Stop being so dense, people. If Forstall sold that many shares, then he sees something at Apple that he doesn’t like. He’s had several months of working with Tim Cook, and he realizes that he’s no Steve Jobs. Not to mention the horrible recent hirings of execs from United Airlines, Yahoo, and Dixons… 3 of the worst companies on the planet. The ship is sinking, and Forstall is jumping off while he can. I wouldn’t be surprised if Forstall leaves Apple fairly soon after this stock sale.
Stop being so dense, people. If Forstall sold that many shares, then he sees something at Apple that he doesn’t like. He’s had several months of working with Tim Cook, and he realizes that he’s no Steve Jobs. Not to mention the horrible recent hirings of execs from United Airlines, Yahoo, and Dixons… 3 of the worst companies on the planet. The ship is sinking, and Forstall is jumping off while he can. I wouldn’t be surprised if Forstall leaves Apple fairly soon after this stock sale.
Except that Tim Cook at the helm of Apple is nothing new. Cook knows how to run a company. He might not b a visionary, but dollars-to-donuts he's smart enough to hire and keep them.
You're assuming way, way too much here when there is absolutely no evidence supporting it. ALL INDICATIONS point to the next 5 years (at the very least) belonging to Apple.
Hey Mr. Forstall, stop living in Steve's shadow and go make something that's F'N amazing. Apple will always be Steve's company, and that's just the way he designed it.
I always thought his presentations were sharp and lucid - better than SJ's in fact. Selling 95% sends out a non- confidence message alright. But who knows, perhaps he wants the funds to donate to charity, or to build some schools somewhere?
I always thought his presentations were sharp and lucid - better than SJ's in fact. Selling 95% sends out a non- confidence message alright. But who knows, perhaps he wants the funds to donate to charity, or to build some schools somewhere?
If Scott Forstall wanted to donate to charity, he wouldn't have sold the shares. When you donate fully appreciated securities to a charity here in the USA, you write off the fair market value of the stock but neither you nor the recipient needs to pay capital gains taxes on the difference between the fair market and acquisition prices.
Let's say you bought 100 shares of AAPL at $100 and donate them when they are worth $600. The charity gets $60,000 (which you would claim on your tax return) yet your out-of-pocket expenses were $10,000. Now if you sold those shares at $600, you'd have to pay capital gains taxes on the earnings ($50,000) before you could donate. Let's say you're in Forstall's tax bracket, 35%. The long-term capital gains tax rate is 15%, meaning you'd have to shell out $7,500 to the feds. Thus your out-of-pocket expenses are $17,500 and the charity gets $52,500.
Here's the Motley Fool's capsule summary on the topic:
Most likely, Forstall's remaining $1.8M in AAPL holdings are earmarked for charity. He can give freely in the future (from April 2013) to offset his tax burden.
That's how smart Americans make major donations. Don't write a check, give property (vehicles, real estate, securities). Donating securities is the easiest as there is very little disagreement about the fair market value of the donation. Things like vehicles and real estate are far trickier.
Note that this is probably what Laurene Jobs does. The family's Disney holdings were transferred to a revocable living trust -- probably called the Steven P Jobs Trust -- at some point prior to his death. She was a former Merrill Lynch analyst, she would know this common tax strategy.
If you have plans to donate on a regular basis in the future, you should think about earmarking some your equities for charity. You could buy an ETF like SPY, QQQQ, IWM, or in a blue-chip stock like AAPL, GOOG, INTC, IBM, ORCL, DIS, T, whatever and hold onto it for at least a year.
Note that there's no minimum donation, and that you don't have to donate the entire lot. If you bought a hundred shares of ORCL in 2008 and wanted to donate 20 of them to the Red Cross tomorrow, that's fine.
At least, that's how it works in the USA. Does the UK have similar avenues for charitable contributions?
One word: Diversification. He has a lot of AAPL coming, 60 million dollars more, and selling his current stocks allows him to be financially secure forever.
One word: Diversification. He has a lot of AAPL coming, 60 million dollars more, and selling his current stocks allows him to be financially secure forever.
Too much financial security = the death of creativity and drive for most people.
Except that Tim Cook at the helm of Apple is nothing new. Cook knows how to run a company. He might not b a visionary, but dollars-to-donuts he's smart enough to hire and keep them.
You're assuming way, way too much here when there is absolutely no evidence supporting it. ALL INDICATIONS point to the next 5 years (at the very least) belonging to Apple.
Being excellent at executing on things like contracts, supply chain, production ramp-ups, etc. (while a huge thing) isn't enough for 5 years. You have to have something compelling to sell, and so far we haven't seen where that vision is going to come from. I own stock and am VERY interested to see who is stepping into the shoes of visionary and defining the direction for the products. There are damned few places that have that type of person.
As for the stock sale, I don't really read anything major into it - the stock is at a high, it's a good time to take some profits if you have similar numbers of shares coming again in the next years.
Too much financial security = the death of creativity and drive for most people.
Clearly, the Apple board of directors do not think of Scott Forstall as an average guy. If they did, Forstall wouldn't be working in the capacity that he is now, nor would he have been offered several piles of RSUs. And remember, Forstall is raking in $700K in salary.
Note that Steve Jobs had all the financial security that he needed. He was raking in around $30-40 million a year in Disney dividends before he died. He could of just read books on the beach.
Heck, Larry Ellison doesn't need to work, neither does Warren Buffett. Bill Gates's best work has come after he left Microsoft.
Hell, Bill Gates never needed to work in his life; he was a trust fund baby from one of Seattle's oldest banking families. He could have just played poker with his prep school buddies all day.
Just going through all the possibilities here. Maybe he is smart enough to know the reaction an exec selling 95% of his shares would get and wants to drive the price of APPL down. For what reason? Someone smarter than me can figure that one out.
Just going through all the possibilities here. Maybe he is smart enough to know the reaction an exec selling 95% of his shares would get and wants to drive the price of APPL down. For what reason? Someone smarter than me can figure that one out.
I really doubt that his plan involves spending a few years in jail for stock manipulation.
Er, Apple's stock was up today. If there was something odd or alarming about this wouldn't their stock have dropped and wouldn't this be bigger news. I haven't really seen it reported outside of Apple fan sites.
Er, Apple's stock was up today. If there was something odd or alarming about this wouldn't their stock have dropped and wouldn't this be bigger news. I haven't really seen it reported outside of Apple fan sites.
You must not have seen the breaking news...
Apple just declared a huge accounting error and has subsequently been driven into bankruptcy.
Clearly, the Apple board of directors do not think of Scott Forstall as an average guy. If they did, Forstall wouldn't be working in the capacity that he is now, nor would he have been offered several piles of RSUs. And remember, Forstall is raking in $700K in salary.
Note that Steve Jobs had all the financial security that he needed. He was raking in around $30-40 million a year in Disney dividends before he died. He could of just read books on the beach.
Heck, Larry Ellison doesn't need to work, neither does Warren Buffett. Bill Gates's best work has come after he left Microsoft.
Hell, Bill Gates never needed to work in his life; he was a trust fund baby from one of Seattle's oldest banking families. He could have just played poker with his prep school buddies all day.
The problem with your logic is that Jobs, Ellison, Buffet, and Gates where all founders of their given corporations. Their companies acted like extensions of themselves and those men have a different mindset than most because they were entrepreneurs who started a company, not just a high priced employee.
I think Forstall should start his own company and make something amazing, because he will always be forced to live in Steve's shadow as long as he stays at Apple. At some point the extra millions of dollars means nothing yet the thrill of creating your own company with your own products becomes a more compelling and motivating factor. I applaud Tony Fadel for having the guts to create a new hardware company, because hardware startups are far more difficult than software ones.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty321
Stop being so dense, people. If Forstall sold that many shares, then he sees something at Apple that he doesn’t like. He’s had several months of working with Tim Cook, and he realizes that he’s no Steve Jobs. Not to mention the horrible recent hirings of execs from United Airlines, Yahoo, and Dixons… 3 of the worst companies on the planet. The ship is sinking, and Forstall is jumping off while he can. I wouldn’t be surprised if Forstall leaves Apple fairly soon after this stock sale.
Very funny, Scotty. Now, beam down my clothes.
Forstall is worth his weight in gold at Apple.
I'm not going to predict his future moves, but Apple needs him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty321
Stop being so dense, people. If Forstall sold that many shares, then he sees something at Apple that he doesn’t like. He’s had several months of working with Tim Cook, and he realizes that he’s no Steve Jobs. Not to mention the horrible recent hirings of execs from United Airlines, Yahoo, and Dixons… 3 of the worst companies on the planet. The ship is sinking, and Forstall is jumping off while he can. I wouldn’t be surprised if Forstall leaves Apple fairly soon after this stock sale.
Except that Tim Cook at the helm of Apple is nothing new. Cook knows how to run a company. He might not b a visionary, but dollars-to-donuts he's smart enough to hire and keep them.
You're assuming way, way too much here when there is absolutely no evidence supporting it. ALL INDICATIONS point to the next 5 years (at the very least) belonging to Apple.
We love you Scott!
Quote:
Originally Posted by pembroke
I always thought his presentations were sharp and lucid - better than SJ's in fact. Selling 95% sends out a non- confidence message alright. But who knows, perhaps he wants the funds to donate to charity, or to build some schools somewhere?
If Scott Forstall wanted to donate to charity, he wouldn't have sold the shares. When you donate fully appreciated securities to a charity here in the USA, you write off the fair market value of the stock but neither you nor the recipient needs to pay capital gains taxes on the difference between the fair market and acquisition prices.
Let's say you bought 100 shares of AAPL at $100 and donate them when they are worth $600. The charity gets $60,000 (which you would claim on your tax return) yet your out-of-pocket expenses were $10,000. Now if you sold those shares at $600, you'd have to pay capital gains taxes on the earnings ($50,000) before you could donate. Let's say you're in Forstall's tax bracket, 35%. The long-term capital gains tax rate is 15%, meaning you'd have to shell out $7,500 to the feds. Thus your out-of-pocket expenses are $17,500 and the charity gets $52,500.
Here's the Motley Fool's capsule summary on the topic:
http://www.fool.com/FoolCharityFund/Donating_Stock.htm
That's why major charities have forms for the transfer of securities. It's better for both parties.
Here's an example of the American Red Cross's instructions for donating stock and mutual funds:
http://www.redcross.org/portal/site/en/menuitem.d229a5f06620c6052b1ecfbf43181aa0/?vgnextoid=35db1b655eb3b110VgnVCM10000089f0870aRCRD
Most likely, Forstall's remaining $1.8M in AAPL holdings are earmarked for charity. He can give freely in the future (from April 2013) to offset his tax burden.
That's how smart Americans make major donations. Don't write a check, give property (vehicles, real estate, securities). Donating securities is the easiest as there is very little disagreement about the fair market value of the donation. Things like vehicles and real estate are far trickier.
Note that this is probably what Laurene Jobs does. The family's Disney holdings were transferred to a revocable living trust -- probably called the Steven P Jobs Trust -- at some point prior to his death. She was a former Merrill Lynch analyst, she would know this common tax strategy.
If you have plans to donate on a regular basis in the future, you should think about earmarking some your equities for charity. You could buy an ETF like SPY, QQQQ, IWM, or in a blue-chip stock like AAPL, GOOG, INTC, IBM, ORCL, DIS, T, whatever and hold onto it for at least a year.
Note that there's no minimum donation, and that you don't have to donate the entire lot. If you bought a hundred shares of ORCL in 2008 and wanted to donate 20 of them to the Red Cross tomorrow, that's fine.
At least, that's how it works in the USA. Does the UK have similar avenues for charitable contributions?
One word: Diversification. He has a lot of AAPL coming, 60 million dollars more, and selling his current stocks allows him to be financially secure forever.
Too much financial security = the death of creativity and drive for most people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Except that Tim Cook at the helm of Apple is nothing new. Cook knows how to run a company. He might not b a visionary, but dollars-to-donuts he's smart enough to hire and keep them.
You're assuming way, way too much here when there is absolutely no evidence supporting it. ALL INDICATIONS point to the next 5 years (at the very least) belonging to Apple.
Being excellent at executing on things like contracts, supply chain, production ramp-ups, etc. (while a huge thing) isn't enough for 5 years. You have to have something compelling to sell, and so far we haven't seen where that vision is going to come from. I own stock and am VERY interested to see who is stepping into the shoes of visionary and defining the direction for the products. There are damned few places that have that type of person.
As for the stock sale, I don't really read anything major into it - the stock is at a high, it's a good time to take some profits if you have similar numbers of shares coming again in the next years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commodification
Too much financial security = the death of creativity and drive for most people.
Clearly, the Apple board of directors do not think of Scott Forstall as an average guy. If they did, Forstall wouldn't be working in the capacity that he is now, nor would he have been offered several piles of RSUs. And remember, Forstall is raking in $700K in salary.
Note that Steve Jobs had all the financial security that he needed. He was raking in around $30-40 million a year in Disney dividends before he died. He could of just read books on the beach.
Heck, Larry Ellison doesn't need to work, neither does Warren Buffett. Bill Gates's best work has come after he left Microsoft.
Hell, Bill Gates never needed to work in his life; he was a trust fund baby from one of Seattle's oldest banking families. He could have just played poker with his prep school buddies all day.
Just going through all the possibilities here. Maybe he is smart enough to know the reaction an exec selling 95% of his shares would get and wants to drive the price of APPL down. For what reason? Someone smarter than me can figure that one out.
The primary duty of a publicly traded company is to increase shareholder value.
I'm pretty sure that Apple's board of directors and senior management team understands that elementary concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zklausz
Just going through all the possibilities here. Maybe he is smart enough to know the reaction an exec selling 95% of his shares would get and wants to drive the price of APPL down. For what reason? Someone smarter than me can figure that one out.
I really doubt that his plan involves spending a few years in jail for stock manipulation.
Er, Apple's stock was up today. If there was something odd or alarming about this wouldn't their stock have dropped and wouldn't this be bigger news. I haven't really seen it reported outside of Apple fan sites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Er, Apple's stock was up today. If there was something odd or alarming about this wouldn't their stock have dropped and wouldn't this be bigger news. I haven't really seen it reported outside of Apple fan sites.
You must not have seen the breaking news...
Apple just declared a huge accounting error and has subsequently been driven into bankruptcy.
The problem with your logic is that Jobs, Ellison, Buffet, and Gates where all founders of their given corporations. Their companies acted like extensions of themselves and those men have a different mindset than most because they were entrepreneurs who started a company, not just a high priced employee.
I think Forstall should start his own company and make something amazing, because he will always be forced to live in Steve's shadow as long as he stays at Apple. At some point the extra millions of dollars means nothing yet the thrill of creating your own company with your own products becomes a more compelling and motivating factor. I applaud Tony Fadel for having the guts to create a new hardware company, because hardware startups are far more difficult than software ones.
Let's ask him ....someone send him a tweet ! Wonder if he has a Facebook page.