I don't care that Apple wants to make a dent in the universe. I just want to squeeze all I can out of the overripe AAPL before they remove Tim Cook. /s
This may sound stupid, but sometimes I wish Apple could just buy back all of its stock and go private. Then it could focus on Apple being Apple and not having to worry about all of these stupid things like this.
I am always honest, and finance is not exactly my field, even though I do dabble in stocks here and there.
Now, if the subject was about Fandroids or about how much Android sucks, then I consider myself to be highly qualified, and I have no problems with sharing those sorts of opinions.
I agree that you are an expert about all things that suck. And If Apple would just ignore that pollution stuff with their suppliers that is happening on the other side of the world, (you know, that third-world place) then APPL's climb back to $1000 will be that much quicker.
First, what follows bellow does not in any way alter the intrinsic value of Apple. 1+1 does not equal something more than two. Einhorn's proposal simply forces the market to recognize the true value of Apple, Inc.
I'm going to add one twist to the Einhorn proposal and in doing so it will make his proposal easier to understand without altering the true nature of his proposal in any material way. Einhorn's original proposal without alteration is the more practical way, and again, I alter it solely in aiding its understanding.
The twist: Einhorn proposes that Apple issue preferred stock to existing common holders with a stated yield of say, 4% of par value. But, let's alter one aspect of that, instead of issuing the preferreds to common stock holders, let us have Apple issue them directly to the market. Par value will be 460 per share (same as common value when Einhorn's proposal was made public) and we will assume an equal number of preferred shares as the common shares. That is to say, the proceeds from the preferred issuance will equal the market cap of Apple or $430 billion (again, roughly at the time Einhorn's proposal was made public).
The Proposal: Apple issues $430 billion worth of preferred stock with a 4% yield and par value of 460 dollars per share. After issuance, Apple will have an additional $430 billion in cash which it will immediately pay out as a one time dividend to the common stock holders. That is, if you purchase one share of common today for 460 dollars, Apple will return to you 460 dollars of dividend tomorrow. Got that?
Now, where do we stand? You just received 460 dollars cash dividend for each share of common that you own. You still own the share, same as before, but now, Apple is obligated to pay from earnings to the preferred stock holders 17.2 billion dollars per year (that's 4% of the 430 billion dollars worth of preferreds).
If Apple's free cash flow is $32 billion per year (that's my number but feel free to use your own or to use GAAP annual earnings if you must), then after paying preferred dividends of 17 billion dollars, Apple will have 15 billion dollars in cash earnings per year left over for the common stock holder (32 billion - 17 billion = 15 billion).
That's 15 billion dollars in free cash flow. If we apply to that a more than reasonable P/E multiple of say 10 times, we produce a present value of 150 billion dollars (15 billion * 10). In addition to that, Apple still has 137 billion dollars in cash on its balance sheet and in the bank so to speak. To figure out what our common shares are worth, we need to add the 137 billion in cash to the 150 billion of present value from above. Both together equals 287 billion dollars in remaining value for Apple's common stock holders. If we have about 935 million shares, then the price per share for common after Einhorn's proposal is approximately 300 dollars per share. Got that?
To sum up the common stock, you received 460 dollars per share of cash dividend and in return were left with common stock worth approximately 300 dollars per share for a grand total of 760 dollars per share.
But surely there must be some chicanery here? No, not really. Like I said above, Einhorn's proposal merely forces the market to recognize Apple's true value. 1+1 still equals 2.
Oh, BTW, there is one thing to further consider, but neither Einhorn nor I will tell you what that is, and it is the main reason why his proposal was structured the way he structured it.
My suggestion: buy Apple stock. Hope Apple does what Einhorn suggest, but understand the value will not change materially either way. Einhorn's plan just forces the issue faster, and again, that one other thing...
But you seem to miss the point: Einhorn is a money manager, therefore he is evil, therefore everything he says is wrong! Just because it makes sense, and will put money in the pockets of Apple shareholders, and will correct the gross inefficiencies in the management of the company is no reason to accept it.
Einhorn's proposal seems needlessly complicated, and that's reason enough to be suspicious. Does it really need to be just to disburse dividends? Why bother with preferred stock at all?
Something bigger must be done, but I would prefer it wasn't a hedge fund manager promoting an alternative plan.
Einhorn won his lawsuit. Fine. But, is he getting his iPrefs? No way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
No he hasn't. He won a hearing and an injunction until that hearing. But the judgement hasn't been made. It might not go in his favor in the end.
And even if he won, nothing in the suit would result in dividends or buyback. Hell it wouldn't even result in preferred shares since the issue was who has the power to control them. A win would leave it in the hands of the Board and they could drop issuing preferreds
Yes, Charlie. Einhorn won his lawsuit. The judge granted an injunction that Einhorn wanted to prevent bundling of proposals for the purposes of a proxy vote. That's it. There is no hearing scheduled. Apple will either have to reprint the proxy materials (I don't think there is time for that), in effect "unbundling" the proposals, or bring the three proposals up for separate votes at the next annual meeting.
So, for the time being, Einhorn got what he wanted. An injunction. Nothing more. And, nothing forces the Board to issue iPrefs. In fact, I bet they will not, just to send a signal to Einhorn that he can just go and f**k himself. And, to kill the idea of iPrefs permanently, they will do as I said before - increase dividends, or buybacks, or both.
"This is a significant win for all Apple shareholders and for good corporate governance," Einhorn said, according to <em>Financial Times</em> reporter Tim Bradshaw.
I just read the judge's ruling, and I'll guarantee Einhorn is hoping most people will not.
In his own argument, Einhorn declares that he wanted the Apple board to use its "blank check" power to issue his opportunistic infection securities. He wants the proposals unbundled so he can vote his shares against Apple's plan to eliminate the board's "blank check" power. This is the opposite of a win for all Apple shareholders and good for corporate governance. He knows he has a better chance of strong arming the board than he does of feeding a shit sandwich to all the other shareholders.
Apple simply needs to create a true policy with what it intends to do with cash in the bank.
It is entirely within its rights to maintain a GROWING savings, regardless of how many billions.
The company makes a lot of money, but SPENDS a lot to do so.
I am happy that the company i invest in is so well managed that it has ammassed a hedge against economic hard times for the forseeable future.
Anyone trying to divest Apple of any percentage of that hedge is not only undermining Apple, but undermining shareholders and stakeholders at the same time. It weakens the company against the prospect of uncertain economic shifts.
So Apple needs to create bylaws with what to do with it's savings.
Best thing would be to allow for some appeasement each time a savings milestone is reached.
That would allow for some to get a little extra in their pocket while at the same time allowing apple to continue to grow its savings.
If Apple were to have 2 trillion in the bank, everyone should shut up about it. 3 trillion may sound like too much to have in savings, but at the rate Apple's competitors copy them and get away with it added to the rate at which Apple's business is expanding, 3 trillion doesn't seem so excessive. Especially for a company who's cap surpassed Exxon for a while.
Apple simply needs to create a true policy with what it intends to do with cash in the bank.
It is entirely within its rights to maintain a GROWING savings, regardless of how many billions.
The company makes a lot of money, but SPENDS a lot to do so.
I am happy that the company i invest in is so well managed that it has ammassed a hedge against economic hard times for the forseeable future.
Anyone trying to divest Apple of any percentage of that hedge is not only undermining Apple, but undermining shareholders and stakeholders at the same time. It weakens the company against the prospect of uncertain economic shifts.
So Apple needs to create bylaws with what to do with it's savings.
Best thing would be to allow for some appeasement each time a savings milestone is reached.
That would allow for some to get a little extra in their pocket while at the same time allowing apple to continue to grow its savings.
If Apple were to have 2 trillion in the bank, everyone should shut up about it. 3 trillion may sound like too much to have in savings, but at the rate Apple's competitors copy them and get away with it added to the rate at which Apple's business is expanding, 3 trillion doesn't seem so excessive. Especially for a company who's cap surpassed Exxon for a while.
I agree with you. I feel that Apple act in the best interest of the company and their shareholders, as conservative as it may be, although, I do feel that they should be a little bit less vague than they have been. An aggressive share buy-back will send a clear signal to all concerned that they are more than confident in their future, on top of Tim Cook's words that he is confident in the company's product pipeline..
If this kind of financial alchemy could so easily create value, what makes you think that hundreds of companies wouldn't have done this long ago?
Value creation from Apple's core business, and the belief that market values will converge to intrinsic value, in a sensible market with a reasonable horizon, is the sole reason to hold the stock. All else is financial engineering b-s.
The last paragraph, particularly, echoes my own view! When I expressed that view to a friend, there was Yes, plus this Comment:
It's not meritocracy!
So, between the Analysts, and Talking Heads on CNBC…, there is so much Verbal BS Fog!!!! It keeps snowballing into greater AAPL Negativity! Then the usual Pump and Dump Conspiracy Thinking comes up again:
"They" are trying to Talk Down AAPL, so that they can come back and Buy it for less later!!! A self-fulfilled, guaranteed profit!"
I also refuse to believe that Apple Board, and the rest of Apple's Leadership Team are Old Fashioned, Clueless bunch, that they have not considered Einhorn's Ideas, before this topic went public!!! Just look at how far they've taken Apple already! And, even with it's current losses, Apple is still Huge, and Envy of too many to mention! Apple will find its own way to return Cash to its Shareholders! It might use some ideas from Einhorn, or not!
Apple has their own Game Plan, Vision, and Einhorn and others can only guess what it is, and share those guesses via headlines!
It would be sad to find out if all this EinhornGate is about Ego Clashes, PR Stunts, or some AAPL Manipulation!!!
During the recent Wall St. Crash, words like Financial Instruments, Derivatives etc were frequently used in the media! For my own Ease Of Use, I translated them into House Of Cards, I-OWE-USE, with a Ton of Convoluted Legalese, giving Legal Outs, so nobody goes to jail…. I don't know if Einhorn's Ideas fall into that Category! Maybe he is trying to have Apple's Cash make More Cash, i.e. Put That Cash To Work? But then I come back to the same Question as you have asked:
"If this kind of financial alchemy could so easily create value, what makes you think that hundreds of companies wouldn't have done this long ago?"
So there must be some Questions about the Details of what Einhorn is proposing!!! Either way, he is definitely making a name for himself, but I don't understand this stuff enough to call it a PR Stunt, or to get into Conspiracy Theories!!!!
I can't wait for a Speedy Resolution of this EinhornGate Topic!
I can't wait for the Wall St. BS vs AAPL to stop!
Among Apple's Biggest Strength is SUPPORT!!!!
AppleCare, Stores!!!! Android, Samsung etc - are mostly Catch Me If You Can, Do It Yourself Hell!
Apple has to Remind The World about their SUPPORT in the LOUDEST WAY, AT ALL TIMES, WORLDWIDE!!!
That SUPPORT REMINDER should be LOUDER than any and all Wall St. anti AAPL BS!!!
As to another Buzz Word, Innovation:
Most people who invoke that word, are likely very Light Tech Users! To them Innovation is probably some New Button, or some Meaningless Spec that they heard about! The Tech Glitz as such is often meant to fool the Average Users, who hardly know the Full Potential of their Devices!
To me, even if there were no New Products from Apple for a while, Innovation is when the Current Stuff works a lot better, does a lot more, in a more efficient way etc!!!
Besides Support, Apple must do even more Educational Outreach as to Apple Entire Echo System!!! That way, it will hopefully be harder for Wall St. manipulators to dumb down things for those who don't know any better!!!
I really get tired of stock market folks trying to run Apple the way typical companies run...with a focus on the quarterly numbers rather than a long term vision.
Hopefully people will see through his self-serving charade and vote down the proposal and allow the most successful company in the world continue doing what they do that got them there.
It won't make that much of a difference in the end. They will rule against the bundling and at the next. meeting there will be three items to vote on. Meanwhile the Board won't issue any preferreds.
Exactly. He just cost Apple some money in legal fees and nothing's going to change.
The Proposal: Apple issues $430 billion worth of preferred stock with a 4% yield and par value of 460 dollars per share. After issuance, Apple will have an additional $430 billion in cash which it will immediately pay out as a one time dividend to the common stock holders. That is, if you purchase one share of common today for 460 dollars, Apple will return to you 460 dollars of dividend tomorrow. Got that?
Now, where do we stand? You just received 460 dollars cash dividend for each share of common that you own. You still own the share, same as before, but now, Apple is obligated to pay from earnings to the preferred stock holders 17.2 billion dollars per year (that's 4% of the 430 billion dollars worth of preferreds).
You forgot to mention - you pay $150 in taxes on the $460 dividend you received. So you end up paying a fortune in taxes and are no better off.
The entire thing is ridiculous. Preferred shares don't affect Apple's ability to distribute money to shareholders one bit. Apple could distribute their entire cash holdings to shareholders today if they wanted to - even without preferred shares.
Ultimately, it's advantageous for people like Einhorn because most of the population doesn't understand it and can easily be duped by people who know how it works. Your post is a great example.
Comments
That's the spirit!
Not stupid at all. Public ownership sucks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I am always honest, and finance is not exactly my field, even though I do dabble in stocks here and there.
Now, if the subject was about Fandroids or about how much Android sucks, then I consider myself to be highly qualified, and I have no problems with sharing those sorts of opinions.
I agree that you are an expert about all things that suck. And If Apple would just ignore that pollution stuff with their suppliers that is happening on the other side of the world, (you know, that third-world place) then APPL's climb back to $1000 will be that much quicker.
Just sayin'
Quote:
Originally Posted by applesupertramp
The simple math behind David Einhorn's proposal:
First, what follows bellow does not in any way alter the intrinsic value of Apple. 1+1 does not equal something more than two. Einhorn's proposal simply forces the market to recognize the true value of Apple, Inc.
I'm going to add one twist to the Einhorn proposal and in doing so it will make his proposal easier to understand without altering the true nature of his proposal in any material way. Einhorn's original proposal without alteration is the more practical way, and again, I alter it solely in aiding its understanding.
The twist: Einhorn proposes that Apple issue preferred stock to existing common holders with a stated yield of say, 4% of par value. But, let's alter one aspect of that, instead of issuing the preferreds to common stock holders, let us have Apple issue them directly to the market. Par value will be 460 per share (same as common value when Einhorn's proposal was made public) and we will assume an equal number of preferred shares as the common shares. That is to say, the proceeds from the preferred issuance will equal the market cap of Apple or $430 billion (again, roughly at the time Einhorn's proposal was made public).
The Proposal: Apple issues $430 billion worth of preferred stock with a 4% yield and par value of 460 dollars per share. After issuance, Apple will have an additional $430 billion in cash which it will immediately pay out as a one time dividend to the common stock holders. That is, if you purchase one share of common today for 460 dollars, Apple will return to you 460 dollars of dividend tomorrow. Got that?
Now, where do we stand? You just received 460 dollars cash dividend for each share of common that you own. You still own the share, same as before, but now, Apple is obligated to pay from earnings to the preferred stock holders 17.2 billion dollars per year (that's 4% of the 430 billion dollars worth of preferreds).
If Apple's free cash flow is $32 billion per year (that's my number but feel free to use your own or to use GAAP annual earnings if you must), then after paying preferred dividends of 17 billion dollars, Apple will have 15 billion dollars in cash earnings per year left over for the common stock holder (32 billion - 17 billion = 15 billion).
That's 15 billion dollars in free cash flow. If we apply to that a more than reasonable P/E multiple of say 10 times, we produce a present value of 150 billion dollars (15 billion * 10). In addition to that, Apple still has 137 billion dollars in cash on its balance sheet and in the bank so to speak. To figure out what our common shares are worth, we need to add the 137 billion in cash to the 150 billion of present value from above. Both together equals 287 billion dollars in remaining value for Apple's common stock holders. If we have about 935 million shares, then the price per share for common after Einhorn's proposal is approximately 300 dollars per share. Got that?
To sum up the common stock, you received 460 dollars per share of cash dividend and in return were left with common stock worth approximately 300 dollars per share for a grand total of 760 dollars per share.
But surely there must be some chicanery here? No, not really. Like I said above, Einhorn's proposal merely forces the market to recognize Apple's true value. 1+1 still equals 2.
Oh, BTW, there is one thing to further consider, but neither Einhorn nor I will tell you what that is, and it is the main reason why his proposal was structured the way he structured it.
My suggestion: buy Apple stock. Hope Apple does what Einhorn suggest, but understand the value will not change materially either way. Einhorn's plan just forces the issue faster, and again, that one other thing...
But you seem to miss the point: Einhorn is a money manager, therefore he is evil, therefore everything he says is wrong! Just because it makes sense, and will put money in the pockets of Apple shareholders, and will correct the gross inefficiencies in the management of the company is no reason to accept it.
Einhorn's proposal seems needlessly complicated, and that's reason enough to be suspicious. Does it really need to be just to disburse dividends? Why bother with preferred stock at all?
Something bigger must be done, but I would prefer it wasn't a hedge fund manager promoting an alternative plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen
Einhorn won his lawsuit. Fine. But, is he getting his iPrefs? No way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
No he hasn't. He won a hearing and an injunction until that hearing. But the judgement hasn't been made. It might not go in his favor in the end.
And even if he won, nothing in the suit would result in dividends or buyback. Hell it wouldn't even result in preferred shares since the issue was who has the power to control them. A win would leave it in the hands of the Board and they could drop issuing preferreds
Yes, Charlie. Einhorn won his lawsuit. The judge granted an injunction that Einhorn wanted to prevent bundling of proposals for the purposes of a proxy vote. That's it. There is no hearing scheduled. Apple will either have to reprint the proxy materials (I don't think there is time for that), in effect "unbundling" the proposals, or bring the three proposals up for separate votes at the next annual meeting.
So, for the time being, Einhorn got what he wanted. An injunction. Nothing more. And, nothing forces the Board to issue iPrefs. In fact, I bet they will not, just to send a signal to Einhorn that he can just go and f**k himself. And, to kill the idea of iPrefs permanently, they will do as I said before - increase dividends, or buybacks, or both.
Fix this crap in your code templates. It looks unprofessional.
This A-hole is driving this preferred BS to shelter billions tax free.
Screw him and his shareholders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AKaplan123
Irrelevant. No preferred stock and Apple will submit a modified amendment giving SH right to vote on preferred stock issue. Irrelevant.
Right and it will be voted down.
I just read the judge's ruling, and I'll guarantee Einhorn is hoping most people will not.
In his own argument, Einhorn declares that he wanted the Apple board to use its "blank check" power to issue his opportunistic infection securities. He wants the proposals unbundled so he can vote his shares against Apple's plan to eliminate the board's "blank check" power. This is the opposite of a win for all Apple shareholders and good for corporate governance. He knows he has a better chance of strong arming the board than he does of feeding a shit sandwich to all the other shareholders.
Very good point. Anyone who reads the judge's ruling will see that several of Einhorn's corporate entities are "offshore".
They're frantically reading ahead in "Teach Yourself HTML and JavaScript in 21 Days" to fix it.
It is entirely within its rights to maintain a GROWING savings, regardless of how many billions.
The company makes a lot of money, but SPENDS a lot to do so.
I am happy that the company i invest in is so well managed that it has ammassed a hedge against economic hard times for the forseeable future.
Anyone trying to divest Apple of any percentage of that hedge is not only undermining Apple, but undermining shareholders and stakeholders at the same time. It weakens the company against the prospect of uncertain economic shifts.
So Apple needs to create bylaws with what to do with it's savings.
Best thing would be to allow for some appeasement each time a savings milestone is reached.
That would allow for some to get a little extra in their pocket while at the same time allowing apple to continue to grow its savings.
If Apple were to have 2 trillion in the bank, everyone should shut up about it. 3 trillion may sound like too much to have in savings, but at the rate Apple's competitors copy them and get away with it added to the rate at which Apple's business is expanding, 3 trillion doesn't seem so excessive. Especially for a company who's cap surpassed Exxon for a while.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko
So Apple needs to create bylaws with what to do with it's savings.
Best thing would be to allow for some appeasement each time a savings milestone is reached.
Care to show us an example of a large, well-run public company that does this? And, details of such bylaws?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko
Apple simply needs to create a true policy with what it intends to do with cash in the bank.
It is entirely within its rights to maintain a GROWING savings, regardless of how many billions.
The company makes a lot of money, but SPENDS a lot to do so.
I am happy that the company i invest in is so well managed that it has ammassed a hedge against economic hard times for the forseeable future.
Anyone trying to divest Apple of any percentage of that hedge is not only undermining Apple, but undermining shareholders and stakeholders at the same time. It weakens the company against the prospect of uncertain economic shifts.
So Apple needs to create bylaws with what to do with it's savings.
Best thing would be to allow for some appeasement each time a savings milestone is reached.
That would allow for some to get a little extra in their pocket while at the same time allowing apple to continue to grow its savings.
If Apple were to have 2 trillion in the bank, everyone should shut up about it. 3 trillion may sound like too much to have in savings, but at the rate Apple's competitors copy them and get away with it added to the rate at which Apple's business is expanding, 3 trillion doesn't seem so excessive. Especially for a company who's cap surpassed Exxon for a while.
I agree with you. I feel that Apple act in the best interest of the company and their shareholders, as conservative as it may be, although, I do feel that they should be a little bit less vague than they have been. An aggressive share buy-back will send a clear signal to all concerned that they are more than confident in their future, on top of Tim Cook's words that he is confident in the company's product pipeline..
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
What an utterly clueless post.
If this kind of financial alchemy could so easily create value, what makes you think that hundreds of companies wouldn't have done this long ago?
Value creation from Apple's core business, and the belief that market values will converge to intrinsic value, in a sensible market with a reasonable horizon, is the sole reason to hold the stock. All else is financial engineering b-s.
The last paragraph, particularly, echoes my own view! When I expressed that view to a friend, there was Yes, plus this Comment:
It's not meritocracy!
So, between the Analysts, and Talking Heads on CNBC…, there is so much Verbal BS Fog!!!! It keeps snowballing into greater AAPL Negativity! Then the usual Pump and Dump Conspiracy Thinking comes up again:
"They" are trying to Talk Down AAPL, so that they can come back and Buy it for less later!!! A self-fulfilled, guaranteed profit!"
I also refuse to believe that Apple Board, and the rest of Apple's Leadership Team are Old Fashioned, Clueless bunch, that they have not considered Einhorn's Ideas, before this topic went public!!! Just look at how far they've taken Apple already! And, even with it's current losses, Apple is still Huge, and Envy of too many to mention! Apple will find its own way to return Cash to its Shareholders! It might use some ideas from Einhorn, or not!
Apple has their own Game Plan, Vision, and Einhorn and others can only guess what it is, and share those guesses via headlines!
It would be sad to find out if all this EinhornGate is about Ego Clashes, PR Stunts, or some AAPL Manipulation!!!
During the recent Wall St. Crash, words like Financial Instruments, Derivatives etc were frequently used in the media! For my own Ease Of Use, I translated them into House Of Cards, I-OWE-USE, with a Ton of Convoluted Legalese, giving Legal Outs, so nobody goes to jail…. I don't know if Einhorn's Ideas fall into that Category! Maybe he is trying to have Apple's Cash make More Cash, i.e. Put That Cash To Work? But then I come back to the same Question as you have asked:
"If this kind of financial alchemy could so easily create value, what makes you think that hundreds of companies wouldn't have done this long ago?"
So there must be some Questions about the Details of what Einhorn is proposing!!! Either way, he is definitely making a name for himself, but I don't understand this stuff enough to call it a PR Stunt, or to get into Conspiracy Theories!!!!
I can't wait for a Speedy Resolution of this EinhornGate Topic!
I can't wait for the Wall St. BS vs AAPL to stop!
Among Apple's Biggest Strength is SUPPORT!!!!
AppleCare, Stores!!!! Android, Samsung etc - are mostly Catch Me If You Can, Do It Yourself Hell!
Apple has to Remind The World about their SUPPORT in the LOUDEST WAY, AT ALL TIMES, WORLDWIDE!!!
That SUPPORT REMINDER should be LOUDER than any and all Wall St. anti AAPL BS!!!
As to another Buzz Word, Innovation:
Most people who invoke that word, are likely very Light Tech Users! To them Innovation is probably some New Button, or some Meaningless Spec that they heard about! The Tech Glitz as such is often meant to fool the Average Users, who hardly know the Full Potential of their Devices!
To me, even if there were no New Products from Apple for a while, Innovation is when the Current Stuff works a lot better, does a lot more, in a more efficient way etc!!!
Besides Support, Apple must do even more Educational Outreach as to Apple Entire Echo System!!! That way, it will hopefully be harder for Wall St. manipulators to dumb down things for those who don't know any better!!!
Hopefully people will see through his self-serving charade and vote down the proposal and allow the most successful company in the world continue doing what they do that got them there.
Exactly. He just cost Apple some money in legal fees and nothing's going to change.
You forgot to mention - you pay $150 in taxes on the $460 dividend you received. So you end up paying a fortune in taxes and are no better off.
The entire thing is ridiculous. Preferred shares don't affect Apple's ability to distribute money to shareholders one bit. Apple could distribute their entire cash holdings to shareholders today if they wanted to - even without preferred shares.
Ultimately, it's advantageous for people like Einhorn because most of the population doesn't understand it and can easily be duped by people who know how it works. Your post is a great example.