or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › With Apple shareholder proposal pending, Carl Icahn turns his attention to Hertz
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

With Apple shareholder proposal pending, Carl Icahn turns his attention to Hertz - Page 3

post #81 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


It's interesting you picked an arbitrary point. I can do you one better, 10 years ago Apple was at 11 (split adjusted) and now it's at 544. All w/o crazy Carl's help.

That does't mean Carl can't help now.  Apple wasn't a 500 billion market cap company 10 years ago.  It's a much different story now than it was back then.  Apple has a huge market cap and everyone is gunning for Apple.

post #82 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


You're saying their quarterly financial earnings improved with Icahn's involvement? I doubt it. You must be talking about their stock price rising, which has nothing to do with the success of Apple's business. The stock price changed with the buyback, which they set out long before Carl got involved:

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2012/03/19Apple-Announces-Plans-to-Initiate-Dividend-and-Share-Repurchase-Program.html

Maybe Carl has some influence over other traders' confidence but again that's got nothing to do with Apple's business operation.

The buy-back was not set out before Einhorn got involved -- nor would it have been.

post #83 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

And the perception of those who know nothing is worth what compared to the perception of those who know everything?

The "amount" of what one knows is irrelevant as it pertains to perception.  The only thing that is variable is the amount of power (capital) one has to act with.  So, those who know less can have a much more dramatic impact on a stock price if they have the power to move the stock one way or the other.  Which I believe is the case.  Very few institutional investors really understand the Apple story.  David Einhorn is one of the very few and he has 20% of his entire fund's capital in Apple stock.  More in relative percentage terms than any other hedge fund.

post #84 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by castcore View Post
 

And 5 years ago Blackberry was on top of the world. You need to deal with the NOW and not the past. The Wall street environment now is what it is. There is no need for a great company like this to lose 40% in value and sit and do nothing.

 

I am surprised just at how naive people are here, do you people actually own shares and participate in the markets ?

LOL, I don't think a lot of these posters actually hold shares or they wouldn't have the attitudes they do.

post #85 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Sure we do. We absolutely do. Are you insane? We know it wouldn’t go to $1. This is known. We know it wouldn’t go to $10. Or $50, or even $100. It would stay above these numbers. 

 

The magical dividend and buyback didn’t “save” the stock. There was nothing to save.

 

It’s not Superman. It’s Superman breaking through the wall and finding not only no danger, but the owner furious for the damage done to his home.

 

Oh, this we know.

 

Sounds far more like Google is setting itself up for the coolest crash of all time.

 

Yeah? Are they? Guess what they aren’t, though. They aren’t involved in daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly operations. They aren’t privy to the parts deals, don’t know the 

 

Proof, please. And no, “they haven’t been giving me the returns on my stock that I demand for absolutely no reason other than I demand them” is not a reason.

 

‘Kay. And?

 

Nah. Sorry. You’re wrong. They are not bad for managing money wisely. They are not bad for operating like a startup. They are not bad for deciding not to waste their money on things they don’t care about and which would lead to worse products.

 

 

Is that second sentence just a second ending to the first sentence, or are you implying that specifically what Icahn thinks is best as a shareholder will inherently benefit other shareholders?

 

Yes, we’re well aware that you’re incapable of understanding what an analogy is.

If you are too obtuse to understand that the shareholders own Apple, then there is no need to respond to the rest of your nonsensical replies.

post #86 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

I think we have a much better picture of who you are and what you think now.

 

Who says? You? What right do you have to say that?

Yes, you do.  I am someone who understands how the PUBLIC equity markets work -- unlike you.

 

I say so.  Yes, that's right. I am entitled to my opinion on where Apple should be fairly valued.  Astonishing, isn't it?

post #87 of 118
Originally Posted by Jack Baker View Post
Most of that stock growth came under the leadership of Jobs.

 


Chart for posterity. Jobs’ return to death (black line) to today.

 

Seems that almost half the stock price was, at one time, generated after his death. And it keeps going up.

 

Originally Posted by Jack Baker View Post
They are doing nothing when it comes to defending the stock price from a constant barrage of specious negative articles about Apple.

 

Exactly. They’re listening to Steve Jobs himself. No one cares about defending the stock price. It will defend itself.

 
Most people in business lose their jobs for that kind of underperformance.

 

Most people are idiots. They aren’t.

 

Originally Posted by Jack Baker View Post
The "amount" of what one knows is irrelevant as it pertains to perception.

 

That couldn’t be further from the truth. I’m not going to listen to 100 idiots if 10 people actually know what they’re talking about.

 
Which I believe is the case. Very few institutional investors really understand the Apple story.

 

Yeah. Icahn. Knows nothing but has money. 

 

Originally Posted by Jack Baker View Post
If you are too obtuse to understand that the shareholders own Apple

 

Man, you guys are hilarious. Again, gonna just keep repeating it until you shut up, give up, and do it: sell AAPL, go away. You don’t understand the company, you don’t understand what it means, you don’t understand how to handle this kind of stock.

 

You buy it, you sit on it, you cash in later. If you bought at $700, quit whining.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #88 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Baker View Post

The buy-back was not set out before Einhorn got involved -- nor would it have been.

Einhorn sued them in February 2013, the buyback proposal was in March 2012.
post #89 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Baker View Post

They are doing nothing when it comes to defending the stock price from a constant barrage of specious negative articles about Apple.  Cook, Oppenheimer and the Boards boss are the shareholders.  Apple underperformed the stock market's 30% return considerably in 2012.  Apple appreciated only 5%.  Most people in business lose their jobs for that kind of underperformance.

You sure are clueless.
post #90 of 118

No you are clueless. What is the board doing right now to defend the stock? Any other company getting a 750 million people Chinese contract drop 40 bucks in a week?

 

What is board doing to respond to a downgrade to a phantom Iphone 6 by Wells Fargo.?

 

This is exactly the same pattern from Jan to May last year, are you really that stupid or just pretending?

post #91 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by castcore View Post

No you are clueless. What is the board doing right now to defend the stock? Any other company getting a 750 million people Chinese contract drop 40 bucks in a week?

What is board doing to respond to a downgrade to a phantom Iphone 6 by Wells Fargo.?

This is exactly the same pattern from Jan to May last year, are you really that stupid or just pretending?

They can't and should not respond. They have more important things to do. The news is out there easy for anyone with a brain to read. They can't help it if analysts are stupid. So take your grubby hands out of my portfolio and sell.
post #92 of 118
Originally Posted by castcore View Post
What is the board doing right now to defend the stock?

 

Nothing. Doing nothing, by definition, defends the stock.

 

Go watch the WWDC 1997 keynote. Don’t comment on the stock again until you have watched it.

 

What is board doing to respond to a downgrade to a phantom Iphone 6 by Wells Fargo.?

 

Nothing. Just like they should. Because anything else is the wrong decision.

 

EDIT: Wrong year (of course).


Edited by Tallest Skil - 1/8/14 at 9:32am

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #93 of 118

They should not respond to lies that affects shareholder value?

 

If I call your mom a whore and it's not true? And it's affecting your mom's reputation? You should not respond? Do you have more important things to do?

post #94 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by castcore View Post

They should not respond to lies that affects shareholder value?

If I call your mom a whore and it's not true? And it's affecting your mom's reputation? You should not respond? Do you have more important things to do?

So if Apple doesn't respond to something, does that inherently make it true? So Apple has to respond to everything then. Again, time would be wasted on that. And what's worse , analysts lying about Apple or Apple lying about something?
post #95 of 118
Stop talk about people's mothers being whores please, that lowers the tone, and should not be the go-to insult.

On a broader point, no, Apple should not respond to unsubstantiated gossip. If they do, they'll set a precedent and then they'll have to respond to all unsubstantiated gossip.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #96 of 118
Originally Posted by castcore View Post
They should not respond to lies that affects shareholder value?

 

Nope. Why should they legitimize things?

 
If I call your mom a whore and it's not true? And it's affecting your mom's reputation?

 

See, lies don’t affect reputation. Thanks for the ad-homs, though. They affect yours.

 

Go watch the WWDC 1997 keynote. Do not comment on the stock again until you have watched it.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #97 of 118

Its called an analogy and a very good one which your people have no answer for.

post #98 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


You're saying their quarterly financial earnings improved with Icahn's involvement? I doubt it. You must be talking about their stock price rising, which has nothing to do with the success of Apple's business. The stock price changed with the buyback, which they set out long before Carl got involved:

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2012/03/19Apple-Announces-Plans-to-Initiate-Dividend-and-Share-Repurchase-Program.html

Maybe Carl has some influence over other traders' confidence but again that's got nothing to do with Apple's business operation.

 

 

Again Apple has a great business and that is why it should not be losing 40% of its value for no reason. And the board to sit by and watch this happen. Its not that hard people.

post #99 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Stop talk about people's mothers being whores please, that lowers the tone, and should not be the go-to insult.

On a broader point, no, Apple should not respond to unsubstantiated gossip. If they do, they'll set a precedent and then they'll have to respond to all unsubstantiated gossip.

 

They absolutely should respond to lies.

post #100 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


So if Apple doesn't respond to something, does that inherently make it true? So Apple has to respond to everything then. Again, time would be wasted on that. And what's worse , analysts lying about Apple or Apple lying about something?

 

The stock price , losing 40% tells you waht people thought. I am surprised you even had to ask that question.

post #101 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by castcore View Post

Again Apple has a great business and that is why it should not be losing 40% of its value for no reason. And the board to sit by and watch this happen. Its not that hard people.

What was the reason it increased 90% in 2011/2012? This was right after losing Steve and whose loss is repeatedly mentioned when the stock falls. Surely losing such an important person would have made the stock plummet immediately.
post #102 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

What was the reason it increased 90% in 2011/2012? This was right after losing Steve and whose loss is repeatedly mentioned when the stock falls. Surely losing such an important person would have made the stock plummet immediately.

It's because Cook had daily seances w Jobs that stopped when Apple hit $700.
post #103 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by castcore View Post

They absolutely should respond to lies.
Why?

The naysayers wouldn't believe them anyway.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #104 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 


Chart for posterity. Jobs’ return to death (black line) to today.

 

Seems that almost half the stock price was, at one time, generated after his death. And it keeps going up.

 

 

Exactly. They’re listening to Steve Jobs himself. No one cares about defending the stock price. It will defend itself.

 

Most people are idiots. They aren’t.

 

 

That couldn’t be further from the truth. I’m not going to listen to 100 idiots if 10 people actually know what they’re talking about.

 

Yeah. Icahn. Knows nothing but has money. 

 

 

Man, you guys are hilarious. Again, gonna just keep repeating it until you shut up, give up, and do it: sell AAPL, go away. You don’t understand the company, you don’t understand what it means, you don’t understand how to handle this kind of stock.

 

You buy it, you sit on it, you cash in later. If you bought at $700, quit whining.

1.) You used an 8 year time frame in your post.  And, I correctly replied that Jobs oversaw Apple for 6 of the past 8 years.

 

2.) LOL, they're listening to a dead guy, huh?  Sheesh.  Unbelievable.  Their boss is the shareholders. Period.  They are the only people the board should be getting their directions from as they shareholders can fire board members and they own the company.

 

3.) You clearly could not comprehend my post.  It doesn't matter who is smarter on a subject.  What matters in the real world is the perception of those in power.  Whether they are running Apple or investing in Apple.  You may think  (as indicated by your ridiculous number of posts on this forum) that you know more about Apple than most institutional investors, or, perhaps, even Apple management.  But, you are not in a position of power.  You do not control the direction of Apple and you are not a significant shareholder of Apple.  Therefore, as well versed as you think you are on the subject matter, you are just a tree falling in the proverbial forrest (with the small exceptions of some posters on this forum who are equally inconsequential). 

 

4.) Carl Icahn was not born into money.  He is now worth over 15 billion dollars.  He didn't get there by "knowing nothing."  We should all be so lucky to know as little as he, LOL.

 

5.) I've been in Apple for a long time and currently have a position that's quite large.  It will take a lot more than financially obtuse person such as yourself to shake me out of the stock.  I've been blogging and posting on Apple for many years in many forums.  A am a big Apple bull and don't really care if you agree with me on capital structure issues.  So, I guess you'll just have to deal with me.

 

6.) I very much know how to handle this stock and the many others in my portfolio as I have had an great track record investing.  So, sorry to disappoint you.  You will be hearing from me on this forum from time to time.  Although I don't really have the spare time to make 30,000 posts as I am usually out enjoying the money I have made on Apple and the rest of my portfolio.  Maybe some day you'll get to that point.

post #105 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Nope. Why should they legitimize things?

 

See, lies don’t affect reputation. Thanks for the ad-homs, though. They affect yours.

 

Go watch the WWDC 1997 keynote. Do not comment on the stock again until you have watched it.

God, this Tallest Skil character is hysterical.  He thinks he's the grand wizard of Apple discussions.  I have some advice for you Tallest Skil: DO NOT comment on this stock again until you have taken a course in How to Win Friends an Influence People, LOL!

post #106 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


They can't and should not respond. They have more important things to do. The news is out there easy for anyone with a brain to read. They can't help it if analysts are stupid. So take your grubby hands out of my portfolio and sell.

You have no idea what you are talking about.  As a shareholder, his opinion matters as much as yours, and, possibly a lot more.  So, he could just as easily tell you to take your apathetic hands out of HIS portfolio.

post #107 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


You sure are clueless.

Really, What in my post is inaccurate?

post #108 of 118
Originally Posted by Jack Baker View Post
1.) You used an 8 year time frame in your post.

 

Wait, where?

 

2.) LOL, they're listening to a dead guy, huh? Sheesh. Unbelievable.

 

LOL, we still have the constitution as our country’s system of laws despite being written by dead guys. Sheesh. Unbelievable.

 

Their boss is the shareholders. Period.

 

Genuine laughter, as opposed to the mocking kind above.

 

They are the only people the board should be getting their directions from

 

Nah. The board should probably be getting direction from the product makers.

 

as they shareholders can fire board members and they own the company.

 

Mild chuckling.

 

What matters in the real world is the perception of those in power.

 

Those in power are the board and executive vice president group. And their perception is that the stock will take care of itself.

 

Therefore, as well versed as you think you are on the subject matter, you are just a tree falling in the proverbial forrest (with the small exceptions of some posters on this forum who are equally inconsequential).

 

Funny how you’re the same, isn’t it.

 

4.) Carl Icahn was not born into money. He is now worth over 15 billion dollars.

 

‘Kay, and?

 

He didn't get there by "knowing nothing."

 

Thanks for pretending you can take things out of context and respond to them. He knows nothing about Apple, as you yourself admitted is possible.

 

5.) I've been in Apple for a long time and currently have a position that's quite large.

 

Then you ought to be behaving more intelligently than you are. Your excuse is what?

 

 It will take a lot more than financially obtuse person such as yourself to shake me out of the stock.

 

How about Apple going private? Will that work?

 

Maybe some day you'll get to that point.

 

So since you have no argument to prove you actually have an understanding of Apple, you resort to ad-homs. Enjoy.

 

Originally Posted by Jack Baker View Post
DO NOT comment on this stock again

 

Did you watch it? I bet you didn’t watch it. You should watch it. It’ll tell you how little you know about how Apple operates.

 

Originally Posted by Jack Baker View Post
Really, What in my post is inaccurate?

 

Well, given the statements therein, I’d have to guess your claims of underperformance.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #109 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Baker View Post

You have no idea what you are talking about.  As a shareholder, his opinion matters as much as yours, and, possibly a lot more.  So, he could just as easily tell you to take your apathetic hands out of HIS portfolio.

And I can say you have no idea what you're talking about. And my opinion is on par with yours.
post #110 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Wait, where?

 

 

LOL, we still have the constitution as our country’s system of laws despite being written by dead guys. Sheesh. Unbelievable.

 

 

Genuine laughter, as opposed to the mocking kind above.

 

 

Nah. The board should probably be getting direction from the product makers.

 

 

Mild chuckling.

 

 

 

Those in power are the board and executive vice president group. And their perception is that the stock will take care of itself.

 

 

Funny how you’re the same, isn’t it.

 

 

‘Kay, and?

 

 

Thanks for pretending you can take things out of context and respond to them. He knows nothing about Apple, as you yourself admitted is possible.

 

 

Then you ought to be behaving more intelligently than you are. Your excuse is what?

 

 

How about Apple going private? Will that work?

 

 

So since you have no argument to prove you actually have an understanding of Apple, you resort to ad-homs. Enjoy.

 

 

Did you watch it? I bet you didn’t watch it. You should watch it. It’ll tell you how little you know about how Apple operates.

 

 

Well, given the statements therein, I’d have to guess your claims of underperformance.

Wow, LOL, you're really quite a comical individual.  You're so smug in your sanctimonious, pseudo-intellectualism.  You have a ready-made answer for everything and somehow you've convinced yourself and a handful of lemmings on this forum that you are well-versed in all aspects of anything involving Apple.  I mean, anyone who has the time for 30,000 post should, right?  But you have proven, by you incorrect and nonsensical posts about the capital markets, that you know next to nothing about the capital markets. And, surprise surprise, Apple is a public company OWNED by the shareholders in the public equity market.  If the shareholders vote for a binding proxy for a share-buy back of a certain amount, guess what?  It happens.  Whether the board likes it or Cook likes it -- It happens.  If the shareholders vote to remove a board member and it passes.  Guess what?  That person is fired.  Maybe you should educate yourself on how public companies work instead of telling other people to educate themselves on how Apple thinks.  I am well aware of the Apple culture and much more regarding Apple. I have been a student of Apple for MANY years.  Maybe you should spend less time preaching to people and more time listening to other people's perspectives.  Of course, then you would put yourself in a position of learning from others, which I'm sure is a very awkward position for you.

post #111 of 118
Originally Posted by Jack Baker View Post
Wow, LOL

 

So you can’t answer ANY of my questions? Why would we listen to you, then?

 
If the shareholders vote for a binding proxy for a share-buy back of a certain amount, guess what?  It happens. Whether the board likes it or Cook likes it -- It happens. 

 

Exactly. Which is why Apple doesn’t want it to happen. Because they know what it implies and what it will do to the company. And you don’t. This is fact. They know better than you do about what to do with the money that THEY earn.

 
Maybe you should educate yourself on how public companies work…

 

Shame you can’t read. If you could, you’d stop basing your posts on ad-homs and start knowing what I’ve already said. Then you wouldn’t be repeating things that have already been proven wrong.

 
I am well aware of the Apple culture…

 

Are you? Did you watch the keynote? I bet you didn’t watch it. If you had watched it, you’d have a response that 1) supported your position and 2) showed what was wrong with Apple’s.

 

Maybe watch it.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #112 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

So you can’t answer ANY of my questions? Why would we listen to you, then?

 

Exactly. Which is why Apple doesn’t want it to happen. Because they know what it implies and what it will do to the company. And you don’t. This is fact. They know better than you do about what to do with the money that THEY earn.

 

Shame you can’t read. If you could, you’d stop basing your posts on ad-homs and start knowing what I’ve already said. Then you wouldn’t be repeating things that have already been proven wrong.

 

Are you? Did you watch the keynote? I bet you didn’t watch it. If you had watched it, you’d have a response that 1) supported your position and 2) showed what was wrong with Apple’s.

 

Maybe watch it.

LOL. Let me explain something to you.  I don't answer to you.  If I deem a question to be too inane to merit with a response, I don't dignify it with a response.  Remember that moving forward.    And, who are "we?"  You and your imaginary friends?  Are you going to start referring to yourself in the third person next?  Or do you just assume that other posters that have echoed your sentiments in the past blindly agree with every digit you decide to peck-out on your keyboard.  Yes, I know others are not for a buy-out.  Many others.  That doesn't mean you speak for anyone else.

 

The money is "earned" for the shareholders and the shareholders own that money.  What part of that is so difficult to understand.

 

I'm not going to play your little game of watching things you ask me to watch.  I have watched many many keynotes and listen to Cook and Oppenheimer 4 times a year on their earnings conference call.  I also monitor Cook's comments and Apple events very closely throughout the year.  He, or anyone in Apple management for that matter, have not specifically articulated a position that supports sitting on 150 (soon to be 160+) billion dollars.  The total of Apple's R & D budget and acquisitions is a small fraction of annual profits.  Apple would have to increase their current R & D spend and acquisition spend by orders of magnitude to eat through their annual profits.  Apple continues to make relatively tiny acquisitions and has a relatively small R & D spend.  They can also vertically integrate and build all of the robotic assembly plants they want and still not have to dip into the war chest.  As I have posted earlier, the only logical reason for Apple to be sitting on such a ridiculously large war chest (earning 1% for the owners of the company) is if they are planning something huge.  Something much larger than their historical R & D and acquisition spend.  And, I hope that IS the reason they have been seemingly obtuse with respect to capital. If they don't do something big with that capital soon investors will become more impatient and eventually a proxy forcing their hand will pass.  Ultimately Apple will have to spend the money growing the business or return it to shareholders.  I would rather they do spend it on the business.  But, they will not get a free pass from the largest owners of the companies stock forever.  And, several years of inaction with the massive war chest of capital has already occurred.  Thus, the entry of Carl Icahn who has made his billions extracting shareholder value from company managements that don't put the owners of the company first.  Apple management must act or ultimately they will lose control of the capital.

post #113 of 118
Originally Posted by Jack Baker View Post
Let me explain something to you. I don't answer to you.

 

Now I see where you get your superiority complex over the Apple board. Do you also think that double spacing your sentences makes you better than others, or is that just a holdover from you learning to type in the ‘80s?

 
If I deem a question to be too inane to merit with a response, I don't dignify it with a response.


That’s really neat, because it’s identical to what you can do when you don’t know the answer. That’s how you get the big bucks.

 
And, who are "we?"

 

I’d imagine the people with whom you’re conversing. People here, basically. If you don’t answer their questions, why would they care about yours?

 

The money is "earned" for the shareholders and the shareholders own that money.  What part of that is so difficult to understand.

 

The part where whiny shareholders make for poor policy.

 
I'm not going to play your little game of watching things you ask me to watch.
 

 

That’s a shame, you’d actually learn something about Apple by doing so.

 
I have watched many many keynotes…

 

Have you seen the WWDC 1997 keynote?

 
I also monitor Cook's comments and Apple events very closely throughout the year.  He, or anyone in Apple management for that matter, have not specifically articulated a position that supports sitting on 150 (soon to be 160+) billion dollars.

 

Right, they say they’ll continue discussing how to intelligently process the earnings and diversify them, yada yada yada. Exactly. They don’t explicitly say they want to sit on it, but what they do say isn’t anything concrete about acquisitions (too many are unnecessary), dividends, and the like. That gives them the leeway to do… just about anything they want with the money, because deliberation takes time; we all know that. And if it just so happens that another quarter rolls around and that deliberation isn’t over, so much the better.

 
The total of Apple's R & D budget and acquisitions is a small fraction of annual profits. Apple would have to increase their current R & D spend and acquisition spend by orders of magnitude to eat through their annual profits. Apple continues to make relatively tiny acquisitions and has a relatively small R & D spend. They can also vertically integrate and build all of the robotic assembly plants they want and still not have to dip into the war chest.

 

All of this is 100% correct. As to the last point, they’re trying to do that, but it’s not completely possible, at least yet.

 
As I have posted earlier, the only logical reason for Apple to be sitting on such a ridiculously large war chest (earning 1% for the owners of the company) is if they are planning something huge.

 

Which is incorrect. It’s a valid option, but it’s by far not the only one.

 
…seemingly obtuse…

 

There you go with your assumptions. 

 
Apple management must act or ultimately they will lose control of the capital.

 

And the company will be destroyed by morons who don’t have a clue what they’re doing, because push comes to shove they care more about getting back “their” money (you cannot possibly question the quotation marks) than Apple expanding logically, carefully and intelligently, as evidenced by what Icahn has explicitly stated he wants to do with his power.

 

And yet you vote with them.

 

That’s our problem with you.

 

Ooh, I used a plural pronoun again. What’re you gonna do about it?

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #114 of 118
It's so nice to see people respect other peoples point of view.
post #115 of 118
Let me explain something to you. I don't answer to you.

 

Now I see where you get your superiority complex over the Apple board. Do you also think that double spacing your sentences makes you better than others, or is that just a holdover from you learning to type in the ‘80s?   

 

Double spacing/80's? LOL, Now who is throwing around the platitudes? Your modus operandi is to throw non-sequetors at people until you frustrate them with you breathtaking lack of logic.

 
If I deem a question to be too inane to merit with a response, I don't dignify it with a response.


That’s really neat, because it’s identical to what you can do when you don’t know the answer. That’s how you get the big bucks.

 

Um, no.  It's identical to what I do when I am asked a juvenile or illogical question.

 
And, who are "we?"

 

I’d imagine the people with whom you’re conversing. People here, basically. If you don’t answer their questions, why would they care about yours?

 

I see. So you are responding to me on behalf of all the people with whom I am conversing?  LOL  Interesting.  So, as I said, in your deluded sense of who you think you are, you think you speak for other people when no one has authorized you to do so.

 

The money is "earned" for the shareholders and the shareholders own that money.  What part of that is so difficult to understand.

 

The part where whiny shareholders make for poor policy.

 

I suppose when your boss is talking to you, you think he is "whiny" too.  If Apple doesn't like their boss they can take the company private and answer only to themselves.  They haven't done that as of yet because apparently they still need the public equity market.  As long as they do, the shareholders are boss.  Too damn bad if they don't like it or, lol, you don't like it.  

 
I'm not going to play your little game of watching things you ask me to watch.
 

 

That’s a shame, you’d actually learn something about Apple by doing so.

 

So far I have learned absolutely nothing about Apple in many exchanges with you.  So, I don't value your opinion on what I may learn about Apple.  The funny thing is you have no idea how much I know about Apple because you spend all of you time trying to impress yourself with your trite little non-sequetor barbs and links to keynotes that happened 16 years ago.

 
I have watched many many keynotes…

 

Have you seen the WWDC 1997 keynote?

 

You're kidding, right?

 
I also monitor Cook's comments and Apple events very closely throughout the year.  He, or anyone in Apple management for that matter, have not specifically articulated a position that supports sitting on 150 (soon to be 160+) billion dollars.

 

Right, they say they’ll continue discussing how to intelligently process the earnings and diversify them, yada yada yada. Exactly. They don’t explicitly say they want to sit on it, but what they do say isn’t anything concrete about acquisitions (too many are unnecessary), dividends, and the like. That gives them the leeway to do… just about anything they want with the money, because deliberation takes time; we all know that. And if it just so happens that another quarter rolls around and that deliberation isn’t over, so much the better.

 

So, you agree that I am right on that point.  

 
The total of Apple's R & D budget and acquisitions is a small fraction of annual profits. Apple would have to increase their current R & D spend and acquisition spend by orders of magnitude to eat through their annual profits. Apple continues to make relatively tiny acquisitions and has a relatively small R & D spend. They can also vertically integrate and build all of the robotic assembly plants they want and still not have to dip into the war chest.

 

All of this is 100% correct. As to the last point, they’re trying to do that, but it’s not completely possible, at least yet.

 
As I have posted earlier, the only logical reason for Apple to be sitting on such a ridiculously large war chest (earning 1% for the owners of the company) is if they are planning something huge.

 

Which is incorrect. It’s a valid option, but it’s by far not the only one.

 

Really, what are the other option as you see it?

 
…seemingly obtuse…

 

There you go with your assumptions. 

 

It not an "assumption" to say that Apple has seemed obtuse with their capital allocation strategy.  When a company has a ridiculously large about of money sitting in the bank earning next to nothing for shareholders, what that says to the market is that "we don't know what to do with this money. " "We don't know how to use it to grow our business and we don't want to return it to the people who the money belongs to."  That engenders bad will towards the company and the stock from the market, which is why Apple sells at a ridiculous discount to the S & P 500 right now.  Apple stock has been underperforming the market for 5 quarters now.  Don't think this doesn't have repercussions for Apple.  Many of Apple's key people are attracted to Apple with stock options.  This is a key to retaining key people. It's no secret that Apple has faced a brain drain of late with many talented people leaving and going to other techs.  Don't think for a minute that there isn't a direct correlation with Apples stock price over the past 5 quarters.

 
Apple management must act or ultimately they will lose control of the capital.

 

And the company will be destroyed by morons who don’t have a clue what they’re doing, because push comes to shove they care more about getting back “their” money (you cannot possibly question the quotation marks) than Apple expanding logically, carefully and intelligently, as evidenced by what Icahn has explicitly stated he wants to do with his power.

 

​All your misguided opinions.  The company won't be destroyed.  Apple already has a large 60 billion dollar buy-back in place and returns billions to shareholders in the form of a dividend.  Has that "destroyed" the company?  Apple just had it's best quarter in its history.  I'll bet you were against the current 60 billion dollar buy-back too.  You were probably posting that it would destroy the company, right? LOL.

 

And yet you vote with them.

 

​Yes, because unlike you, I understand what makes stock prices go up.  The parabolic growth phase for Apple is over.  The years of transitioning from a sleepy niche computer company to a global wireless device behemoth is over.  Apple is a massive company now with close to 200 billion dollars a year in revenue.  It is very hard to move the growth needle for them even with stellar execution.  The company has matured and it needs to do the things that a company Apple's size must to to release shareholder value.  And you are still living in 1997, LOL.  10 years before the first iphone came out.

 

That’s our problem with you.

 

Again, it's only you.  Unless someone happens to be in your basement with you who agrees with what you are typing.

 

Ooh, I used a plural pronoun again. What’re you gonna do about it?

 

Continue laughing!

post #116 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Baker View Post

^ post

Is your Cmd key stuck, everytime you want to write 'Bollocks', or 'BS', 'Bullshit'?
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #117 of 118
If we shareholders are the real "owners" of Apple, I'm sure many of us want free Macs and iPods and iPhones. We should make that happen! Why should we pay for items we technically own as shareholders?
post #118 of 118
Originally Posted by Jack Baker View Post

I suppose when your boss is talking to you, you think he is "whiny" too.

 

It continues to be hilarious that you think shareholders know what to do with Apple’s money better than Apple.

 

You're kidding, right?

 

You really ought to watch it. What’s this, seven times now I’ve told you? Watch the keynote. If you’re actually right, you shouldn’t have any problem disproving whatever’s in it. You love lording yourself over others. Why not lord yourself over my last argument here? You can’t be afraid… can you? But what other reason is there for you to, you know, not answer any of my questions?

 
So, you agree that I am right on that point.  

 

No, you’re not right that they should be forced to spend money they don’t want to spend. You’re wrong about that.

 
Really, what are the other option as you see it?

 

Hmm. Let’s see. In what universe is “they must spend the money in some fashion there are no other options whatsoever” EVER valid?

 
It not an "assumption" to say that Apple has seemed obtuse with their capital allocation strategy.

 

Yeah, it is. Prove otherwise (you can’t). Either it’s true or it’s false and you just don’t comprehend what they’re doing with it.

 
When a company has a ridiculously large about of money sitting in the bank earning next to nothing for shareholders, what that says to the market is that "we don't know what to do with this money. " 

 

Yes, that’s the only possible option¡

 

There you go again! Your way is the only way! You cannot even fathom anything other than the single option you’ve presented.

 
…the people who the money belongs to.”

 

Talk about arrogance.

 
Many of Apple's key people are attracted to Apple with stock options.


Wow. So maybe they care more about it than you do, huh? So maybe they have a vested interest to see the stock do well, huh? And yet they still don’t want to see Icahn’s moronic thing happen.

 

And you’re still voting against the people who know the stock better than you ever will. 

 

Sounds like stupidity to me.

 
It's no secret that Apple has faced a brain drain of late with many talented people leaving and going to other techs.

 

It’s a secret to people with a clue. Any more FUD you have locked away?

 
Don't think for a minute that there isn't a direct correlation with Apples stock price over the past 5 quarters.

 

The false premise of “many talented people at Apple leaving” has a direct correlation to underperforming stock? That’s possible, assuming both parts are true (they’re not), but you’ve provided no evidence thereof. Link to an interview with one of these people stating “I left because the stock is underperforming”?

 
Apple just had it's best quarter in its history.
 

 

Do you imagine that this happened because the shareholders got together and told Apple what to buy and what to make?

 

​Yes, because unlike you, I understand what makes stock prices go up.

 

Profit made off of products worth buying!

Oh, wait, no that can’t possibly be the reason that Apple had its best quarter in history.

 

The parabolic growth phase for Apple is over.

 

Citation needed.

 
It is very hard to move the growth needle for them even with stellar execution.

 

And yet they keep doing it. Strange, huh.

 
The company has matured and it needs to do the things that a company Apple's size must to to release shareholder value.

 

Yep. “Needs to”. Enjoy those assumptions.

 
And you are still living in 1997, LOL.  10 years before the first iphone came out.

 

Speaking of 1997, there’s an interesting keynote that I think you should watch.

 
Again, it's only you.

 

Yep, ‘you’ plural, because in English it’s the same word. I suppose you’ve (ooh it’s singular now) already forgotten the other posters telling you (still singular) to get a clue. 

 

I’ll refresh your memory.

 

Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post
And people who actually care about the company and it's long-term future should ignore people like you and Ichan and vote no on his proposal.
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

Either way, he is not in it for the long hall, he is not in it out of concern for other stockholders, he is in it only to further enrich himself.  Sometimes he wins, sometimes he loses, but all times he walks away.

Originally Posted by jungmark View Post
Crazy Carl is doing this to line his own pockets. He doesn't care about Apple, he cares about $$$. How is the Board greedy? By keeping the money for Apple? Once Apple reaches his target price, he's gone.
Originally Posted by ealvarez View Post
The problem is that you don't understand that people like most of us here love Apple for its products, not its "finance". I hope very much that Ichan's proposition will be defeated.
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
I'll be voting against the interests of Carl and his lot.
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
This explains the problem with your thinking. How in heck did you come to the conclusion that Icahn has a ‘good capital allocation strategy’? How is saddling Apple with $150B in debt and/or bringing its overseas cash back at a 35% tax rate and/or the economics of buying back at the current price ($550 - $575, as opposed to the $425 - $450 price when Apple initiated its buyback program) a good capital allocation strategy?

 

Moreover, if it was so simple to do and will have the valuation impact you suggest, why stop at that number? Why not buy back $200B? Heck, wouldn’t $300B or $400B be even better? In fact, why not take it to the logical extreme, load the company up with massive amounts of debt and do an LBO, taking it private? And, why don’t all companies do this?

 

The trouble with people like Icahn and Einhorn is, they just throw some wild numbers out there, and expect that people will swallow it. Apparently, some do. It is pure financial alchemy.

 

Unless, of course, you can show us your analysis? (If you want to learn from a really solid analysis on why Einhorn’s proposal was laughable – and was rightly thrown out by Apple’s shareholders – see here: http://bit.ly/1bIKaw7).

Originally Posted by jungmark View Post
Hogwash. You're right, his tiny position in stick shouldn't impact Apple's share price--good or bad.

This Same board also oversaw the Increase in share price from 32 to 540 in 8 years. I say that's worth it.
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

And the question to you is, what do you care about Apple's pockets? You just want to milk the cow until it dies, then kick the corpse.

Originally Posted by jungmark View Post
You sure are clueless.
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post
And I can say you have no idea what you're talking about. And my opinion is on par with yours.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › With Apple shareholder proposal pending, Carl Icahn turns his attention to Hertz