imo, He's making a play. On one hand he's talking himself up by seeming to speak on behalf of AAPL shareholders and what benefit his wizard scheme could do for them. OTOH Greenlight Capital is suing in a move to - what ? Discredit the BOD ? Add more disruptive comment ? Talk the share price down further ?
I'd trust him about as far as I could throw him - he's got a plan with eyes firmly set on some that cash, that's for sure.
Gotta watch out for the Tall Poppy thing Einhorn ....
I beg to disagree with that word only in your statement. The rest, I entirely suscribe to. However, his business is making money through the misery of others, and he's being very professional about it.
4) Here's a suggestion for you. Buy a copy of the Corporate Director's Guidebook (it's not expensive), read it (it is a very short read), and then come back and post about the fiduciary duties of an officer/director of a corporation in the US.
Hey, I'll take that read.Thanks for that suggestion!
Apple is spending a lot of money on capital projects: new "spaceship" HQ; servers farms; green power plants.
Also, nearly half of Apple's billions sit in overseas banks because the US-IRS wants 35% of it if it is ever brought into the USA. It doesn't matter how much money Apple has, what is important is where it is located. So how can Apple's US-based cash be regarded as "excessive retained earnings" and how does it slow economic growth?
If it's all about spending money, they should invest in fusion research. If it works out, it's definitely in the interest of shareholders. If it fails, not Apple's fault, and they did not cause horrible suffering to anguished shareholders watching terrible piles of cash growing...
No, I think YOU should read up on those things then understand the definition of "fiduciary duty". Internet armchair lawyers are always worth exactly what you pay them. First, a Michigan state court ruling means exactly that ... Michigan. Second, some independent organization that says what it thinks the principles of corporate governance should be means exactly that. Nothing.
Actually, there is a set of investors who are interested in having their money grow slowly but surely. Good governance is therefore making secure steps, keeping massive stockpiles of cash in case of bad economy/swift revolution in the market.
Imagine what Nokia would have done if it had had that much cash when iPhone came out. Yeah, not "died due to Microsoft 'helping' them".
As an investor, I'm utterly uninterested in big companies taking huge risks and possibly generating gigantic amounts of cash, or possibly losing all my money. If I wanted that, I'd invest in startups.
Actually, there is a set of investors who are interested in having their money grow slowly but surely. Good governance is therefore making secure steps, keeping massive stockpiles of cash in case of bad economy/swift revolution in the market.
Imagine what Nokia would have done if it had had that much cash when iPhone came out. Yeah, not "died due to Microsoft 'helping' them".
As an investor, I'm utterly uninterested in big companies taking huge risks and possibly generating gigantic amounts of cash, or possibly losing all my money. If I wanted that, I'd invest in startups.
Here's a link to a pretty detailed description of just what's being claimed in the lawsuit, whether there's any chance of it being successful, and how some large investors see it. A very good article for our members with significant Apple holdings
On one hand he's having a go at the BOD with Proposal 2. and then otoh he tries to takes issue with the BOD's investment policy which of course is totally unrelated.
Imo - Prposal 2 is for Apple shareholders and the BOD to decide. The investment policy decisions made by Apple BOD is their business and not open to legal or public debate.
Drop the case Einhorn - explain to your investors how you got caught short.
Go take your wife to another fundraiser or something !
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Einhorn_(hedge_fund_manager)
imo, He's making a play. On one hand he's talking himself up by seeming to speak on behalf of AAPL shareholders and what benefit his wizard scheme could do for them. OTOH Greenlight Capital is suing in a move to - what ? Discredit the BOD ? Add more disruptive comment ? Talk the share price down further ?
I'd trust him about as far as I could throw him - he's got a plan with eyes firmly set on some that cash, that's for sure.
Gotta watch out for the Tall Poppy thing Einhorn ....
nice website, btw lol
https://www.greenlightcapital.com/
http://foolingsomepeople.com/main/
Not the first time this "white knight" gets in trouble for manipulating (and killing) stock.
His book even goes so far as saying that he's right and the SEC wrong...
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
unprofessional
I beg to disagree with that word only in your statement. The rest, I entirely suscribe to. However, his business is making money through the misery of others, and he's being very professional about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
4) Here's a suggestion for you. Buy a copy of the Corporate Director's Guidebook (it's not expensive), read it (it is a very short read), and then come back and post about the fiduciary duties of an officer/director of a corporation in the US.
Hey, I'll take that read.Thanks for that suggestion!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sip
Apple is spending a lot of money on capital projects: new "spaceship" HQ; servers farms; green power plants.
Also, nearly half of Apple's billions sit in overseas banks because the US-IRS wants 35% of it if it is ever brought into the USA. It doesn't matter how much money Apple has, what is important is where it is located. So how can Apple's US-based cash be regarded as "excessive retained earnings" and how does it slow economic growth?
If it's all about spending money, they should invest in fusion research. If it works out, it's definitely in the interest of shareholders. If it fails, not Apple's fault, and they did not cause horrible suffering to anguished shareholders watching terrible piles of cash growing...
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher
No, I think YOU should read up on those things then understand the definition of "fiduciary duty". Internet armchair lawyers are always worth exactly what you pay them. First, a Michigan state court ruling means exactly that ... Michigan. Second, some independent organization that says what it thinks the principles of corporate governance should be means exactly that. Nothing.
Actually, there is a set of investors who are interested in having their money grow slowly but surely. Good governance is therefore making secure steps, keeping massive stockpiles of cash in case of bad economy/swift revolution in the market.
Imagine what Nokia would have done if it had had that much cash when iPhone came out. Yeah, not "died due to Microsoft 'helping' them".
As an investor, I'm utterly uninterested in big companies taking huge risks and possibly generating gigantic amounts of cash, or possibly losing all my money. If I wanted that, I'd invest in startups.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight
Actually, there is a set of investors who are interested in having their money grow slowly but surely. Good governance is therefore making secure steps, keeping massive stockpiles of cash in case of bad economy/swift revolution in the market.
Imagine what Nokia would have done if it had had that much cash when iPhone came out. Yeah, not "died due to Microsoft 'helping' them".
As an investor, I'm utterly uninterested in big companies taking huge risks and possibly generating gigantic amounts of cash, or possibly losing all my money. If I wanted that, I'd invest in startups.
Here's a link to a pretty detailed description of just what's being claimed in the lawsuit, whether there's any chance of it being successful, and how some large investors see it. A very good article for our members with significant Apple holdings
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/09/us-apple-greenlight-lawsuit-idUSBRE91713S20130209
Interesting article thanks !
On one hand he's having a go at the BOD with Proposal 2. and then otoh he tries to takes issue with the BOD's investment policy which of course is totally unrelated.
Imo - Prposal 2 is for Apple shareholders and the BOD to decide. The investment policy decisions made by Apple BOD is their business and not open to legal or public debate.
Drop the case Einhorn - explain to your investors how you got caught short.
Go take your wife to another fundraiser or something !
lmao
Hey Dave - you got buuurrrnnned
http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci_22582984/7-billion-hedge-fund-drops-apple-shares-facebook
Out foxed