors own Apple.  The shareholders do and they have a right to demand a captial allocation plan that benefits shareholder value.
 
In theory, that is not wrong. In practice, what do shareholders really own beyond shares? I can tell you one thing - if the company takes on debt to do what Icahn wants, shareholders will NOT have first dips on Apple's shares.  
 
Yes, shareholders have a right to demand something. It is rare, however, that shareholders get their wishes when they contradict management's plans. A company has to be in a weak position for that to happen. Apple is not in a weak position. It is particularly rare for shareholders to force a company to alter its capital allocation plan unless someone does what Carl Icahn does.
 
This is why I am really interested in seeing this evolve. It is very fitting that iCahn takes on the iPhone maker.
post #86 of 153

Perhaps Lauren Jobs should write an 'Open Letter' to Tim pointing out she owns 8% of Apple's shares and damn sight more than Icahn and urge him not to give the greedy prick the time of day.

 

Quote:
 

Bill Gross, manager of the world’s largest mutual fund, said fellow billionaire investor Carl Icahn should stop pushing Apple Inc. (AAPL) for additional share buybacks.

“Icahn should leave Apple alone and spend more time like Bill Gates,” Gross, who runs the $250 billion Pimco Total Return Fund (PTTRX) at Pacific Investment Management Co. in Newport Beach, California, wrote in a message on Twitter today. “If Icahn’s so smart, use it to help people not yourself.”

 

Bravo Bill!

post #87 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

 

Look what happened with Google purchasing Motorolla.  The purchase price was $20B and they are losing $1B each year.  Its not easy to make a big strategic purchase.  Most times it loses the company billions.

 

Unless Apple was buying Tesla a big purchase makes no sense.

post #88 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

 

Its not one man's view.  If there is a proxy all the shareholders will vote whats best for the company.  Thats the way it should be.

 

Personally I'll vote for the buyback.  Just look at the numbers:

 

In 10 years Apple will have $700B in cash

WTF are they going to do with all that cash?

It should go back to the investors in dividends and buybacks if they don't have any good use of it.  Just from inflation alone Apple would be losing $25B a year just sitting on the cash.

 

 

Of course you don't mind that 35% of what Apple brings back (from overseas) will go directly to the government in taxes.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #89 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia View Post
 

You went from projecting 700Bn to projecting 800Bn in cash and marketable securities over ten years. I hope that's not how you balance your household budget. Also, yours is an "ideal" projection-like my taking out a 10 year second mortgage for 33% of the value of my home because I anticipate ten years of additional paychecks down the line. What happens if I get laid-off or if the economy collapses? That's the problem with arguments such as yours and which led directly to the last economic collapse. 

 

Greed has a way of creating overly-optimistic projections about future earnings and investment appreciation. Get a clue. Apple knows full-well how strategies such as what you suggest have a way of weakening its position in the market, making the company more susceptible to being raided by outside investors or competitors. 

 

I suggest you divest your holdings in AAPL and invest your earnings in a growth stock. 

 

Cash Balance at 12.31.13 - $180B

10 years with 5% growth  starting with $50B = $628B

Total $808B

 

When I said $700B that was without any growth at all

post #90 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
 

 

 

Of course you don't mind that 35% of what Apple brings back (from overseas) will go directly to the government in taxes.

 

They would float a bond not get cash from overseas.

post #91 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post
 

Perhaps Lauren Jobs should write 

 

How does the commenter know Ms. Jobs' opinion?

 

I concur that buying back shares at this price is a good use of free cash.  I think most investors do.  I hope the buyers were aggressive on the recent dip.

 

However, there is authorization for 100 BB already.  The only reason to preannounce 150 would seem to me to be improve the sentiment around the stock in a shorter term than the scheduled buyback.

 

It is Apple's style to say what they mean and mean what they say.  They don't do "vaporware" or "preannounce."  However, recent wildly swinging  general investor hysteria has already caused Cook to let the level of "leaks" increase, not to hype the products but to squelch some of the irrational speculation.  So if the intention is to continue buybacks, and if another 50 seems like a sure thing, there might not be much harm in announcing some compromise amount.

 

Increasing the buyback authorization would also send a strong signal of confidence on the part of the board and management that free cash flow was strongly expected to continue at a high rate.  That can't be bad for the stock.

 

Honestly, I don't think it's going to make that much difference in the long run, except that any shares that can be pulled off the market at these levels will just further benefit long term investors down the road if the company continues to succeed.  And it's not going to have any effect on the day traders except to make them pony up a bit more capital.

 

Icahn is after some improved returns for medium term traders.  He wants to pull cash down to a level more justified by business needs, benefit from being a holder through that period, and then quite possibly plan to exit.

 

Tim Cook and the team are probably giving this more serious consideration than a lot of the posters.  Let's keep it polite and rational please.  The nation has enough reality TV type trash talk around important affairs as it is.  There is no reason for sane investors to pump it up further.

post #92 of 153

And I'll be sure to vote that against your intentions on the Proxy.

post #93 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danox View Post
 

 

Unless Apple was buying Tesla a big purchase makes no sense.

 

I think Disney or Time Warner could be considered.  Just sayin'

post #94 of 153

Tesla is the company Apple should buy.  Elon Musk then comes aboard as a the company visionary.  Jony designing new cars and rockets.  Tim managing the whole company properly so Apple can blast off into space-X

post #95 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by VicAustin View Post
 

Let's keep it polite and rational please.... There is no reason for sane investors to pump it up further.

Like anyone needs a reason to post on the internets. Pshaw!

 

</sarcasm>

post #96 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

he'd be slaughtered in a vote.

Not necessarily. The largest shareholders are institutional investors. Now that Apple's mobile business is hitting the limits of the market along with their competitors, Apple has a fairly well determined value relative to other companies. The bigger investors want growth. Since it's much easier to determine the limits now, they are free to jump off at any point and reap the profits. I very much doubt Icahn's estimates but I think he's trying to persuade the larger shareholders:

"As we proposed at our dinner, if the company decided to borrow the full $150 billion at a 3% interest rate to commence a tender at $525 per share, the result would be an immediate 33% boost to earnings per share, translating into a 33% increase in the value of the shares, which significantly assumes no multiple expansion. Longer term (in three years) if you execute this buyback as proposed, we expect the share price to appreciate to $1,250, assuming the market rewards EBIT growth of 7.5% per year with a more normal market multiple of 11x EBIT."

$1250 in 3 years is a bit of a stretch IMO and I think he's flat out lying to other shareholders to get them to side with him. Apple is buying back shares so some increase would be expected but if they drop the outstanding shares from 900m to 700m with a $100b buyback, that puts the remaining shares at $690, nowhere near his estimates.

Apple has already done a buyback and it hasn't boosted the price all that much. Their cash is accounted for in the company valuation so spending it lowers their assets. Buybacks only work if they buy at a low price and they aren't at a low price, they are valued more highly than every company in the world and their earnings don't exceed every other company.

IMO, Icahn wants to persuade the largest shareholders to vote to increase the value of their holdings in a fast and predetermined way. If the proposal goes ahead, his holdings and the largest shareholders will go up by 1/3 and he will make over $800m in less than 3 years so he can go and loot some other company. You notice how he describes 3 years as 'longer term'. He's not in this for the long term as most people understand it.

Having said that, as long as Apple keeps bringing in the profits, the extra buyback wouldn't do much harm. If they do make another $150b in 3 years, spending the $150b they have now isn't going to make much difference. That is unless they are planning to use it for something big that they can't talk about like a buyout of a major company.

Imagine if they saved up $300b, bought Microsoft and dissolved their operations retaining patents - maybe less if Microsoft drops in value. Where would that leave PC users? Even with no growth, that's a market of 350 million units per year. They're not going to buy Linux systems and even if they did, Apple offers a better eco-system as it's controlled. Investors might initially be worried about blowing $300b but they'd sell hundreds of million of Macs. People need computers and without Microsoft, they'd have to choose from what remains and Apple would be the best option. Even if it's $600 machines Apple sells, it doesn't matter because they'd know they're selling loads of them. That would transform their Mac line into $50+ billion profit per year on top of the $50+ billion from iOS. They make their money back in another 3 years and own the computing world, finally getting rid of the problem of Windows being bundled with every PC. Now sure, there's Android but Android is no match for OS X on the desktop.
post #97 of 153

Wondering how much AAPL Carl Icahn bought at $699...  nah, that couldn't be it.

post #98 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by VicAustin View Post
 

 

How does the commenter know Ms. Jobs' opinion?

 

I concur that buying back shares at this price is a good use of free cash.  I think most investors do.  I hope the buyers were aggressive on the recent dip.

 

However, there is authorization for 100 BB already.  The only reason to preannounce 150 would seem to me to be improve the sentiment around the stock in a shorter term than the scheduled buyback.

 

It is Apple's style to say what they mean and mean what they say.  They don't do "vaporware" or "preannounce."  However, recent wildly swinging  general investor hysteria has already caused Cook to let the level of "leaks" increase, not to hype the products but to squelch some of the irrational speculation.  So if the intention is to continue buybacks, and if another 50 seems like a sure thing, there might not be much harm in announcing some compromise amount.

 

Increasing the buyback authorization would also send a strong signal of confidence on the part of the board and management that free cash flow was strongly expected to continue at a high rate.  That can't be bad for the stock.

 

Honestly, I don't think it's going to make that much difference in the long run, except that any shares that can be pulled off the market at these levels will just further benefit long term investors down the road if the company continues to succeed.  And it's not going to have any effect on the day traders except to make them pony up a bit more capital.

 

Icahn is after some improved returns for medium term traders.  He wants to pull cash down to a level more justified by business needs, benefit from being a holder through that period, and then quite possibly plan to exit.

 

Tim Cook and the team are probably giving this more serious consideration than a lot of the posters.  Let's keep it polite and rational please.  The nation has enough reality TV type trash talk around important affairs as it is.  There is no reason for sane investors to pump it up further.

 

fyi the buyback approved by Apple is 'only' $60B.  The other $40B is dividends

post #99 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


Not necessarily. The largest shareholders are institutional investors. Now that Apple's mobile business is hitting the limits of the market along with their competitors, Apple has a fairly well determined value relative to other companies. The bigger investors want growth. Since it's much easier to determine the limits now, they are free to jump off at any point and reap the profits. I very much doubt Icahn's estimates but I think he's trying to persuade the larger shareholders:

"As we proposed at our dinner, if the company decided to borrow the full $150 billion at a 3% interest rate to commence a tender at $525 per share, the result would be an immediate 33% boost to earnings per share, translating into a 33% increase in the value of the shares, which significantly assumes no multiple expansion. Longer term (in three years) if you execute this buyback as proposed, we expect the share price to appreciate to $1,250, assuming the market rewards EBIT growth of 7.5% per year with a more normal market multiple of 11x EBIT."

$1250 in 3 years is a bit of a stretch IMO and I think he's flat out lying to other shareholders to get them to side with him. Apple is buying back shares so some increase would be expected but if they drop the outstanding shares from 900m to 700m with a $100b buyback, that puts the remaining shares at $690, nowhere near his estimates.

Apple has already done a buyback and it hasn't boosted the price all that much. Their cash is accounted for in the company valuation so spending it lowers their assets. Buybacks only work if they buy at a low price and they aren't at a low price, they are valued more highly than every company in the world and their earnings don't exceed every other company.

IMO, Icahn wants to persuade the largest shareholders to vote to increase the value of their holdings in a fast and predetermined way. If the proposal goes ahead, his holdings and the largest shareholders will go up by 1/3 and he will make over $800m in less than 3 years so he can go and loot some other company. You notice how he describes 3 years as 'longer term'. He's not in this for the long term as most people understand it.

Having said that, as long as Apple keeps bringing in the profits, the extra buyback wouldn't do much harm. If they do make another $150b in 3 years, spending the $150b they have now isn't going to make much difference. That is unless they are planning to use it for something big that they can't talk about like a buyout of a major company.

Imagine if they saved up $300b, bought Microsoft and dissolved their operations retaining patents - maybe less if Microsoft drops in value. Where would that leave PC users? Even with no growth, that's a market of 350 million units per year. They're not going to buy Linux systems and even if they did, Apple offers a better eco-system as it's controlled. Investors might initially be worried about blowing $300b but they'd sell hundreds of million of Macs. People need computers and without Microsoft, they'd have to choose from what remains and Apple would be the best option. Even if it's $600 machines Apple sells, it doesn't matter because they'd know they're selling loads of them. That would transform their Mac line into $50+ billion profit per year on top of the $50+ billion from iOS. They make their money back in another 3 years and own the computing world, finally getting rid of the problem of Windows being bundled with every PC. Now sure, there's Android but Android is no match for OS X on the desktop.

 

I could easily see Apple going over $1000 with 33% of the shares bought back in 3 years.  That will give it only PE of around 15.

 

The problem with an acquisition is almost every single acquistion that makes sense (such as Microsoft) would be shot down by the DOJ because of anti-trust provisions.

 

The buybacks are working.  When it was announced the stock was sub $400.  Now its over 30% higher.

post #100 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpellino View Post
 

Wondering how much AAPL Carl Icahn bought at $699...  nah, that couldn't be it.

 

his average basis is $440

post #101 of 153

Buffett is about to get burned on his IBM acquisition.

 

Apparently, IBM stock has been falling down to the point where he purchased it.  The news of IBM's cozy relationship with the NSA has had a seriously negative impact with regards to their sales growth outside the developed world (Chinese sales have done a complete about-face into the red).

 

Stock buybacks are pretty dumb unless the company want to go fully private.

post #102 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

In other news, Apple has responded to Icahn’s demands by taking the company private. Reports are coming in that paper representations of each of Icahn’s shares were mailed to his door this morning, each stamped with a hand, its middle finger extended.

 

Only in your crack fueled dreams!

Much as I dislike Icahn, "taking the company private" isn't really possible for Apple (certainly not without a few hundred billion in outside money to pay off shareholders handsomely.)

post #103 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

The buybacks are working.  When it was announced the stock was sub $400.  Now its over 30% higher.

 

Really? That's only because of the buyback?

 

Okay. Sure.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #104 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post
 

 

Really? That's only because of the buyback?

 

Okay. Sure.

 

Its part of the equation.  It shows they are a shareholder friendly company.  I responded to someone who said the buyback has not helped much.  The buyback allowed Apple to have an EPS beat last quarter.

post #105 of 153

And BTW, buying back stock is in the interest of shareholders as increase the value of all remaining shares.

But it has to be part of an overall company strategy—as I'm sure it has been all along.

Such a buyback effects outstanding employee options, taxes liability, dividends, stock price, liquid funds, etc. etc.

post #106 of 153
this is one of the reasons why american market is the most efficient market in the world. if the management doesn't fix the problem, activist shareholders will force them to...

now you can't be sitting on $150B and do nothing about it while it grows. you can't just watch... what is the opportunity cost of that money? it is a lot... apple and shareholders are losing money!

they should have used it to do value adding acquisitions. for example a twitter acquisition would have brought a very nice diversification to apple's offerings. we would not just talk about iPads and iPhones but we would talk about social media, twitter, online advertising as well!

but since they have no clue about how to use that money, the market will educate them.

so folks, all is healthy! don't worry... this will be good for apple and its shareholders. market is doing its magic. that's all!
post #107 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by generalkurtz View Post

but since they have no clue about how to use that money, the market will educate them.

 

So what else did Tim and Peter say when you were talking to them?

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #108 of 153
Originally Posted by generalkurtz View Post
if the management doesn't fix the problem, activist shareholders will force them to...

 

There is no problem in the first place.

 

Problem solved!

 
now you can't be sitting on $150B and do nothing about it while it grows. 

 

Why not? That’s what any sane, intelligent person would do.

 
it is a lot... apple and shareholders are losing money!

 

Sounds like they’re both gaining money. You know, given that Apple keeps reporting billions in profit and the stock goes up accordingly.

 
they should have used it to do value adding acquisitions. for example a twitter…

 

I’m sorry, you said “value-adding”, so I thought you’d at least give an example of something that had actual value. I must have misunderstood. Tell me: why should Apple be forced to buy crap they don’t want?

 
…diversification…

 

How diverse can 140 characters be, anyway?

 
…social media, twitter, online advertising as well!

 

This is all terrible nonsense that Apple doesn’t want to do. “Social networking” will be dead by 2020.

 
but since they have no clue about how to use that money, the market will educate them.

 

Yep. The most successful company in modern history, one grown from bankruptcy to having nigh the highest market cap of all time, HAS NO CLUE HOW TO USE ITS MONEY.

 

Shut up and go away.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #109 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 


 Jesus, research you idiots.

They would float a bond not get cash from overseas.

 

So go into debt.

 

Why should Apple borrow money?

 

Why should Apple pay out interest to whoever they borrow from?

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #110 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

...commence a tender at $525 per share, the result would be an immediate 33% boost to earnings per share...

 

AAPL are already over $530

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #111 of 153
Is he referring to Al Gore?

or the following

Millard Drexler
Chairman and CEO
J. Crew

Robert A. Iger
President and CEO
The Walt Disney Company

Andrea Jung
Senior Advisor to the Board of Directors
Avon

Ronald D. Sugar, Ph. D.
Former Chairman and CEO
Northrop Grumman
post #112 of 153
Much as I dislike the guy, if Apple are confident of their future then the shares are clearly significantly undervalued, so from the shareholder perspective buying back shares is the smart thing for Apple to do to increase shareholder value. Even if they have great ideas about what to do with their money pile (they haven't shown any) a buy back is still probably the better idea, they'd be buying dollars with pennies.

Hate it when annoying people are right, I want Cook to tell him to go hang, but the advice is good advice, so I want Cook to rubber stamp it.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #113 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
 

 

So go into debt.

 

Why should Apple borrow money?

 

Why should Apple pay out interest to whoever they borrow from?

 

Borrowing money won't cost Apple anything.  With the tax deduction and the decrease in dividends the cost of borrowing is zero.  So far Apple has bough $18B in stock.  Since then the stock has risen a good 20%.  That means they already saved the shareholders over $4B from buying back stock.  If you think the stock is severely undervalued it only makes sense to buyback as much as possible.  With a buyback of $150B  the return on capital will be massive if the stock rises to $700.  And its not like that stock will fade into obilivion.  They will always reissue stock as stock options for new employees.

 

Think of buybacks as increasing your stake in the company.  For example if you own 10% of Apple and Apple buys 50% of their shares then now you own 20% of Apple.  That is NOT an insignificant fact.  It also means Apple can afford to pay you DOUBLE the dividends and you have DOUBLE the stake to all assets.  Buybacks are only throwing money away if the stock goes down long term. 


Edited by sog35 - 10/24/13 at 3:54pm
post #114 of 153

I'd prefer not taking on big debt right now. It feels like this is wonderful for Icahn, not really  for that many other people, and not for Apple itself. I'd rather we use some of the nestegg to assure worker confidence on the retail side of things (it's a big rich company, let's make sure all workers on all levels have a better than average salary, better than good benefits and are better trained than anyone else), complete modernizing older stores, and pushing more into R&D. 

 

I want my iPhone the size and thickness of a business card and can slide into my wallet please. :-)

post #115 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by saintstryfe View Post
 

I'd prefer not taking on big debt right now. It feels like this is wonderful for Icahn, not really  for that many other people, and not for Apple itself. I'd rather we use some of the nestegg to assure worker confidence on the retail side of things (it's a big rich company, let's make sure all workers on all levels have a better than average salary, better than good benefits and are better trained than anyone else), complete modernizing older stores, and pushing more into R&D. 

 

I want my iPhone the size and thickness of a business card and can slide into my wallet please. :-)

 

They can do all that and still have tons of money left.  Apple is generating $50B free cash flows a year.  In five years they will have over $400B.  All the improvements you are talking about won't even cost $50B.

 

The only way a $150B buyback is a bad idea is if you think the stock will drop long-term.  If that's the case you should sell your shares.  If you think it will go up a buyback will only benefit you.

post #116 of 153

"the market will educate them."

 

That illustrious institution that was bailed out by tax-payers only a couple of years ago? Ha.

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #117 of 153

This guy has no fucking CLUE what Apple and the Apple Brand/Ecosystem means to us. All he cares about is lining his own pocketbook.

post #118 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 “Social networking” will be dead by 2020.

Doubtful. Will it exist as it stands now? No, most likely not. Will it continue to evolve and change? Absolutely. "Social Networking" has existed for as long as man has walked the Earth so it's not going to "Be dead" as you put it.

post #119 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

“Social networking” will be dead by 2020.
Any particular reasoning behind this absurd claim?

P.S. Apple never filed for bankruptcy.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #120 of 153

So $532 is a very unattractive number for him.  

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Carl Icahn says he'll consider shareholder proxy vote if Apple rejects his buyback plan