Downside to 'applesupertramps' mutation of the Einhorn proposal -- a sudden huge cash dividend like that would
create a tax nightmare for many. When holding AAPL in a taxable account (even if classified as a "qualified dividend")
this could slingshot some modest holders into paying 23.8% of that to the feds, plus another 10% in state tax
in several states). Many of us would prefer a steady dividend that doesn't boost one into a higher tax bracket.
That is a good point. I am conjecturing that he (applesupertramps) was modifying the proposal to make it clearer what it was about, and not actually suggesting this as a better course of action...
Just to explain it further to the other person, it is not uncommon for these large corporations to have similar sounding names in their subsidiaries so it's easy to be confused. It might have Megagroup, Inc (corporation) for the holding company and then have lots of different Megagroup subsidiaries with similar names. Some of these might be LLC or LP organizations - which is probably the case with the letter he cited.
I assume that I am the "other person". Anyway, see my response (probably just above) for what the situation actually is. I appreciate your desire to "explain it further", but I actually know a fair bit about the money management business (though there is always more to learn...)
Finally, for the personal matters. Firstly, I don't give a flying f*** if I get censured, but I don't appreciate being threatened. Nor do I appreciate being called a liar, or being talked down to (as in "Got it?", or "let me give you some advice") -- you have no idea who I am, what I know, or what I do. Any person who does any of these things, and does not expend the effort to make sure his factual statements are correct, to boot is an idiot in my book, but I am willing to give you a pass this once -- we all have bad days, and this may have been one of yours.
Got it?
Got it. You don't 'appreciate' being at the receiving end of things that you clearly like to dish out yourself?
Got it. You don't 'appreciate' being at the receiving end of things that you clearly like to dish out yourself?
Who "threatened" you over what? Paranoid much?
Re the first paragraph: I don't think I called you dishonest, but otherwise, correct, I don't like to be insulted, and I don't like the insulters then becoming arbiters of discussion style (once they have gotten their own insults in).
As for the second: "You'll get reported and likely be warned". What would you call that?
Greenlight Capital in your SEC filing is the management company, which is an investment advisor running all these partnerships. It owns nothing, except the services of David Einhorn and his associates. For providing these services, it gets a management fee, which is a flat percentage of AUM, and is (minus the expenses, such as people's salary, rent on office space, and so on) taxed as ordinary income.
Perhaps you can then explain why this corporation reports "regulatory assets under management (AUM") -- see Box F of the SEC filing -- of $8.837B?
As for the second: "You'll get reported and likely be warned". What would you call that?
I was simply explaining what the norm here at AI is -- generally, these things get reported, posters get warned (I've had that happen to me, so nothing personal there), and AI moderators often edit such content. (Indeed, I see that your insult got edited out).
The fact that you chose to interpret that as a "threat" is a bit creepy, to say the least......
One more thing: To say that a post contains "incorrect information" (which is what I said) is not the same as accusing you of 'dishonesty'. If so, many of your posts in thread, where you repeatedly accuse people of making "false" statements would fall squarely into that category, no? (You may want to go back and re-read what you've written here).
Perhaps you can then explain why this corporation reports "regulatory assets under management (AUM") -- see Box F of the SEC filing -- of $8.837B?
Yes, I can. The various hedge funds (of which there are about five, I think), retain the management company to manage their assets (note that the management co is an "investment advisor"). The sum of the assets of these funds is, presumably, the number you mention. Sort of like Apple retains Tim Cook to manage itself, but Tim does not actually have a $500B market cap himself (much though he wishes he did). As I said, sometimes the management company is the general partner, but usually not (especially in New York, where there is a financial disincentive to combine the two functions). If it WERE the general partner, then because of passthrough taxation of fund P/L, it might have a tax benefit vis-a-vis dividends.
I was simply explaining what the norm here at AI is -- generally, these things get reported, posters get warned (I've had that happen to me, so nothing personal there), and AI moderators often edit such content. (Indeed, I see that your insult got edited out).
The fact that you chose to interpret that as a "threat" is a bit creepy, to say the least......
One more thing: To say that a post contains "incorrect information" (which is what I said) is not the same as accusing you of 'dishonesty'. If so, many of your posts in thread, where you repeatedly accuse people of making "false" statements would fall squarely into that category, no? (You may want to go back and re-read what you've written here).
If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
Creepy? I am sad to see you are so easily creeped out.
Finally, for the personal matters. Firstly, I don't give a flying f*** if I get censured, but I don't appreciate being threatened. Nor do I appreciate being called a liar, or being talked down to (as in "Got it?", or "let me give you some advice") -- you have no idea who I am, what I know, or what I do.
Went back through; where were you threatened?
Any person who does any of these things, and does not expend the effort to make sure his factual statements are correct, to boot is an idiot in my book…
That's fine; you just can't call them such here.
EDIT: people posted while I was reading the thread…
Originally Posted by igriv
As for the second: "You'll get reported and likely be warned". What would you call that?
Ah, that's what I thought you meant by that. Of course, then what would you call this, from the above:
…but I am willing to give you a pass this once…
Sounds vaguely like the "talking down to" and "threatening" you've claimed earlier.
Since both sides seem guilty, let's just drop it back down to the actual argument, yeah?
Yes, I can. The various hedge funds (of which there are about five, I think), retain the management company to manage their assets (note that the management co is an "investment advisor"). The sum of the assets of these funds is, presumably, the number you mention. Sort of like Apple retains Tim Cook to manage itself, but Tim does not actually have a $500B market cap himself (much though he wishes he did).
(i) You're saying it could possibly be as you claim; then again, it need not be; that does not allow you to claim "Yes, I can." (You can try, however.)
(ii) It is not just "presumably" -- it's in the filing; look it up;
(iii) Your Tim Cook example sort of makes no sense whatsoever: He does not do a separate SEC filing as though he is an 'advisor' to Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
If it WERE the general partner, then because of passthrough taxation of fund P/L, it might have a tax benefit vis-a-vis dividends.
(iv) Glad to see you allowing for the fact that my original substantive point might be right!
I agree with macxpress. It would be nice for Apple to be privately owned. Investors & analyst are an unhealthy distraction from Apple's core direction.
I agree with macxpress. It would be nice for Apple to be privately owned. Investors & analyst are an unhealthy distraction from Apple's core direction.
Yep. To many crooks stirring the pot… or something like that.
Reminder: Einhorn is suing to ultimately get the vote unbundled, not to get his preferred share idea done. So much misinformation around this on prior threads.
No, he is suing so that he can use the free press from it to push his agenda.
(i) You're saying it could possibly be as you claim; then again, it need not be; that does not allow you to claim "Yes, I can." (You can try, however.)
(ii) It is not just "presumably" -- it's in the filing; look it up;
(iii) Your Tim Cook example sort of makes no sense whatsoever: He does not do a separate SEC filing as though he is an 'advisor' to Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
If it WERE the general partner, then because of passthrough taxation of fund P/L, it might have a tax benefit vis-a-vis dividends.
(iv) Glad to see you allowing for the fact that my original substantive point might be right!
(i) I am quite familiar with the industry, so I am quite confident that it is as I say. Feel free to try to prove me wrong.
(ii) The filing talks about something like "regulatory" assets. Who knows what it does/does not account for?
(iii) Tim has a management relationship with Apple very similar to the one Greenlight Capital (Advisors) has with Greenlight Capital (Funds). He does not do an SEC filing that I am aware of, but his compensation structure is actually quite similar (salary + incentive allocation in the form of stock options).
(iv) Yes, it is a possibility, but a remote one. However, feel free to check and tell me if I am wrong.
Pie in the sky question but what does Apple gain by remaining a public company? I know they will not go private but what is the current advantage? Wall Street never let's up on them no matter how good they perform. It is not enough to put out great products and make great profits. There is always someone badgering them for more. What a pain in the ass for Cook and Co to have to deal with. Innovate don't litigate Einhorn.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by retiarius
Downside to 'applesupertramps' mutation of the Einhorn proposal -- a sudden huge cash dividend like that would
create a tax nightmare for many. When holding AAPL in a taxable account (even if classified as a "qualified dividend")
this could slingshot some modest holders into paying 23.8% of that to the feds, plus another 10% in state tax
in several states). Many of us would prefer a steady dividend that doesn't boost one into a higher tax bracket.
That is a good point. I am conjecturing that he (applesupertramps) was modifying the proposal to make it clearer what it was about, and not actually suggesting this as a better course of action...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Just to explain it further to the other person, it is not uncommon for these large corporations to have similar sounding names in their subsidiaries so it's easy to be confused. It might have Megagroup, Inc (corporation) for the holding company and then have lots of different Megagroup subsidiaries with similar names. Some of these might be LLC or LP organizations - which is probably the case with the letter he cited.
I assume that I am the "other person". Anyway, see my response (probably just above) for what the situation actually is. I appreciate your desire to "explain it further", but I actually know a fair bit about the money management business (though there is always more to learn...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
Finally, for the personal matters. Firstly, I don't give a flying f*** if I get censured, but I don't appreciate being threatened. Nor do I appreciate being called a liar, or being talked down to (as in "Got it?", or "let me give you some advice") -- you have no idea who I am, what I know, or what I do. Any person who does any of these things, and does not expend the effort to make sure his factual statements are correct, to boot is an idiot in my book, but I am willing to give you a pass this once -- we all have bad days, and this may have been one of yours.
Got it?
Got it. You don't 'appreciate' being at the receiving end of things that you clearly like to dish out yourself?
Who "threatened" you over what? Paranoid much?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Got it. You don't 'appreciate' being at the receiving end of things that you clearly like to dish out yourself?
Who "threatened" you over what? Paranoid much?
Re the first paragraph: I don't think I called you dishonest, but otherwise, correct, I don't like to be insulted, and I don't like the insulters then becoming arbiters of discussion style (once they have gotten their own insults in).
As for the second: "You'll get reported and likely be warned". What would you call that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by brlawyer
Well, he looks like Eastern European-descent douchemaster Adam Sandler, so no surprises there.
Ah, antisemitism. Now the Einhorn hatred is explained.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
Greenlight Capital in your SEC filing is the management company, which is an investment advisor running all these partnerships. It owns nothing, except the services of David Einhorn and his associates. For providing these services, it gets a management fee, which is a flat percentage of AUM, and is (minus the expenses, such as people's salary, rent on office space, and so on) taxed as ordinary income.
Perhaps you can then explain why this corporation reports "regulatory assets under management (AUM") -- see Box F of the SEC filing -- of $8.837B?
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
As for the second: "You'll get reported and likely be warned". What would you call that?
I was simply explaining what the norm here at AI is -- generally, these things get reported, posters get warned (I've had that happen to me, so nothing personal there), and AI moderators often edit such content. (Indeed, I see that your insult got edited out).
The fact that you chose to interpret that as a "threat" is a bit creepy, to say the least......
One more thing: To say that a post contains "incorrect information" (which is what I said) is not the same as accusing you of 'dishonesty'. If so, many of your posts in thread, where you repeatedly accuse people of making "false" statements would fall squarely into that category, no? (You may want to go back and re-read what you've written here).
If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Perhaps you can then explain why this corporation reports "regulatory assets under management (AUM") -- see Box F of the SEC filing -- of $8.837B?
Yes, I can. The various hedge funds (of which there are about five, I think), retain the management company to manage their assets (note that the management co is an "investment advisor"). The sum of the assets of these funds is, presumably, the number you mention. Sort of like Apple retains Tim Cook to manage itself, but Tim does not actually have a $500B market cap himself (much though he wishes he did). As I said, sometimes the management company is the general partner, but usually not (especially in New York, where there is a financial disincentive to combine the two functions). If it WERE the general partner, then because of passthrough taxation of fund P/L, it might have a tax benefit vis-a-vis dividends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
I was simply explaining what the norm here at AI is -- generally, these things get reported, posters get warned (I've had that happen to me, so nothing personal there), and AI moderators often edit such content. (Indeed, I see that your insult got edited out).
The fact that you chose to interpret that as a "threat" is a bit creepy, to say the least......
One more thing: To say that a post contains "incorrect information" (which is what I said) is not the same as accusing you of 'dishonesty'. If so, many of your posts in thread, where you repeatedly accuse people of making "false" statements would fall squarely into that category, no? (You may want to go back and re-read what you've written here).
If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
Creepy? I am sad to see you are so easily creeped out.
Originally Posted by igriv
Finally, for the personal matters. Firstly, I don't give a flying f*** if I get censured, but I don't appreciate being threatened. Nor do I appreciate being called a liar, or being talked down to (as in "Got it?", or "let me give you some advice") -- you have no idea who I am, what I know, or what I do.
Went back through; where were you threatened?
Any person who does any of these things, and does not expend the effort to make sure his factual statements are correct, to boot is an idiot in my book…
That's fine; you just can't call them such here.
EDIT: people posted while I was reading the thread…
Originally Posted by igriv
As for the second: "You'll get reported and likely be warned". What would you call that?
Ah, that's what I thought you meant by that. Of course, then what would you call this, from the above:
…but I am willing to give you a pass this once…
Sounds vaguely like the "talking down to" and "threatening" you've claimed earlier.
Since both sides seem guilty, let's just drop it back down to the actual argument, yeah?
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
Yes, I can. The various hedge funds (of which there are about five, I think), retain the management company to manage their assets (note that the management co is an "investment advisor"). The sum of the assets of these funds is, presumably, the number you mention. Sort of like Apple retains Tim Cook to manage itself, but Tim does not actually have a $500B market cap himself (much though he wishes he did).
(i) You're saying it could possibly be as you claim; then again, it need not be; that does not allow you to claim "Yes, I can." (You can try, however.)
(ii) It is not just "presumably" -- it's in the filing; look it up;
(iii) Your Tim Cook example sort of makes no sense whatsoever: He does not do a separate SEC filing as though he is an 'advisor' to Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
If it WERE the general partner, then because of passthrough taxation of fund P/L, it might have a tax benefit vis-a-vis dividends.
(iv) Glad to see you allowing for the fact that my original substantive point might be right!
Yep. To many crooks stirring the pot… or something like that.
If you don't know what Apple's plans are then how do you know if your idea interferes with their plans?
No, he is suing so that he can use the free press from it to push his agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
(i) You're saying it could possibly be as you claim; then again, it need not be; that does not allow you to claim "Yes, I can." (You can try, however.)
(ii) It is not just "presumably" -- it's in the filing; look it up;
(iii) Your Tim Cook example sort of makes no sense whatsoever: He does not do a separate SEC filing as though he is an 'advisor' to Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
If it WERE the general partner, then because of passthrough taxation of fund P/L, it might have a tax benefit vis-a-vis dividends.
(iv) Glad to see you allowing for the fact that my original substantive point might be right!
(i) I am quite familiar with the industry, so I am quite confident that it is as I say. Feel free to try to prove me wrong.
(ii) The filing talks about something like "regulatory" assets. Who knows what it does/does not account for?
(iii) Tim has a management relationship with Apple very similar to the one Greenlight Capital (Advisors) has with Greenlight Capital (Funds). He does not do an SEC filing that I am aware of, but his compensation structure is actually quite similar (salary + incentive allocation in the form of stock options).
(iv) Yes, it is a possibility, but a remote one. However, feel free to check and tell me if I am wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1984
"We don't know what Apple's plans are, but iPrefs don't interfere with Apple's using the existing cash hoard," Einhorn said.
If you don't know what Apple's plans are then how do you know if your idea interferes with their plans?
Because iPrefs do not actually reduce the size of the cash hoard, but merely slow down its rate of increase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1984
No, he is suing so that he can use the free press from it to push his agenda.
And you know this how?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Went back through; where were you threatened?
That's fine; you just can't call them such here.
EDIT: people posted while I was reading the thread…
Ah, that's what I thought you meant by that. Of course, then what would you call this, from the above:
Sounds vaguely like the "talking down to" and "threatening" you've claimed earlier.
Since both sides seem guilty, let's just drop it back down to the actual argument, yeah?
I don't disagree.