Hey David Einhorn, shut the **** up. I trust Apple to better manage its money for its long term success than some greedy hedgefund manager qho wants to make a quick buck. Suing Apple? What a tool.
"...Apple’s management team and Board of Directors have been in active discussions about returning additional cash to shareholders. As part of our review, we will thoroughly evaluate Greenlight Capital’s current proposal to issue some form of preferred stock. We welcome Greenlight’s views and the views of all of our shareholders..."
No sir, I don't have an in-depth knowledge of investing either. All I really know of hedge-funds is what I've read.
Then how can you judge -- unless you can vouch for the credibility of the blogger and the site or unless you believe everything you read on the internet -- whether a link you provide is bogus or not?
FYI, here are Apple's investing policies for its cash and marketable securities (it is from p. 37 of Apple's 2012 10K, so you can look it up if you wish): "The Company’s marketable securities investment portfolio is invested primarily in highly-rated securities and its investment policy generally limits the amount of credit exposure to any one issuer. The policy requires investments generally to be investment grade with the objective of minimizing the potential risk of principal loss."
I can assure you -- or you are welcome to check around and come back and tell us what you found -- that's not how a 'hedge fund' operates. This policy is also the reason they're making 1% on their cash....
"FYI, here are Apple's investing policies for its cash and marketable securities (it is from p. 37 of Apple's 2012 10K, so you can look it up if you wish): "The Company’s marketable securities investment portfolio is invested primarily in highly-rated securities and its investment policy generally limits the amount of credit exposure to any one issuer. The policy requires investments generally to be investment grade with the objective of minimizing the potential risk of principal loss."
No-one can fault that policy because it is totally responsible. Supremely cautious but utterly responsible.
You could argue the philosophy of a such a cautious approach until you're blue in the face but obviously they will not place cash into a an investment where there is potential for loss.
They already have the potential for gain in their other operations.
(In case the link is incorrect, my post was: Another pointless link from you. Who's Horace Dideu? (I know, I know, he says he has an MBA from Harvard! wow!!) Another blogger who's a cousin? Can you explain his methodology to us? What does he or his methodology have to do with the company whose numbers and methodology are being quoted in this story? Do you even bother to read the links you cite? Will you actually answer each of these five questions? )
I honestly missed that particular set of questions nested in that 179 post discussion. The hot air in that thread was stifling and held no more interest for me nor most others I would guess!
Yes I read every link I cite. Horace Dideu heads up Asymco, a regularly cited source on Apple-centric sites. Surprised you aren't familiar with him. No he's not a cousin. Not sure what you mean about his methodology that he himself didn't already explain (You actually read the linked article before asking questions, right?), Yes I actually answered all five questions.
Guess that means we can hold each other to the same standard from now on then? Great!
If you read the Greenlight press release, the lawsuit IS NOT suing Apple to force them to proceed with his preferred shares concept.
The lawsuit IS suing to get Apple to "unbundle" the vote on Apple's decision to remove pref shares from allowable share capital. Greenlight wants that decision to be voted on separately as opposed to together with two other initiatives that Greenlight supports.
I repeat...he is not suing to get his idea accepted. He is suing to enable the potential existence of preferred shares in Apple's capital structure to be voted on independent of any other decision.
No, surely they are not. However, they will have gobs and gobs left over after taking into account all that they want to do with it.
Let's look at their uses of cash. In FY2013, their forecasted Capex is $9B -- Oppenheimer mentioned this in the conf call with analysts. (Their R&D spending comes out of revenue, not cash, so we need not count that). Their acquisitions amount to no more than a couple of billion dollars a year. Perhaps given their very flinty policies on receivables (get $$ as soon as possible) and payables (take as long as possible to pay) and almost no inventory, Apple's working capital needs are close to zero, and indeed, it's often negative (meaning it's a source of cash, not use of cash). Dividends will take up no more than $10B in 2013, and their previous announced repurchases, I am guessing, generously, $5B - $10B.
During the coming year, we can conservatively expect another $75B to come in as cash.
So what will they have left at the end of FY13? 137 + 75 - 9 - 2 - 20 = $181B. At least that much, but actually perhaps much more.
Even if they use just the US portion (estimated to be one-thirds), that's $60B. Plenty to do a nice $40B buyback without touching the low tax stuff abroad.
"FYI, here are Apple's investing policies for its cash and marketable securities (it is from p. 37 of Apple's 2012 10K, so you can look it up if you wish): "The Company’s marketable securities investment portfolio is invested primarily in highly-rated securities and its investment policy generally limits the amount of credit exposure to any one issuer. The policy requires investments generally to be investment grade with the objective of minimizing the potential risk of principal loss."
No-one can fault that policy because it is totally responsible. Supremely cautious but utterly responsible.
You could argue the philosophy of a such a cautious approach until you're blue in the face but obviously they will not place cash into a an investment where there is potential for loss.
They already have the potential for gain in their other operations.
I completely agree.
I was simply attempting to convince gatorguy that Apple does not run a 'hedge fund' with its cash, as he had claimed in an earlier post in this thread.
Then how can you judge -- unless you can vouch for the credibility of the blogger and the site or unless you believe everything you read on the internet -- whether a link you provide is bogus or not?
FYI, here are Apple's investing policies for its cash and marketable securities (it is from p. 37 of Apple's 2012 10K, so you can look it up if you wish): "The Company’s marketable securities investment portfolio is invested primarily in highly-rated securities and its investment policy generally limits the amount of credit exposure to any one issuer. The policy requires investments generally to be investment grade with the objective of minimizing the potential risk of principal loss."
I can assure you -- or you are welcome to check around and come back and tell us what you found -- that's not how a 'hedge fund' operates. This policy is also the reason they're making 1% on their cash....
That's why I post links to the actual sources. Read 'em for yourself to see if they have any value. For that one your vote is obviously no. Others may find it enlightening.
One may argue that the shareholders are the OWNERS of the company.
It depends which kind. The shareholders who started the company or at least have driven the company to success deserve that association but stockholders looking to sell at a profit are really more like middle managers - not much talent, don't contribute much, like their payout to be higher, make a lot of noise and demand things are done their way or they start throwing their weight around and ultimately have a damaging effect on the company.
If you bought / invested in a diamond, gold or limited edition comic to get more security over future resources than a fictional monetary system, you have a responsibility to look after those things and so your entitlement as an owner has more weight to it. When you buy into a company, you don't have to make any sacrifice to create value. To then start hollering about what should and shouldn't be happening just doesn't seem like a privilege that's been earned.
"Charles and David H. Koch each own 42% of Koch Industries, and Charles has stated that the company will publicly offer shares "literally over my dead body""
The Apple staff benefit from cashing in their shares so they probably aren't complaining too much but it must really suck having to pay out to investors whose only interest in the success of the company is how well it pays out.
Also just from free cash flow Apple gets $35-$40 billion a year. A big chunk of that money should be returned to the investor. $150B is enough for an emergency. PERIOD.
Sony just needs to agree to a takeover. Apple owns Playstation, Blu-Ray, TVs, music, movies. Then take over Square Enix and they have one of the top games studios. 100 million people won't even think twice about Android with Playstation exclusives and first-run movies streaming to iOS.
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
Wouldn't every company earning less than them be overvalued too? Why would they be valued lower than companies that make less money? Everybody needs fuel but everybody also needs phones.
OK, if they're only getting 1% on that much money, then something is wrong. I expected that it would be a lot better than that. So I agree on that part with Einhorn, but I don't agree with the way he's trying to fix it, at least the timing of the lawsuit, or the specific changes he demands.
By early last year, Apple’s cash balance had built to a point beyond what we needed to run our business and maintain flexibility to take advantage of strategic opportunities, so we announced a plan to return $45 billion to shareholders over three years. As of next week we will have executed $10 billion of that plan.
We find ourselves in the fortunate position of continuing to generate large amounts of cash, including $23 billion in cash flow from operations in the last quarter alone.
Apple’s management team and Board of Directors have been in active discussions about returning additional cash to shareholders. As part of our review, we will thoroughly evaluate Greenlight Capital’s current proposal to issue some form of preferred stock. (Bold mine) We welcome Greenlight’s views and the views of all of our shareholders.
As a part of our efforts to further enhance corporate governance and serve our shareholders’ best interests, Proposal #2 in our proxy includes some recommended changes to our articles of incorporation. These changes were recommended independently of Greenlight’s proposal and would not preclude Apple from adopting their concept. Contrary to Greenlight’s statements, adoption of Proposal #2 would not prevent the issuance of preferred stock. Currently, Apple’s articles of incorporation provide for the issuance of “blank check” preferred stock by the Board of Directors without shareholder approval. If Proposal #2 is adopted, our shareholders would have the right to approve the issuance of preferred stock. As such, Proposal #2 has the support of many of our shareholders.
We remain committed to having an ongoing dialogue with our shareholders to get perspectives around return of capital and driving shareholder value.
I honestly missed that particular set of questions nested in that 179 post discussion.
Of course not. Which is rather weird, since you responded with oblique stuff to my posts after that one! I am sure it was accident....
Anyway, as the rest of your post shows (and as the 'hedge fund' example shows), you simply provide links without knowing whether they are credible or not (i.e., no clue about methodologies, definitions). Anyone can do that. That's the reason I've been calling out your links.
For example, you just posted a link to Apple's response to Greenlight with some sort of conspiratorial implication..... "Did Apple blink"? LOL. What if I were to tell you that it's the profroma response that every management puts out when a hedge fund wolf shows up at the door? I.e., there's no blinking involved. It's just the standard lawyer boilerplate for (cue sarcasm): "Gee! Thanks Mr. Einhorn. We loved hearing from you today! We will take your concerns seriously, talk about it amongst ourselves, and get back to you! Have a nice day!"
(Do a search for "Herbalife Bill Ackman hedge fund battle" and look at Herbalife's formal SEC-filing response to Ackman, if you don't believe me! There hasn't been a more nasty, drawn out, ugly hedge fund attack recently....)
That's why I post links to the actual sources. Read 'em for yourself to see if they have any value. For that one your vote is obviously no. Others may find it enlightening.
It only includes realized gains. However, given the types of securities Apple invest in -- certainly judged by the realized gains -- I'd venture a guess that capital gains are likely to be modest at best.
For example, you just posted a link to Apple's response to Greenlight with some sort of conspiratorial implication..... "Did Apple blink"? LOL. What if I were to tell you that it's the profroma response that every management puts out when a hedge fund wolf shows up at the door?
Then that would be a useful comment. Thus the question"did Apple blink" rather than a statement that they did.
Sony just needs to agree to a takeover. Apple owns Playstation, Blu-Ray, TVs, music, movies. Then take over Square Enix and they have one of the top games studios. 100 million people won't even think twice about Android with Playstation exclusives and first-run movies streaming to iOS.
Baloney. No Sony. (I hope you remember that ad campaign.)
Sony is an unfocused mess, and to the Japanese, it would be like a Chinese company buying GM to Americans. Or worse. Imagine the backlash as Apple tried to whittle Sony into a focused company. Unthinkable.
Anyway, Apple is probably going to do new things never before seen, such as expanding iMessage, iTunes and FaceTime into their own networks. If they need three data centers in the U.S. at $1 billion each to start, they're going to need six in China, four in Europe, three each in South America, India and so on. They will have to invest in the fiber, the cell networks and who knows, the satellites.
Total science fiction, but I'm pretty sure they're thinking at the decade and century level about this mobile computing they helped to start, more than any other entity I can think of offhand.
Comments
Hey David Einhorn, shut the **** up. I trust Apple to better manage its money for its long term success than some greedy hedgefund manager qho wants to make a quick buck. Suing Apple? What a tool.
1. Can't make money just buying and holding AAPL.
2. Can't make money shorting AAPL (now).
3. Can't make money spinning AAPL up or down (see #1 and #2.)
4. Can't make money on insider trading (because Apple is so secretive.)
Aha! Maybe he can make money suing Apple for having too much cash.
Yeah! That's the ticket! "Apple has too much cash! Nobody can deny that!"
Did Apple blink? From their public statement today:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2013/02/07Statement-by-Apple.html
"...Apple’s management team and Board of Directors have been in active discussions about returning additional cash to shareholders. As part of our review, we will thoroughly evaluate Greenlight Capital’s current proposal to issue some form of preferred stock. We welcome Greenlight’s views and the views of all of our shareholders..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
Apple has almost $150 Billion and are doing NOTHING with it..
They are not doing NOTHING with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
No sir, I don't have an in-depth knowledge of investing either. All I really know of hedge-funds is what I've read.
Then how can you judge -- unless you can vouch for the credibility of the blogger and the site or unless you believe everything you read on the internet -- whether a link you provide is bogus or not?
FYI, here are Apple's investing policies for its cash and marketable securities (it is from p. 37 of Apple's 2012 10K, so you can look it up if you wish): "The Company’s marketable securities investment portfolio is invested primarily in highly-rated securities and its investment policy generally limits the amount of credit exposure to any one issuer. The policy requires investments generally to be investment grade with the objective of minimizing the potential risk of principal loss."
I can assure you -- or you are welcome to check around and come back and tell us what you found -- that's not how a 'hedge fund' operates. This policy is also the reason they're making 1% on their cash....
"FYI, here are Apple's investing policies for its cash and marketable securities (it is from p. 37 of Apple's 2012 10K, so you can look it up if you wish): "The Company’s marketable securities investment portfolio is invested primarily in highly-rated securities and its investment policy generally limits the amount of credit exposure to any one issuer. The policy requires investments generally to be investment grade with the objective of minimizing the potential risk of principal loss."
No-one can fault that policy because it is totally responsible. Supremely cautious but utterly responsible.
You could argue the philosophy of a such a cautious approach until you're blue in the face but obviously they will not place cash into a an investment where there is potential for loss.
They already have the potential for gain in their other operations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Sure! For a typical example, see here: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/155839/apple-samsung-capture-103-of-handset-profits-as-rivals-lose-money#post_2272318
(In case the link is incorrect, my post was: Another pointless link from you. Who's Horace Dideu? (I know, I know, he says he has an MBA from Harvard! wow!!) Another blogger who's a cousin? Can you explain his methodology to us? What does he or his methodology have to do with the company whose numbers and methodology are being quoted in this story? Do you even bother to read the links you cite? Will you actually answer each of these five questions?
I honestly missed that particular set of questions nested in that 179 post discussion. The hot air in that thread was stifling and held no more interest for me nor most others I would guess!
Yes I read every link I cite. Horace Dideu heads up Asymco, a regularly cited source on Apple-centric sites. Surprised you aren't familiar with him. No he's not a cousin. Not sure what you mean about his methodology that he himself didn't already explain (You actually read the linked article before asking questions, right?), Yes I actually answered all five questions.
Guess that means we can hold each other to the same standard from now on then? Great!
If you read the Greenlight press release, the lawsuit IS NOT suing Apple to force them to proceed with his preferred shares concept.
The lawsuit IS suing to get Apple to "unbundle" the vote on Apple's decision to remove pref shares from allowable share capital. Greenlight wants that decision to be voted on separately as opposed to together with two other initiatives that Greenlight supports.
I repeat...he is not suing to get his idea accepted. He is suing to enable the potential existence of preferred shares in Apple's capital structure to be voted on independent of any other decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
They are not doing NOTHING with it.
No, surely they are not. However, they will have gobs and gobs left over after taking into account all that they want to do with it.
Let's look at their uses of cash. In FY2013, their forecasted Capex is $9B -- Oppenheimer mentioned this in the conf call with analysts. (Their R&D spending comes out of revenue, not cash, so we need not count that). Their acquisitions amount to no more than a couple of billion dollars a year. Perhaps given their very flinty policies on receivables (get $$ as soon as possible) and payables (take as long as possible to pay) and almost no inventory, Apple's working capital needs are close to zero, and indeed, it's often negative (meaning it's a source of cash, not use of cash). Dividends will take up no more than $10B in 2013, and their previous announced repurchases, I am guessing, generously, $5B - $10B.
During the coming year, we can conservatively expect another $75B to come in as cash.
So what will they have left at the end of FY13? 137 + 75 - 9 - 2 - 20 = $181B. At least that much, but actually perhaps much more.
Even if they use just the US portion (estimated to be one-thirds), that's $60B. Plenty to do a nice $40B buyback without touching the low tax stuff abroad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM
"FYI, here are Apple's investing policies for its cash and marketable securities (it is from p. 37 of Apple's 2012 10K, so you can look it up if you wish): "The Company’s marketable securities investment portfolio is invested primarily in highly-rated securities and its investment policy generally limits the amount of credit exposure to any one issuer. The policy requires investments generally to be investment grade with the objective of minimizing the potential risk of principal loss."
No-one can fault that policy because it is totally responsible. Supremely cautious but utterly responsible.
You could argue the philosophy of a such a cautious approach until you're blue in the face but obviously they will not place cash into a an investment where there is potential for loss.
They already have the potential for gain in their other operations.
I completely agree.
I was simply attempting to convince gatorguy that Apple does not run a 'hedge fund' with its cash, as he had claimed in an earlier post in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Then how can you judge -- unless you can vouch for the credibility of the blogger and the site or unless you believe everything you read on the internet -- whether a link you provide is bogus or not?
FYI, here are Apple's investing policies for its cash and marketable securities (it is from p. 37 of Apple's 2012 10K, so you can look it up if you wish): "The Company’s marketable securities investment portfolio is invested primarily in highly-rated securities and its investment policy generally limits the amount of credit exposure to any one issuer. The policy requires investments generally to be investment grade with the objective of minimizing the potential risk of principal loss."
I can assure you -- or you are welcome to check around and come back and tell us what you found -- that's not how a 'hedge fund' operates. This policy is also the reason they're making 1% on their cash....
That's why I post links to the actual sources. Read 'em for yourself to see if they have any value. For that one your vote is obviously no. Others may find it enlightening.
It depends which kind. The shareholders who started the company or at least have driven the company to success deserve that association but stockholders looking to sell at a profit are really more like middle managers - not much talent, don't contribute much, like their payout to be higher, make a lot of noise and demand things are done their way or they start throwing their weight around and ultimately have a damaging effect on the company.
If you bought / invested in a diamond, gold or limited edition comic to get more security over future resources than a fictional monetary system, you have a responsibility to look after those things and so your entitlement as an owner has more weight to it. When you buy into a company, you don't have to make any sacrifice to create value. To then start hollering about what should and shouldn't be happening just doesn't seem like a privilege that's been earned.
It's a shame Apple can't afford to go private.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Industries
"Charles and David H. Koch each own 42% of Koch Industries, and Charles has stated that the company will publicly offer shares "literally over my dead body""
The Apple staff benefit from cashing in their shares so they probably aren't complaining too much but it must really suck having to pay out to investors whose only interest in the success of the company is how well it pays out.
Sony just needs to agree to a takeover. Apple owns Playstation, Blu-Ray, TVs, music, movies. Then take over Square Enix and they have one of the top games studios. 100 million people won't even think twice about Android with Playstation exclusives and first-run movies streaming to iOS.
Wouldn't every company earning less than them be overvalued too? Why would they be valued lower than companies that make less money? Everybody needs fuel but everybody also needs phones.
Does this 1% ROI include capital gains?
Apple's entire press release from today is as follows:
Apple Leadership
Product Images & Info
Press Releases
February 7, 2013
By early last year, Apple’s cash balance had built to a point beyond what we needed to run our business and maintain flexibility to take advantage of strategic opportunities, so we announced a plan to return $45 billion to shareholders over three years. As of next week we will have executed $10 billion of that plan.Statement by Apple
We find ourselves in the fortunate position of continuing to generate large amounts of cash, including $23 billion in cash flow from operations in the last quarter alone.
Apple’s management team and Board of Directors have been in active discussions about returning additional cash to shareholders. As part of our review, we will thoroughly evaluate Greenlight Capital’s current proposal to issue some form of preferred stock. (Bold mine) We welcome Greenlight’s views and the views of all of our shareholders.
As a part of our efforts to further enhance corporate governance and serve our shareholders’ best interests, Proposal #2 in our proxy includes some recommended changes to our articles of incorporation. These changes were recommended independently of Greenlight’s proposal and would not preclude Apple from adopting their concept. Contrary to Greenlight’s statements, adoption of Proposal #2 would not prevent the issuance of preferred stock. Currently, Apple’s articles of incorporation provide for the issuance of “blank check” preferred stock by the Board of Directors without shareholder approval. If Proposal #2 is adopted, our shareholders would have the right to approve the issuance of preferred stock. As such, Proposal #2 has the support of many of our shareholders.
We remain committed to having an ongoing dialogue with our shareholders to get perspectives around return of capital and driving shareholder value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I honestly missed that particular set of questions nested in that 179 post discussion.
Of course not. Which is rather weird, since you responded with oblique stuff to my posts after that one! I am sure it was accident....
Anyway, as the rest of your post shows (and as the 'hedge fund' example shows), you simply provide links without knowing whether they are credible or not (i.e., no clue about methodologies, definitions). Anyone can do that. That's the reason I've been calling out your links.
For example, you just posted a link to Apple's response to Greenlight with some sort of conspiratorial implication..... "Did Apple blink"? LOL. What if I were to tell you that it's the profroma response that every management puts out when a hedge fund wolf shows up at the door? I.e., there's no blinking involved. It's just the standard lawyer boilerplate for (cue sarcasm): "Gee! Thanks Mr. Einhorn. We loved hearing from you today! We will take your concerns seriously, talk about it amongst ourselves, and get back to you! Have a nice day!"
(Do a search for "Herbalife Bill Ackman hedge fund battle" and look at Herbalife's formal SEC-filing response to Ackman, if you don't believe me! There hasn't been a more nasty, drawn out, ugly hedge fund attack recently....)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
That's why I post links to the actual sources. Read 'em for yourself to see if they have any value. For that one your vote is obviously no. Others may find it enlightening.
If they did, they would be wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Does this 1% ROI include capital gains?
It only includes realized gains. However, given the types of securities Apple invest in -- certainly judged by the realized gains -- I'd venture a guess that capital gains are likely to be modest at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
For example, you just posted a link to Apple's response to Greenlight with some sort of conspiratorial implication..... "Did Apple blink"? LOL. What if I were to tell you that it's the profroma response that every management puts out when a hedge fund wolf shows up at the door?
Then that would be a useful comment. Thus the question"did Apple blink" rather than a statement that they did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
I like the idea of buying Sony. But that is only $15 Billion. That leaves Apple with $160 billion at the end of the year.
Hmmm. Intriguing. They do bring high-quality TV manufacturing....
Baloney. No Sony. (I hope you remember that ad campaign.)
Sony is an unfocused mess, and to the Japanese, it would be like a Chinese company buying GM to Americans. Or worse. Imagine the backlash as Apple tried to whittle Sony into a focused company. Unthinkable.
Anyway, Apple is probably going to do new things never before seen, such as expanding iMessage, iTunes and FaceTime into their own networks. If they need three data centers in the U.S. at $1 billion each to start, they're going to need six in China, four in Europe, three each in South America, India and so on. They will have to invest in the fiber, the cell networks and who knows, the satellites.
Total science fiction, but I'm pretty sure they're thinking at the decade and century level about this mobile computing they helped to start, more than any other entity I can think of offhand.