Greenlight's David Einhorn reasserts case against Apple ahead of hearing

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 39
    haar wrote: »
    i think David Einhorn is a shark, and does not care about Apple... i.e. he is a fair weather hedge fund "hog"...  hedgehog... lol get it?...
     
    but... he is rich,rich,rich...  what has he accomplished?...  bringing  to life the main character in the movie " Wall Street". Gordon Gecko?...

    Patrick Bateman.
  • Reply 22 of 39

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post




    No it's not, so go f**k yourself you greedy little pr!ck.



    Guy's a full-blown short-seller, got burned for making bad calls on those "investments", now is trying cut his losses by squeezing more from Apple.



    As an AAPL owner, I would tell the guy if he doesn't like the way Apple is running shop, sell your shares and go away.  



    But not until he's been slapped by each one of us!


    Who's first?


     


    An I say this as an AAPL owner.

  • Reply 23 of 39
    If nothing else, following Apple Insider is a great way to also get an insight into the legal world :)
  • Reply 24 of 39
    Einhorn is a brilliant guy, it's hilarious reading these posts. Not sure that I agree with his proposal or his lawsuit, but he is making Apple do something with the cash and it is going to result in a net benefit to shareholders, both in terms of getting money back and getting a better valuation on the stock.
  • Reply 25 of 39
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    bonky wrote: »
    Einhorn is a brilliant guy, it's hilarious reading these posts. Not sure that I agree with his proposal or his lawsuit, but he is making Apple do something with the cash and it is going to result in a net benefit to shareholders, both in terms of getting money back and getting a better valuation on the stock.

    Quite a few flaws with your claims:

    1. Einhorn's proposal doesn't help 'shareholders'. It would only help a limited number of the shareholders. Most shareholders would not benefit from his proposal.

    2. If the shareholders want preferred stock, they can do it even under Apple's proposal. Einhorn's proposal is to take the decision out of the hands of shareholders and give it to management. How is that 'pro-shareholder'?

    3. In the long run, dividends do not have any significant impact on shareholder value. When a company gives away $10 B in dividends, it reduces the value of the company by roughly that amount. The "value" of giving dividends is largely psychological and doesn't really add value.
  • Reply 26 of 39
    Here come the bean counters.

    Folks like this will be the death of Apple. smh
  • Reply 27 of 39
    Dividends are the only way to get a return on your investment without selling part of your stake. Of course shareholders covet them, for good reason.
  • Reply 28 of 39
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    bonky wrote: »
    Dividends are the only way to get a return on your investment without selling part of your stake. Of course shareholders covet them, for good reason.

    The bolded section makes this a tautology.

    In reality, receiving a dividend of $100 or selling $100 worth of stock with no dividends amounts to essentially the same thing. When a company distributes a dividend, it's book value drops - which is ultimately reflected in the share value. It's largely a wash.
  • Reply 29 of 39


    Interesting possibilities:


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Einhorn


     


    Cheers

  • Reply 30 of 39
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post





    Alcohol. You need more.


     


    That's usually the case.

  • Reply 31 of 39
    jragosta wrote: »
    The bolded section makes this a tautology.

    In reality, receiving a dividend of $100 or selling $100 worth of stock with no dividends amounts to essentially the same thing. When a company distributes a dividend, it's book value drops - which is ultimately reflected in the share value. It's largely a wash.

    It's good financial practice to receive cash flow from an investment. Do you have a job? Would you be happy if your salary just went back into the business to make it more valuable? What you're essentially saying is that there is no benefit to receiving an annual salary, biweekly paycheque, whatever.

    It may technically be a "wash" but it has a huge impact on investor sentiment.
  • Reply 32 of 39
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    bonky wrote: »
    It's good financial practice to receive cash flow from an investment. Do you have a job? Would you be happy if your salary just went back into the business to make it more valuable? What you're essentially saying is that there is no benefit to receiving an annual salary, biweekly paycheque, whatever.

    If you own the business (as shareholders do) and don't need the money, a lot of owners take little or no salary - because the salary is taxed at high rates and if you put the money back into the business, it is not (until you sell, when it is taxed at lower capital gains rates or if you die and leave it to your heirs in which case millions of dollars of equity is tax free).

    Your example is not even close to the same thing.
    bonky wrote: »
    It may technically be a "wash" but it has a huge impact on investor sentiment.

    I already acknowledged that it has a large psychological value-particularly for a stock with a high price like AAPL (since most people don't own enough shares to easily sell 2% a year).

    But that doesn't change the fact that it is just psychology and has no real effect on the true value.
  • Reply 33 of 39
    jragosta wrote: »
    If you own the business (as shareholders do) and don't need the money, a lot of owners take little or no salary - because the salary is taxed at high rates and if you put the money back into the business, it is not (until you sell, when it is taxed at lower capital gains rates or if you die and leave it to your heirs in which case millions of dollars of equity is tax free).

    Your example is not even close to the same thing.
    I already acknowledged that it has a large psychological value-particularly for a stock with a high price like AAPL (since most people don't own enough shares to easily sell 2% a year).

    But that doesn't change the fact that it is just psychology and has no real effect on the true value.

    Granted, but what if you do need the money (as most probably do)? I expect to hold AAPL for a long time, and I will eventually want a steady increasing cash flow. Undoubtedly there are many today who are in my future position.
  • Reply 34 of 39
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    bonky wrote: »
    Granted, but what if you do need the money (as most probably do)? I expect to hold AAPL for a long time, and I will eventually want a steady increasing cash flow. Undoubtedly there are many today who are in my future position.

    Sorry, but 2% per year is not a significant amount. If you have 20 shares ($10,000), that's $200 per year. Hardly enough to justify buying the stock.
  • Reply 35 of 39
    jdwjdw Posts: 742member
    This AppleInsider article puts it all in perspective:
    http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/02/14/huge-selloff-by-hedge-funds-bruised-apple-stock-in-the-winter-quarter

    Hedge Funds are responsible for the stock tanking since October, and now the chief of one of these funds has the audacity to sue Apple because they want the milk the company even more.

    As an AAPL shareholder since 1999 (never selling a single share from that time to now), I cast my vote against Einhorn. Stop holding me hostage, Greenlight Capital.
  • Reply 36 of 39
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bonky View Post





    It's good financial practice to receive cash flow from an investment. Do you have a job? Would you be happy if your salary just went back into the business to make it more valuable? What you're essentially saying is that there is no benefit to receiving an annual salary, biweekly paycheque, whatever.



    It may technically be a "wash" but it has a huge impact on investor sentiment.


    Apple shares rise to put the company in no.1 spot without the need to pay for dividend. Your argument is flawed.

  • Reply 37 of 39
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    matrix07 wrote: »
    Apple shares rise to put the company in no.1 spot without the need to pay for dividend. Your argument is flawed.

    In fact, the shares have fallen since the dividend was implemented. While I doubt that the dividend caused the drop, it clearly shows that the "stocks rise when there is a dividend" argument is flawed.
  • Reply 38 of 39
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,584member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Actually, he doesn't even have that justification. There are no preferred shares today and Apple has no intent of issuing any. So the new proposal doesn't really change anything.



    I would not be surprised to see the case thrown out because he can't show any harm. Since there are no preferred shares and no plans to issue preferred shares, he loses nothing by Apple making it harder to issue preferred shares. Unless he can show that Apple's actions have harmed him, he has no case - and it could get thrown out on those grounds.


    This will be quite a surprise IMO: The judge indicates that he's leaning towards accepting Greenlight's argument, saying "Candidly I do think the likelihood of success is in favor for Greenlight..."


    http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2013/02_-_February/Greenlight_shows__likelihood_of_success__against_Apple_-judge/

  • Reply 39 of 39
    robmrobm Posts: 1,068member


    That's a bizarre comment for a judge to make at a hearing.


    Normally, they'd just say,"ok you've got a point. Lets test it." Or words to that effect.


     


    To say that you're leaning one way or the other ahead of the trial. Bizarre.


     


    What about the SEC ? They approved the so called "bundle".


    Irreparable harm to Greenlight ? You gotta be kidding me - shouldn't even be a consideration.

Sign In or Register to comment.