For the average stock holder this would not be good. This would only benefit hedge fund managers. This guys a crook, I would not trust him. Hopefully Apple will keep ignoring him.
Basically. This round one might give a small amount of benefit since it seems his plan is to give one ipref for every common share. But in later years it seems you'd have to buy them and if you sell you make little to no money since the value of the stock never moves with the market. AND it dilutes the value of common shares. Sure he says all that 'the face value of the iPref balances the drop in value, but what about the new capital gains/loss tax rules. It would totally suck if one sold that preferred stock at $50 and suffered a $60 loss due to taxes.
These kinds of issues and questions are the sort of things the voters will have on their minds. And the sort of thing that will cause many to vote no because they can't see how this benefits them over the hedge funds etc that generally are the only ones that benefit from preferred shares
if steve were alive, he'd rip this guy such a huge new asshole. too bad tim isn't mouthy when apple needs it.
As a shareholder I feel like Tim is doing this the right way. If he just told this man to kick rocks like Steve would have, it leaves things open for shareholder proposals etc. This way it was a 'vote of the people' and less likely to cause flak.
Apple stock = iFizzle. They need to stop talking about Apple's 'value'. This company's value is an embarrassment to any shareholder. Google headed towards $1000. Apple headed towards $400. Forget it. Apple better learn to cook it's books or something before the value reaches zero.
Im a shareholder and I'm not embarrassed about the value. Pissed perhaps but not embarrassed.
why pissed? Because the drop in value had nothing to do with Apple, its products etc. it was all about the blogs, the analysts etc talking shit about what apple is doing, should be doing, sales estimates that are based on no data about anything. They need to shut up like yesterday.
I don't understand how he arrives at $50 per share for the new securities. From what is in the article, it looks like he created $30 per share out of thin air. Just because someone declares that the shares have a face value of some number does not mean the market will value it at that number. Someone please explain it.
I don't understand how he arrives at $50 per share for the new securities. From what is in the article, it looks like he created $30 per share out of thin air.
Just because someone declares that the shares have a face value of some number does not mean the market will value it at that number.
Someone please explain it.
Easy. Preferred shares are issued at a set price, usually $25 or $50, and move very little from there. The exception is if the preferred shares convert to common stock, a la the new General Motors.
The question you should have asked is how Apple common stock only goes down by $20. Logic has it that if the company pulls $50 of value out of the common stock (as a cash dividend, stock dividend, or issuance of "iPerfs") then the common stock will initially drop by $50.
How about preferred shares for everyone who has held AAPL for 10 years or longer? That would put him right out of commission since he's a short termer.
You think the rich and wealthy ever have plans that benefit anyone but themselves? This is obviously yet another greed grab and an exclusion of all people by way of classifying some as preferred and some as ... well, not.
I listened online to his entire proposal and found it interesting. A couple of points I would like to make.
1) The issuance of iperfs stock and future dividends would not touch any of Apple's $137B cash hoard. Apple would pay the dividends from future free cash flow. The only way Apple would ever touch the $137B would be if they decided to buy up the iperfs, which this proposal says won't happen. But if it did Apple would pay out about $47B.
2) Since this proposal does not touch any of the offshore money Apple has, some $94B, Apple can wait and see if there is going to be a "tax holiday" and if there is then take advantage of the lower tax rates and issue a special dividend or repurchase at that time. If the holiday is like the 2004 one, that would mean Apple, i.e., we shareholders could save up to $30B in taxes.
3) As to how he came up with the $430 share price is that he accounts for the effect of paying the dividends on the iperfs which would lessen Apple's future EPS by $2 and using a 10x P/E you get the $20 hit to share price. EPS estimates are $45 - $2 payout = $43 x 10 P/E = $430.
4) As a long, long term shareholder (1999) he really got my attention when he stated, "Apple has been innovative in hardware, software, retail and supplier management and here is a way for them to be innovative financially."
5) There would seem a real market for this. A 4% return backed by the financial strength of Apple would be very attractive to value investors.
6) Am I sold? No. I have a number of questions like tax ramifications, legality, etc. But I found the slides and presentation thought provoking and look forward to read other's, smarter than I, tear this apart and see if it makes sense or not.
Kinda interesting but at the end of the day it really provides very little other than something new for Wall St to trade in.
Count me in the "No need for it" camp.
Return value to shareholders through buy back & divs, so there's a decreasing amount of shares on the market - that'll push the price up slowly but surely over time thereby unlocking value.
Apples BoD dont need any advice they're doing great.
Utter BS and as a long term AAPL owner will vote down on these. Now that Apple has a cash pile they want to walk in and drink the milk shake and walk away. They milked it for all the growth (they) could imagine, now they want the cash. They know its not good for investors like myself who have owned Apple longer and continue to own it longer than Einhorn. That why they don't want it to come to a share holder vote. This is an attempt at extortion to arm twist Apple's board to issue these preferred shares at the expense of the majority of owners. Einhorn can GO-Up and Eff himself
Nope. What he is proposing is good for you (and for him). As for a shareholder vote, this would pass with flying colors, since most shares (68%, according to Yahoo finance) are held by institutions, who have people who actually understand what he is proposing, which is: to give each shareholder of record a bond (which is what preferred stock is), which pays 4% on the face value a year forever, for free. 4% is actually too rich if you believe that inflation is going to be 2.5%, the present value of such an instrument is going to be 1.6 times face value, so if you want it to be worth face value, it should pay something like 2.5%. Then, see, if you want to hold AAPL common (and the sequence of insanely great products) forever, you can. Just sell the preferred you get in the mail (actually, virtually), and use the $50 to buy more common. If, on the other hand, you are retiring and can't take the risk, sell your common, and buy more preferred, in the knowledge that the ghost of Steve will prevent Apple from welching on their obligation, and you (and your heirs and successors) will clip coupons for eternity.
This is better than a special dividend (which would require repatriating the cash), better than a $0.50 bump in quarterly payouts (since will produce an immediate massive bump in stock price, which a $0.50 bump will not), and similarly with a stock buyback (without repartriating the capital, with all the tax consequences, or depleting the war chest, such a buyback will not have a great effect on stock price).
I really don't understand this hatred towards Einhorn, and his proposal. It might be that the board thinks that it's the wrong thing for some reason (quite possible), but there is nothing unreasonable about the proposal.
I listened online to his entire proposal and found it interesting. A couple of points I would like to make.
1) The issuance of iperfs stock and future dividends would not touch any of Apple's $137B cash hoard. Apple would pay the dividends from future free cash flow. The only way Apple would ever touch the $137B would be if they decided to buy up the iperfs, which this proposal says won't happen. But if it did Apple would pay out about $47B.
2) Since this proposal does not touch any of the offshore money Apple has, some $94B, Apple can wait and see if there is going to be a "tax holiday" and if there is then take advantage of the lower tax rates and issue a special dividend or repurchase at that time. If the holiday is like the 2004 one, that would mean Apple, i.e., we shareholders could save up to $30B in taxes.
3) As to how he came up with the $430 share price is that he accounts for the effect of paying the dividends on the iperfs which would lessen Apple's future EPS by $2 and using a 10x P/E you get the $20 hit to share price. EPS estimates are $45 - $2 payout = $43 x 10 P/E = $430.
4) As a long, long term shareholder (1999) he really got my attention when he stated, "Apple has been innovative in hardware, software, retail and supplier management and here is a way for them to be innovative financially."
5) There would seem a real market for this. A 4% return backed by the financial strength of Apple would be very attractive to value investors.
6) Am I sold? No. I have a number of questions like tax ramifications, legality, etc. But I found the slides and presentation thought provoking and look forward to read other's, smarter than I, tear this apart and see if it makes sense or not.
Bottomline, $137B is a wonderful problem to have!
The whole iPrefs idea is stupid. There is no such thing as unlocking value through "financial engineering." You cannot restructure the liability side of the balance sheet and increase the value of the company.
Apple's balance sheet is strong, pristine, and uncomplicated. That's the way I like it. The liability side has only Equity and Cash. Don't need no stupid preferreds.
Apple is trading where it is because the the entire Wall Street "herd" has come to the conclusion that Apple's growth has slowed and that this is the beginning of the "inevitable" decline. Inevitable decline, my a$$. What nobody seems to consider is that even if growth slows and Apple's revenues remain flat, Apple will keep adding $60 to $70 per share in cash every year to its balance sheet. That is a 15% cash flow yield. Soon, the "herd" will realize that Apple is a bargain and the stock will rise. This happens very often, and not just to Apple's stock.
This company has the best management team in the industry, perhaps all industries. They didn't get to be the best by listening to jackasses on Wall Street. They will come up with products that people will stand in long lines for.
I am against Apple buying its own shares. It hasn't done anything to date to bring the stock price up or stabilize it. I favor a stock split. I understand why Apple hasn't split the stock in a while. Keeping the price high attracted institutional investors and it thought that would lead to a more stable price. That no longer is working. Apple now needs more small investors. Splitting the stock accomplishes that goal.
I would need to know more about the preferred shares idea. Preferred shares if given to all holders of the stock seem similar to a stock split, but with a lower quarterly payout.
The whole iPrefs idea is stupid. There is no such thing as unlocking value through "financial engineering." You cannot restructure the liability side of the balance sheet and increase the value of the company.
Apple's balance sheet is strong, pristine, and uncomplicated. That's the way I like it. The liability side has only Equity and Cash. Don't need no stupid preferreds.
Apple is trading where it is because the the entire Wall Street "herd" has come to the conclusion that Apple's growth has slowed and that this is the beginning of the "inevitable" decline. Inevitable decline, my a$$. What nobody seems to consider is that even if growth slows and Apple's revenues remain flat, Apple will keep adding $60 to $70 per share in cash every year to its balance sheet. That is a 15% cash flow yield. Soon, the "herd" will realize that Apple is a bargain and the stock will rise. This happens very often, and not just to Apple's stock.
This company has the best management team in the industry, perhaps all industries. They didn't get to be the best by listening to jackasses on Wall Street. They will come up with products that people will stand in long lines for.
Buy the stock. Have faith. Be patient.
As far as I can tell, Apple's cash hoard is generating no income. With price inflation running at 2.5% (monetary inflation is another story), keeping $140 in a mattress loses us Apple shareholders $4BN A YEAR, which is equal to (if not greater than) the entire profit generated by their computer operation. Is virginity worth it? Also, where did you come up with the $60/70 per year figure? It is closer to $40.
As for your comment about financial engineering, no, THAT is stupid. How do you think Goldman Sachs makes its money? It borrows on the short end of the yield curve (at 5 basis points), and lends (to the government, that is, to you and me) on the long/medium end at 2%. No muss, no fuss, like taking candy from a baby. But now note that Apple (that is, you and me again, assuming you actually own any of the stock) is the baby, lending its cash out at 5 bps...
I am against Apple buying its own shares. It hasn't done anything to date to bring the stock price up or stabilize it. I favor a stock split. I understand why Apple hasn't split the stock in a while. Keeping the price high attracted institutional investors and it thought that would lead to a more stable price. That no longer is working. Apple now needs more small investors. Splitting the stock accomplishes that goal.
I would need to know more about the preferred shares idea. Preferred shares if given to all holders of the stock seem similar to a stock split, but with a lower quarterly payout.
Preferred shares is NOTHING like a stock split. The only point of a stock split is to lower the stock price, to lower the barrier to entry to retail punters. What Einhorn is suggesting is to split the stock into a stock and a bond, so you can invest in apple for growth (in common) or for yield (in the preferred) -- since the preferred stock is supposed to be liquid, you can mix and match in any proportion you like. The "unlocking the value" thing is correct in that this flexibility is worth a lot.
You have no idea of what you speak. That you speak of share price proved your a fool. In fact, your entire post is idiotic babble with a childs understanding of Wall Street and investing.
I believe he is being sarcastic.
Companies like Amazon and google are favored over Apple is because of whatever they are doing to their books.
People like einhorn and company should also be demanding preferred shares and dividends from them since they are much better prospects at growth than Apple deemed and favored by them.
Everything David Einhorn says is a lie. The real reason Greenlight wants to get their hands on preferred shares is so they can short them. Remember, brokerages have to 'borrow' the shares from somewhere before they can do this. Apple Prefs are rare so this is hard to do. If this goes through you can expect to see a bigger drop in Apple stock because the big boys are going to be paying hard and fast with them.
The whole dividend angle is a smokes screen for current shareholders, as is the 60% added value garbage that Einhorn has pulled out of thin air. If you are holding a 400-500 dollar share for a 2 dollar a year dividend ...
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by forangels
For the average stock holder this would not be good. This would only benefit hedge fund managers. This guys a crook, I would not trust him. Hopefully Apple will keep ignoring him.
Basically. This round one might give a small amount of benefit since it seems his plan is to give one ipref for every common share. But in later years it seems you'd have to buy them and if you sell you make little to no money since the value of the stock never moves with the market. AND it dilutes the value of common shares. Sure he says all that 'the face value of the iPref balances the drop in value, but what about the new capital gains/loss tax rules. It would totally suck if one sold that preferred stock at $50 and suffered a $60 loss due to taxes.
These kinds of issues and questions are the sort of things the voters will have on their minds. And the sort of thing that will cause many to vote no because they can't see how this benefits them over the hedge funds etc that generally are the only ones that benefit from preferred shares
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac_dog
if steve were alive, he'd rip this guy such a huge new asshole. too bad tim isn't mouthy when apple needs it.
As a shareholder I feel like Tim is doing this the right way. If he just told this man to kick rocks like Steve would have, it leaves things open for shareholder proposals etc. This way it was a 'vote of the people' and less likely to cause flak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo
Apple stock = iFizzle. They need to stop talking about Apple's 'value'. This company's value is an embarrassment to any shareholder. Google headed towards $1000. Apple headed towards $400. Forget it. Apple better learn to cook it's books or something before the value reaches zero.
Im a shareholder and I'm not embarrassed about the value. Pissed perhaps but not embarrassed.
why pissed? Because the drop in value had nothing to do with Apple, its products etc. it was all about the blogs, the analysts etc talking shit about what apple is doing, should be doing, sales estimates that are based on no data about anything. They need to shut up like yesterday.
I look forward to voting down each and everyone of these stupid ideas.
Just because someone declares that the shares have a face value of some number does not mean the market will value it at that number.
Someone please explain it.
Easy. Preferred shares are issued at a set price, usually $25 or $50, and move very little from there. The exception is if the preferred shares convert to common stock, a la the new General Motors.
The question you should have asked is how Apple common stock only goes down by $20. Logic has it that if the company pulls $50 of value out of the common stock (as a cash dividend, stock dividend, or issuance of "iPerfs") then the common stock will initially drop by $50.
You think the rich and wealthy ever have plans that benefit anyone but themselves? This is obviously yet another greed grab and an exclusion of all people by way of classifying some as preferred and some as ... well, not.
Originally Posted by dysamoria
You think the rich and wealthy ever have plans that benefit anyone but themselves?
Yes. It's not the case here, but yes.
I listened online to his entire proposal and found it interesting. A couple of points I would like to make.
1) The issuance of iperfs stock and future dividends would not touch any of Apple's $137B cash hoard. Apple would pay the dividends from future free cash flow. The only way Apple would ever touch the $137B would be if they decided to buy up the iperfs, which this proposal says won't happen. But if it did Apple would pay out about $47B.
2) Since this proposal does not touch any of the offshore money Apple has, some $94B, Apple can wait and see if there is going to be a "tax holiday" and if there is then take advantage of the lower tax rates and issue a special dividend or repurchase at that time. If the holiday is like the 2004 one, that would mean Apple, i.e., we shareholders could save up to $30B in taxes.
3) As to how he came up with the $430 share price is that he accounts for the effect of paying the dividends on the iperfs which would lessen Apple's future EPS by $2 and using a 10x P/E you get the $20 hit to share price. EPS estimates are $45 - $2 payout = $43 x 10 P/E = $430.
4) As a long, long term shareholder (1999) he really got my attention when he stated, "Apple has been innovative in hardware, software, retail and supplier management and here is a way for them to be innovative financially."
5) There would seem a real market for this. A 4% return backed by the financial strength of Apple would be very attractive to value investors.
6) Am I sold? No. I have a number of questions like tax ramifications, legality, etc. But I found the slides and presentation thought provoking and look forward to read other's, smarter than I, tear this apart and see if it makes sense or not.
Bottomline, $137B is a wonderful problem to have!
Kinda interesting but at the end of the day it really provides very little other than something new for Wall St to trade in.
Count me in the "No need for it" camp.
Return value to shareholders through buy back & divs, so there's a decreasing amount of shares on the market - that'll push the price up slowly but surely over time thereby unlocking value.
Apples BoD dont need any advice they're doing great.
16 B in the last quarter - shheeit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmarcoot
Utter BS and as a long term AAPL owner will vote down on these. Now that Apple has a cash pile they want to walk in and drink the milk shake and walk away. They milked it for all the growth (they) could imagine, now they want the cash. They know its not good for investors like myself who have owned Apple longer and continue to own it longer than Einhorn. That why they don't want it to come to a share holder vote. This is an attempt at extortion to arm twist Apple's board to issue these preferred shares at the expense of the majority of owners. Einhorn can GO-Up and Eff himself
Nope. What he is proposing is good for you (and for him). As for a shareholder vote, this would pass with flying colors, since most shares (68%, according to Yahoo finance) are held by institutions, who have people who actually understand what he is proposing, which is: to give each shareholder of record a bond (which is what preferred stock is), which pays 4% on the face value a year forever, for free. 4% is actually too rich if you believe that inflation is going to be 2.5%, the present value of such an instrument is going to be 1.6 times face value, so if you want it to be worth face value, it should pay something like 2.5%. Then, see, if you want to hold AAPL common (and the sequence of insanely great products) forever, you can. Just sell the preferred you get in the mail (actually, virtually), and use the $50 to buy more common. If, on the other hand, you are retiring and can't take the risk, sell your common, and buy more preferred, in the knowledge that the ghost of Steve will prevent Apple from welching on their obligation, and you (and your heirs and successors) will clip coupons for eternity.
This is better than a special dividend (which would require repatriating the cash), better than a $0.50 bump in quarterly payouts (since will produce an immediate massive bump in stock price, which a $0.50 bump will not), and similarly with a stock buyback (without repartriating the capital, with all the tax consequences, or depleting the war chest, such a buyback will not have a great effect on stock price).
I really don't understand this hatred towards Einhorn, and his proposal. It might be that the board thinks that it's the wrong thing for some reason (quite possible), but there is nothing unreasonable about the proposal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftinaerospace
I listened online to his entire proposal and found it interesting. A couple of points I would like to make.
1) The issuance of iperfs stock and future dividends would not touch any of Apple's $137B cash hoard. Apple would pay the dividends from future free cash flow. The only way Apple would ever touch the $137B would be if they decided to buy up the iperfs, which this proposal says won't happen. But if it did Apple would pay out about $47B.
2) Since this proposal does not touch any of the offshore money Apple has, some $94B, Apple can wait and see if there is going to be a "tax holiday" and if there is then take advantage of the lower tax rates and issue a special dividend or repurchase at that time. If the holiday is like the 2004 one, that would mean Apple, i.e., we shareholders could save up to $30B in taxes.
3) As to how he came up with the $430 share price is that he accounts for the effect of paying the dividends on the iperfs which would lessen Apple's future EPS by $2 and using a 10x P/E you get the $20 hit to share price. EPS estimates are $45 - $2 payout = $43 x 10 P/E = $430.
4) As a long, long term shareholder (1999) he really got my attention when he stated, "Apple has been innovative in hardware, software, retail and supplier management and here is a way for them to be innovative financially."
5) There would seem a real market for this. A 4% return backed by the financial strength of Apple would be very attractive to value investors.
6) Am I sold? No. I have a number of questions like tax ramifications, legality, etc. But I found the slides and presentation thought provoking and look forward to read other's, smarter than I, tear this apart and see if it makes sense or not.
Bottomline, $137B is a wonderful problem to have!
The whole iPrefs idea is stupid. There is no such thing as unlocking value through "financial engineering." You cannot restructure the liability side of the balance sheet and increase the value of the company.
Apple's balance sheet is strong, pristine, and uncomplicated. That's the way I like it. The liability side has only Equity and Cash. Don't need no stupid preferreds.
Apple is trading where it is because the the entire Wall Street "herd" has come to the conclusion that Apple's growth has slowed and that this is the beginning of the "inevitable" decline. Inevitable decline, my a$$. What nobody seems to consider is that even if growth slows and Apple's revenues remain flat, Apple will keep adding $60 to $70 per share in cash every year to its balance sheet. That is a 15% cash flow yield. Soon, the "herd" will realize that Apple is a bargain and the stock will rise. This happens very often, and not just to Apple's stock.
This company has the best management team in the industry, perhaps all industries. They didn't get to be the best by listening to jackasses on Wall Street. They will come up with products that people will stand in long lines for.
Buy the stock. Have faith. Be patient.
Within a very short period the preferred will end up in the hands of the super rich and hedge funds.
Theyll ramp the price of those up quicker than anything. No one else would be able to play in that league - then they'll short that too.
What happens when an inflationary period comes along - another vote called by ipref holders - 4% ain't enough we own the company etc;
Cant see any good coming from this apart from short term gain for a few despite what some might think.
I am against Apple buying its own shares. It hasn't done anything to date to bring the stock price up or stabilize it. I favor a stock split. I understand why Apple hasn't split the stock in a while. Keeping the price high attracted institutional investors and it thought that would lead to a more stable price. That no longer is working. Apple now needs more small investors. Splitting the stock accomplishes that goal.
I would need to know more about the preferred shares idea. Preferred shares if given to all holders of the stock seem similar to a stock split, but with a lower quarterly payout.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen
The whole iPrefs idea is stupid. There is no such thing as unlocking value through "financial engineering." You cannot restructure the liability side of the balance sheet and increase the value of the company.
Apple's balance sheet is strong, pristine, and uncomplicated. That's the way I like it. The liability side has only Equity and Cash. Don't need no stupid preferreds.
Apple is trading where it is because the the entire Wall Street "herd" has come to the conclusion that Apple's growth has slowed and that this is the beginning of the "inevitable" decline. Inevitable decline, my a$$. What nobody seems to consider is that even if growth slows and Apple's revenues remain flat, Apple will keep adding $60 to $70 per share in cash every year to its balance sheet. That is a 15% cash flow yield. Soon, the "herd" will realize that Apple is a bargain and the stock will rise. This happens very often, and not just to Apple's stock.
This company has the best management team in the industry, perhaps all industries. They didn't get to be the best by listening to jackasses on Wall Street. They will come up with products that people will stand in long lines for.
Buy the stock. Have faith. Be patient.
As far as I can tell, Apple's cash hoard is generating no income. With price inflation running at 2.5% (monetary inflation is another story), keeping $140 in a mattress loses us Apple shareholders $4BN A YEAR, which is equal to (if not greater than) the entire profit generated by their computer operation. Is virginity worth it? Also, where did you come up with the $60/70 per year figure? It is closer to $40.
As for your comment about financial engineering, no, THAT is stupid. How do you think Goldman Sachs makes its money? It borrows on the short end of the yield curve (at 5 basis points), and lends (to the government, that is, to you and me) on the long/medium end at 2%. No muss, no fuss, like taking candy from a baby. But now note that Apple (that is, you and me again, assuming you actually own any of the stock) is the baby, lending its cash out at 5 bps...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
I am against Apple buying its own shares. It hasn't done anything to date to bring the stock price up or stabilize it. I favor a stock split. I understand why Apple hasn't split the stock in a while. Keeping the price high attracted institutional investors and it thought that would lead to a more stable price. That no longer is working. Apple now needs more small investors. Splitting the stock accomplishes that goal.
I would need to know more about the preferred shares idea. Preferred shares if given to all holders of the stock seem similar to a stock split, but with a lower quarterly payout.
Preferred shares is NOTHING like a stock split. The only point of a stock split is to lower the stock price, to lower the barrier to entry to retail punters. What Einhorn is suggesting is to split the stock into a stock and a bond, so you can invest in apple for growth (in common) or for yield (in the preferred) -- since the preferred stock is supposed to be liquid, you can mix and match in any proportion you like. The "unlocking the value" thing is correct in that this flexibility is worth a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmarcoot
You have no idea of what you speak. That you speak of share price proved your a fool. In fact, your entire post is idiotic babble with a childs understanding of Wall Street and investing.
I believe he is being sarcastic.
Companies like Amazon and google are favored over Apple is because of whatever they are doing to their books.
People like einhorn and company should also be demanding preferred shares and dividends from them since they are much better prospects at growth than Apple deemed and favored by them.
I'd like to see one of these hedge funds back themselves. Ipo the whole 9 yards instead just working the middle.
Einhorn could short sell himself.
The whole dividend angle is a smokes screen for current shareholders, as is the 60% added value garbage that Einhorn has pulled out of thin air. If you are holding a 400-500 dollar share for a 2 dollar a year dividend ...