I agree, Apple has been doing pretty damn good and is treated unfairly by the street, but the main thing that matters is how the stock graph looks IMO, and it hasn't been looking good for a while now. Having faith in Apple and the products that they make is one thing, but I see having faith in AAPL as being something completely different.
Especially with the impressive results that Apple has had and continues to deliver, they should be able to combat some of the FUD and take the necessary steps to bring the stock back on course. I've written before that hoarding money is obviously not impressing anybody and it doesn't benefit AAPL, so I don't mind if they start spending more of that money.
yes but I don't want Apple to spend money just to spend money. In addition, how may multi $billion companies are for sale?
Many investors are clueless and rely on analysts and the media. But if you give them facts without commentary, I bet most of those will be happy with Apple's performance and the stock wouldn't have jumped up or down so rapidly.
As I said before, if you fight the rumors, you'll lose no matter what. What if a rumor is true and Apple fights it? or if Apple fights all rumors, but let's another rumor fly, does that mean it's the truth?
From what I'm reading Apple wants to get rid of an option to issue preferred shares. Why I have no idea. Einhorn wants to keep that option open. How is that bad? Considering Cook sells his shares as soon as they vest I could see why he is against preferred shares....he doesnt have any. Personally I would be happy if they just got on the ball with innovation and creating a larger selection of phones to attract more market share. Eventually they will have to do something with the money and I would be shocked if they dont announce a dividend increase in March.
A company issuing stocks, which are traded on the open market, either on a stock exchange or on the over-the-countermarket. Individual and institutional shareholders constitute the owners of a publicly-traded company, in proportion to the amount of stock they own as a percentage of all outstanding stock. Thus, shareholders have final say in all decisions taken by a publicly-traded company and its managers, especially through its annual shareholders' meeting. Publicly-traded companies have greater access to financing than other companies, as they have the ability to issue more stock. However, they are subject to greater regulation: for example, they must file 10-K reports with the SEC on their earningsand they are more likely to be subject to corporate taxes. A publicly-traded company is also called a public company.
yes but I don't want Apple to spend money just to spend money. In addition, how may multi $billion companies are for sale?
Many investors are clueless and rely on analysts and the media. But if you give them facts without commentary, I bet most of those will be happy with Apple's performance and the stock wouldn't have jumped up or down so rapidly.
As I said before, if you fight the rumors, you'll lose no matter what. What if a rumor is true and Apple fights it? or if Apple fights all rumors, but let's another rumor fly, does that mean it's the truth?
I agree that they shouldn't just spend money wildly on random things, but I'm fairly certain that there are good ways to spend some of that money, a higher share buyback amount, a higher dividend, buy up some good companies, expand into new territories, etc. I'm sure that Apple can manage to think of wise ways in which to use their money so that they will benefit from it.
I also agree that most analysts and media are clueless, but the bottom line is that the stock has been performing poorly as of late and Apple needs to address that problem, IMO.
Ok, I guess being a investor for nearly a year makes you a "long time" investor... wrong! He bought thinking it was going to go up, and loosing money in his year of stock, and is pissed. Period.
150B in the bank, um, how about using it for collateral on all the expanding they are doing... did everyone forget about the new buildings for corporate? Did you forget about the new storage center for iCloud? Did you forget about the assembly plant? Doing all this banks want a bit of collateral for all these long term (going to be nearly a year on some of the buildings... so silly idiots definition for long term) construction. How about all the other little "projects" going on to expand Apple? Who's to say that after all the buildings and little "projects" going on next year or so they don't do a major kickback to all the stock holders? They would not need all the cash on hand for collateral afterwords. Guess the silly boy missed all those memo's about expanding, and new buildings, etc.
Oh and "projects" include all these law suits... you know like the one silly hedge fund manager is doing.
So, all I say side with the board, kick the silly boy on his butt, and let Apple do what it normally does... which put that 150B in the bank in the first place...
PS - Yes, it's people like this hedge fund manager that crashed our economy just to fill their own pockets.
[" url="/t/155858/hedge-fund-manager-david-einhorn-sues-apple-over-137b-cash-hoard/60#post_2272976"]
I agree that they shouldn't just spend money wildly on random things, but I'm fairly certain that there are good ways to spend some of that money, a higher share buyback amount, a higher dividend, buy up some good companies, expand into new territories, etc. I'm sure that Apple can manage to think of wise ways in which to use their money so that they will benefit from it.
I also agree that most analysts and media are clueless, but the bottom line is that the stock has been performing poorly as of late and Apple needs to address that problem, IMO.
How would apple address these problems. They don't comment on rumors. Should they confirm or deny them? If so then the media will keep playing 20 Qs.
Ok, I guess being a investor for nearly a year makes you a "long time" investor... wrong! He bought thinking it was going to go up, and loosing money in his year of stock, and is pissed. Period.
150B in the bank, um, how about using it for collateral on all the expanding they are doing... did everyone forget about the new buildings for corporate? Did you forget about the new storage center for iCloud? Did you forget about the assembly plant? Doing all this banks want a bit of collateral for all these long term (going to be nearly a year on some of the buildings... so silly idiots definition for long term) construction. How about all the other little "projects" going on to expand Apple? Who's to say that after all the buildings and little "projects" going on next year or so they don't do a major kickback to all the stock holders? They would not need all the cash on hand for collateral afterwords. Guess the silly boy missed all those memo's about expanding, and new buildings, etc.
Oh and "projects" include all these law suits... you know like the one silly hedge fund manager is doing.
So, all I say side with the board, kick the silly boy on his butt, and let Apple do what it normally does... which put that 150B in the bank in the first place...
PS - Yes, it's people like this hedge fund manager that crashed our economy just to fill their own pockets.
Could you point me to an example of a $150bn building? Thanks
A hedge fund manager who has never actually created anything in his whole life, ridden the coattails of companies that actually create real things, and complains when the free money he has gotten isn't as much as he thinks he can get. Sounds like the perfect way to decide how Apple should use its cash.
Apple has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the Apple brand and stock price.
Not true.
Apple('s BOD and officers) has a responsibility to run the company successfully and profitably.
They have little control over stock price. Stock prices can be run up to levels not justified by the balance sheet merely by the actions of folks (mostly institutional investors) trying to game the market. (It can also be run DOWN to levels not representative of the company's true value.)
It could be that the BOD saw $700 as an unrealistic price and therefore saw no need to try to maintain it... perhaps they see $500 as a more realistic price based on their REAL knowledge of how the company operates.
One may argue that the shareholders are the OWNERS of the company. The BOD and Management are servants of the owners. So if Einhorn can persuade the shareholder majority, or whatever the company rules of incorporation define, to do anything, then that's the way the ball will roll. Thats the capitalist system. I agree that it's not always the smartest way to run things, but it IS the legal way. This is evidenced by the current market cap of APPL. Many here seem to think that it is seriously undervalued. I personally think its seriously overvalued, but whatever your position on that may be, it seems pretty clear that it is corporate investors and speculators who are driving/manipulating the share price in search of a quick buck. That's the American way.
It doesn't mean the shareholder is the CEO of the company. Cases in point: Palm, HP. Without shareholder interference, those would probably still be around. Well, HP is "still around". Sort of.
Apple('s BOD and officers) has a responsibility to run the company successfully and profitably.
They have little control over stock price. Stock prices can be run up to levels not justified by the balance sheet merely by the actions of folks (mostly institutional investors) trying to game the market. (It can also be run DOWN to levels not representative of the company's true value.)
It could be that the BOD saw $700 as an unrealistic price and therefore saw no need to try to maintain it... perhaps they see $500 as a more realistic price based on their REAL knowledge of how the company operates.
Agreed. Anyone arguing that the company is not successfully and profitably run should go take a hike.
Could you point me to an example of a $150bn building? Thanks
You're forgetting also that with that cash, Apple can afford to never again borrow. Any idea how much all this borrowing has cost the economy over the last decades?
Case 1: you get money lent, and you have to repay it.
Case 2: you don't get money, and you die, or at least are impeded in your growth, possibly overtaken in the race to the top by a competitor, or bought out.
I keep my opinion: don't like the way the company is run, get the **** out. Apple's transparent towards shareholders, contrary to big banks, or (*coughs*) hedge funds.
While the article cited does describe the technicalities in factual terms, in the real-world dynamics of influence a company needs to satisfy shareholders or risk losing that investment.
My AAPL shares are modest and I don't have an opinion on this specific suggestion; I see merit both ways.
But if enough shareholders agree with it, it would be troublesome for Apple to ignore them.
The regulars here can have all the fun they want with Dell's decision to go private, and indeed given Dell's history it's anyone's guess as to whether they'll be able to make use of their new-found freedom.
But freedom it is. Investors are short-sighted and often distracting from a company's long-term goals. If you want public money, you're beholden to the public.
investors may not "own" a company in the strictest sense, but they do indeed pwn it.
It's a bit more complicated than that, afaik. The investors can vote to change the CEO, but they'd have to demonstrate that the CEO knowingly made wrong decisions for that suit to have any sense... (for profit, because his ego blinded him, whatever). Tim Cook's arguably the best supply chain expert in the world, an excellent leader of men, and respected by his whole company, and he's proven to have vision as regards the market. It would be a very, very hard proposition to make that he failed knwingly...
Haha. For one, the US gov't thinks a year is considered a long-term capital investment. Two, for a hedge fund, a year is a particularly long time. Three, he bought the stock over year ago, which despite recent media frenzy, is still flat to up YoY. So... its not like he's sitting on a major loss (just lost profits).
Whose problem is that? Einhorn's or the average AAPL shareholder's?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Creid1987
You shouldn't attack someone for suggesting a public company has a fiduciary duty to his shareholders.
Of course a public company's fundamental fiduciary obligation is to its shareholders. Period. But the idea of a perpetual preferred is hare-brained.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadmatic
I can't believe somebody actually typed this.
Believe it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I agree, Apple has been doing pretty damn good and is treated unfairly by the street, but the main thing that matters is how the stock graph looks IMO, and it hasn't been looking good for a while now. Having faith in Apple and the products that they make is one thing, but I see having faith in AAPL as being something completely different.
Especially with the impressive results that Apple has had and continues to deliver, they should be able to combat some of the FUD and take the necessary steps to bring the stock back on course. I've written before that hoarding money is obviously not impressing anybody and it doesn't benefit AAPL, so I don't mind if they start spending more of that money.
yes but I don't want Apple to spend money just to spend money. In addition, how may multi $billion companies are for sale?
Many investors are clueless and rely on analysts and the media. But if you give them facts without commentary, I bet most of those will be happy with Apple's performance and the stock wouldn't have jumped up or down so rapidly.
As I said before, if you fight the rumors, you'll lose no matter what. What if a rumor is true and Apple fights it? or if Apple fights all rumors, but let's another rumor fly, does that mean it's the truth?
Publicly-Traded Company
A company issuing stocks, which are traded on the open market, either on a stock exchange or on the over-the-countermarket. Individual and institutional shareholders constitute the owners of a publicly-traded company, in proportion to the amount of stock they own as a percentage of all outstanding stock. Thus, shareholders have final say in all decisions taken by a publicly-traded company and its managers, especially through its annual shareholders' meeting. Publicly-traded companies have greater access to financing than other companies, as they have the ability to issue more stock. However, they are subject to greater regulation: for example, they must file 10-K reports with the SEC on their earningsand they are more likely to be subject to corporate taxes. A publicly-traded company is also called a public company.
Farlex Financial Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
yes but I don't want Apple to spend money just to spend money. In addition, how may multi $billion companies are for sale?
Many investors are clueless and rely on analysts and the media. But if you give them facts without commentary, I bet most of those will be happy with Apple's performance and the stock wouldn't have jumped up or down so rapidly.
As I said before, if you fight the rumors, you'll lose no matter what. What if a rumor is true and Apple fights it? or if Apple fights all rumors, but let's another rumor fly, does that mean it's the truth?
I agree that they shouldn't just spend money wildly on random things, but I'm fairly certain that there are good ways to spend some of that money, a higher share buyback amount, a higher dividend, buy up some good companies, expand into new territories, etc. I'm sure that Apple can manage to think of wise ways in which to use their money so that they will benefit from it.
I also agree that most analysts and media are clueless, but the bottom line is that the stock has been performing poorly as of late and Apple needs to address that problem, IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Time to abolish this concept of a Hedge Fund and their tax shelters.
Apple themselves have one of largest ones, Braeburn Capital.
Ok, I guess being a investor for nearly a year makes you a "long time" investor... wrong! He bought thinking it was going to go up, and loosing money in his year of stock, and is pissed. Period.
150B in the bank, um, how about using it for collateral on all the expanding they are doing... did everyone forget about the new buildings for corporate? Did you forget about the new storage center for iCloud? Did you forget about the assembly plant? Doing all this banks want a bit of collateral for all these long term (going to be nearly a year on some of the buildings... so silly idiots definition for long term) construction. How about all the other little "projects" going on to expand Apple? Who's to say that after all the buildings and little "projects" going on next year or so they don't do a major kickback to all the stock holders? They would not need all the cash on hand for collateral afterwords. Guess the silly boy missed all those memo's about expanding, and new buildings, etc.
Oh and "projects" include all these law suits... you know like the one silly hedge fund manager is doing.
So, all I say side with the board, kick the silly boy on his butt, and let Apple do what it normally does... which put that 150B in the bank in the first place...
PS - Yes, it's people like this hedge fund manager that crashed our economy just to fill their own pockets.
How would apple address these problems. They don't comment on rumors. Should they confirm or deny them? If so then the media will keep playing 20 Qs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawkBlade
Ok, I guess being a investor for nearly a year makes you a "long time" investor... wrong! He bought thinking it was going to go up, and loosing money in his year of stock, and is pissed. Period.
150B in the bank, um, how about using it for collateral on all the expanding they are doing... did everyone forget about the new buildings for corporate? Did you forget about the new storage center for iCloud? Did you forget about the assembly plant? Doing all this banks want a bit of collateral for all these long term (going to be nearly a year on some of the buildings... so silly idiots definition for long term) construction. How about all the other little "projects" going on to expand Apple? Who's to say that after all the buildings and little "projects" going on next year or so they don't do a major kickback to all the stock holders? They would not need all the cash on hand for collateral afterwords. Guess the silly boy missed all those memo's about expanding, and new buildings, etc.
Oh and "projects" include all these law suits... you know like the one silly hedge fund manager is doing.
So, all I say side with the board, kick the silly boy on his butt, and let Apple do what it normally does... which put that 150B in the bank in the first place...
PS - Yes, it's people like this hedge fund manager that crashed our economy just to fill their own pockets.
Could you point me to an example of a $150bn building? Thanks
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
Apple has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the Apple brand and stock price.
Not true.
Apple('s BOD and officers) has a responsibility to run the company successfully and profitably.
They have little control over stock price. Stock prices can be run up to levels not justified by the balance sheet merely by the actions of folks (mostly institutional investors) trying to game the market. (It can also be run DOWN to levels not representative of the company's true value.)
It could be that the BOD saw $700 as an unrealistic price and therefore saw no need to try to maintain it... perhaps they see $500 as a more realistic price based on their REAL knowledge of how the company operates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
Crap !
One may argue that the shareholders are the OWNERS of the company. The BOD and Management are servants of the owners. So if Einhorn can persuade the shareholder majority, or whatever the company rules of incorporation define, to do anything, then that's the way the ball will roll. Thats the capitalist system. I agree that it's not always the smartest way to run things, but it IS the legal way. This is evidenced by the current market cap of APPL. Many here seem to think that it is seriously undervalued. I personally think its seriously overvalued, but whatever your position on that may be, it seems pretty clear that it is corporate investors and speculators who are driving/manipulating the share price in search of a quick buck. That's the American way.
It doesn't mean the shareholder is the CEO of the company. Cases in point: Palm, HP. Without shareholder interference, those would probably still be around. Well, HP is "still around". Sort of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot
Not true.
Apple('s BOD and officers) has a responsibility to run the company successfully and profitably.
They have little control over stock price. Stock prices can be run up to levels not justified by the balance sheet merely by the actions of folks (mostly institutional investors) trying to game the market. (It can also be run DOWN to levels not representative of the company's true value.)
It could be that the BOD saw $700 as an unrealistic price and therefore saw no need to try to maintain it... perhaps they see $500 as a more realistic price based on their REAL knowledge of how the company operates.
Agreed. Anyone arguing that the company is not successfully and profitably run should go take a hike.
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by Creid1987
Could you point me to an example of a $150bn building? Thanks
You're forgetting also that with that cash, Apple can afford to never again borrow. Any idea how much all this borrowing has cost the economy over the last decades?
Case 1: you get money lent, and you have to repay it.
Case 2: you don't get money, and you die, or at least are impeded in your growth, possibly overtaken in the race to the top by a competitor, or bought out.
I keep my opinion: don't like the way the company is run, get the **** out. Apple's transparent towards shareholders, contrary to big banks, or (*coughs*) hedge funds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
You can sit down and relax.
While the article cited does describe the technicalities in factual terms, in the real-world dynamics of influence a company needs to satisfy shareholders or risk losing that investment.
My AAPL shares are modest and I don't have an opinion on this specific suggestion; I see merit both ways.
But if enough shareholders agree with it, it would be troublesome for Apple to ignore them.
The regulars here can have all the fun they want with Dell's decision to go private, and indeed given Dell's history it's anyone's guess as to whether they'll be able to make use of their new-found freedom.
But freedom it is. Investors are short-sighted and often distracting from a company's long-term goals. If you want public money, you're beholden to the public.
investors may not "own" a company in the strictest sense, but they do indeed pwn it.
It's a bit more complicated than that, afaik. The investors can vote to change the CEO, but they'd have to demonstrate that the CEO knowingly made wrong decisions for that suit to have any sense... (for profit, because his ego blinded him, whatever). Tim Cook's arguably the best supply chain expert in the world, an excellent leader of men, and respected by his whole company, and he's proven to have vision as regards the market. It would be a very, very hard proposition to make that he failed knwingly...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Creid1987
Haha. For one, the US gov't thinks a year is considered a long-term capital investment. Two, for a hedge fund, a year is a particularly long time. Three, he bought the stock over year ago, which despite recent media frenzy, is still flat to up YoY. So... its not like he's sitting on a major loss (just lost profits).
Whose problem is that? Einhorn's or the average AAPL shareholder's?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Creid1987
You shouldn't attack someone for suggesting a public company has a fiduciary duty to his shareholders.
Of course a public company's fundamental fiduciary obligation is to its shareholders. Period. But the idea of a perpetual preferred is hare-brained.