And? Is it Apple's fault the share price is what it is? Apple just had the most profitable quarter in it's history, and possibly in any company's history. Stock should generally reflect performance. Apple IS doing its job, and PERFORMING. The fact that the stock is so low has to do with other horse-shit that has nothing to do with the metrics of Apple's performance as a company.
I agree that they are performing well, however, they are now a much bigger company now and their growth rate is slower. They can compensate for that by offering more dividend.
Why? Incentives to do what? Not sell their shares? You'd think running an insanely profitable company would do that.
Running a great public company means providing value to share holders. As growth rate slows, more dividend is needed especially when the company is making a lot of money.
Why? Because you want it to be? Not up to you. If you're not satisfied with a stock's gains, the standard protocol, as I recall, is to sell it.
No, because Apple can make it so by offering more dividend or growing faster. If the company is making a lot of money and keeping it all to itself, then as the company's growth rate slows, investors lose interest.
Do they not? Say you and what forensic accountants? You sound like a poor person who says the affluent don't "need" their money and should share some.
Not exactly. When you invest in a public company and the company uses your investment to make more money, you are not asking for charity when you ask for dividend as the company's growth slows.
"Throw us a bone"? I like the begging, drooling dog visual. Except the dog is intellectually honest about it.
Again, it's not begging because as a share holder you own part of the company and you should have a say. Apple understands that and wants to give the share holders voting power.
Bottom line, it is Apple's responsibility make money for all it's share holders. It is Apple's responsibility to understand how the market operates and safely position itself to shine. A company that makes great products and makes a lot of money but keeps all the money to itself is not attractive to investors.
And? Is it Apple's fault the share price is what it is? Apple just had the most profitable quarter in it's history, and possibly in any company's history. Stock should generally reflect performance. Apple IS doing its job, and PERFORMING. The fact that the stock is so low has to do with other horse-shit that has nothing to do with the metrics of Apple's performance as a company.
Yes it is. Again, if a company makes great products and makes a lot of money but keeps all the money to itself while its growth is slowing, then it is not attractive to investors. Also, your investors are very often your clients and partners. If you drive your investors away, they will invest else where and eventually buy their products elsewhere.
Apples board should just send a clear message to the Street.
We are not going to be pushed around by you period
If you don't like the way we run the company then sell.
Apple doesn't need this bs - constantly having to defend itself from attacks in court or through the media. That's the future right there - we have only a small taste of what will come.
Wall St doesn't like us - bfd. Then sell.
I suspect though the board will want to appear to be conciliatory to all shareholders and the above will not happen. But how to appease the voracious and conniving amongst them ? Doesn't seem to be any answer to that - I don't like Einhorn or his tactics but he has certainly brought attention to an issue that was bound to rear it's head sooner or later.
Well, the Apple Board works for the share holders and the fact is that the stock is down about $250, so there is no doubt, people have sold.
Some believe this could have been prevented it by keeping the carrot stick in front of the investors.
Can't blame Einhorn for being greedy, he has huge responsibilities for a lot of money and is well paid to be greedy.
Some folks who are complaining *are* huge Apple share holders, so they have a say.
Some share holders are hurting right now and are hoping to recover. Based on what Apple does, they may or may not recover.
Well, the Apple Board works for the share holders and the fact is that the stock is down about $250, so there is no doubt, people have sold.
Some believe this could have been prevented it by keeping the carrot stick in front of the investors.
<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;">Can't blame Einhorn for being greedy, he has huge responsibilities for a lot of money and is well paid to be greedy. </span>
<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;">Some folks</span>
who are complaining *are* huge Apple share holders, so they have a say.
Some share holders are hurting right now and are hoping to recover. Based on what Apple does, they may or may not recover.
They probably will.
Time will tell.
I'm long on Apple since 2005. I haven't demanded a dividend and I doubt a higher dividend would prevent the slide. False rumors and unrealistic guesses caused the slide.
I'm long on Apple since 2005. I haven't demanded a dividend and I doubt a higher dividend would prevent the slide. False rumors and unrealistic guesses caused the slide.
Exactly.
As a shareholder, you are entitled to about 1 one billionth of Apple - everything it owns, including cash, profits, IP, and so on - for each share that you hold. Distributing cash doesn't do anything to the true value of your holdings. You simply transferred it from one pocket to another (except that you have to pay taxes on the transfer, so you're actually worse off).
Well, the Apple Board works for the share holders and the fact is that the stock is down about $250, so there is no doubt, people have sold.
Some believe this could have been prevented it by keeping the carrot stick in front of the investors.
<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;">Can't blame Einhorn for being greedy, he has huge responsibilities for a lot of money and is well paid to be greedy. </span>
<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;">Some folks</span>
who are complaining *are* huge Apple share holders, so they have a say.
Some share holders are hurting right now and are hoping to recover. Based on what Apple does, they may or may not recover.
They probably will.
Time will tell.
Shareholders are only hurting if they sell. If you're holding the stock, the change in value doesn't affect you in any significant way.
Well, the Apple Board works for the share holders and the fact is that the stock is down about $250, so there is no doubt, people have sold.
Some believe this could have been prevented it by keeping the carrot stick in front of the investors.
Can't blame Einhorn for being greedy, he has huge responsibilities for a lot of money and is well paid to be greedy.
Some folks who are complaining *are* huge Apple share holders, so they have a say.
Some share holders are hurting right now and are hoping to recover. Based on what Apple does, they may or may not recover.
They probably will.
Time will tell.
I agree.
If you take a long term view and accept the facts that the fundamentals look great, the company is exceptionally well run and has just had the best quarter ever - the only cloud on the horizon is how to best manage the money it's making and how to best redistribute some of wealth to shareholders.
Thats what all this hoopla is all about.
Those shareholders that sold were probably acting prudently - taking profit. Can't blame them for that.
Apple shares are transitioning from something that was providing many multipliers into a steady long term Blue Chip stock. The market is reflecting that.
This was really a clear loser argument for Apple. I think it is time for the general counsel to go, or at least the securities lawyer. Now they have to wait a year (or hold a special shareholder meeting) to split the initiative into three separate shareholder proposals.
The only thing Greenhorn has managed to do is to get the votes separate outside of that he has accomplished nothing. Apple was in the wrong on a legal technicality and they have complied with the courts wishes. As far as this idiot getting his wet dream money from apple we will see how the stock holders vote but the sentiment i'm getting is that there not super impressed with Tinhorns argument. He is just trying to get money back for his funds poor performance this last year, pure and simple trying to cover his backside.
And? Is it Apple's fault the share price is what it is? Apple just had the most profitable quarter in it's history, and possibly in any company's history. Stock should generally reflect performance. Apple IS doing its job, and PERFORMING. The fact that the stock is so low has to do with other horse-shit that has nothing to do with the metrics of Apple's performance as a company.
I personally think that if you buy shares in a company you already know how they operate before you purchase. If you are not happy with how they operate then you don't buy the shares. No one puts a gun to their head to buy Apple stock. The company is well run and solid. They have no debt and a lot of cash that the spend when they see fit. To buy the stock and then complain that they are not providing enough shareholder value and sue them on top of it is nuts but does seem to be the American way lately. "I'm the victim. I bought the stock of my own free will but I want more in return". Usually a person would sell said stock if it was not performing up to expectations, but such volume would have adverse effects elsewhere as well. I could see complaining if the company was poorly run but not now. Owning Apple stock is not like other companies it seems and Wall Street does not know how to handle it. They do not care much for investors and have not for a long time. However, based on their performance you could argue that their way works and works well.
The only thing Greenhorn has managed to do is to get the votes separate outside of that he has accomplished nothing. Apple was in the wrong on a legal technicality and they have complied with the courts wishes. As far as this idiot getting his wet dream money from apple we will see how the stock holders vote but the sentiment i'm getting is that there not super impressed with Tinhorns argument. He is just trying to get money back for his funds poor performance this last year, pure and simple trying to cover his backside.
Yeah - the whole court case thing seems to have been a vehicle to gain publicity so that he could push his scheme squarely in front of the boards faces.
I personally would take that as an attack and a challenge. I doubt the board will see any merit in his wizard scheme. As we know there are plenty here who do see merit in it - and to a certain extent he and they have a point.
That being, how to redistribute wealth in the most equitable manner possible.
The difference being, shareholders only have their position to consider - Apples board has to consider all shareholders and what is best for the company.
I fear that this type of attack may become more frequent as the stockpile grows and hinders the company in doing what it does best. Apple has to in someway clearly separate the expectations of the market from affecting its operations.
They should buy back this creep's stock. He wants to play the speculation game, not invest in Apple. This public ownership thing is so out of whack. There's just game playing and speculation. Not investment. Long term nothing. All short term. That's why the market crashed. Greed and impatience.
They should buy back this creep's stock. He wants to play the speculation game, not invest in Apple. This public ownership thing is so out of whack. There's just game playing and speculation. Not investment. Long term nothing. All short term. That's why the market crashed. Greed and impatience.
Actually, he's more of a symptom than the problem itself. Apple has far too much institutional ownership and should be encouraging individual investors. Individual investors tend to buy and hold and have a long term horizon. Institutional investors don't mind jumping in and out of a stock with a very short time horizon.
DRIP. If Apple doesn't have such a plan, your broker will.
Yes! And the day we get broker start running the companies, we are heading in the same direction as we have given politicians to run this country - DRIP down the toilet!
The only thing Greenhorn has managed to do is to get the votes separate outside of that he has accomplished nothing. Apple was in the wrong on a legal technicality and they have complied with the courts wishes. As far as this idiot getting his wet dream money from apple we will see how the stock holders vote but the sentiment i'm getting is that there not super impressed with Tinhorns argument. He is just trying to get money back for his funds poor performance this last year, pure and simple trying to cover his backside.
Well, Einhorn has huge investments in Apple, wrong or right, he has a say and Apple at least listened.
Apple will probably increase dividends or have a special dividend unless they have some new insanely great products that will make them grow at the fast rate that they use to grow.
Yes! And the day we get broker start running the companies, we are heading in the same direction as we have given politicians to run this country - DRIP down the toilet!
Ummmm...... look up 'DRIP' wrt stock ownership. It has nothing to do with brokers running the companies.
I'm not sure what I think about Einhorn's proposal, but it could potentially be a good thing, as long as there isn't some aspect that could be exploited. I'm a little unclear on the details though, such as value of iPrefs if Apple were liquidated or sold to another company in the future (theoretically of course).
In general, it does add value to use capital efficiently. Right now, Apple isn't using much of their capital at all (essentially). If they see a potential need for it that cash flows won't cover, then I agree they should keep it. Otherwise, investors must account for the risk of them doing something dumb with it. Which I agree, is not likely at all, besides doing nothing with it and losing value to inflation. However, with such a large market cap, many investors have sizable positions in it, and so are probably cautious about having so many eggs in one basket (AAPL).
Using cash for buybacks or dividends would reduce investors' capital at risk, which would likely help its multiple grow. Personally, I would prefer a large buyback if there are no drawbacks I am not aware of. Makes the most sense while shares are so undervalued right now.
Oh, one more thing I'm considering but not sure of. I have read that a large problem AAPL has right now is that it has fallen out of favor with aggressive growth investors as its growth has slowed, yet is not stable and boring enough for true value investors. Einhorn's proposal MAY help bring in value investors via the prefs, essentially raising demand for AAPL (aggregate of common and prefs), which could help raise the value compared to not doing the prefs. I'm not an expert though, so I'm skeptical that I have the full picture.
I'm not sure what I think about Einhorn's proposal, but it could potentially be a good thing, as long as there isn't some aspect that could be exploited. I'm a little unclear on the details though, such as value of iPrefs if Apple were liquidated or sold to another company in the future (theoretically of course).
In general, it does add value to use capital efficiently. .
Wrong. It doesn't really add anything. Apple can increase dividends to whatever level they want even without Einhorn's proposal. Heck, Apple can even borrow money to pay dividends if they wish without issuing preferred stock (even though that's a ridiculous idea). It doesn't free up one penny of value.
Einhorn's proposal adds nothing - except a way to take advantage of uninformed investors.
I just read Einhorn's PowerPoint charts on the iPref proposal. Very informative, answered a bunch of my questions and reservations. Here's the link: https://www.greenlightcapital.com/905284.pdf
I know there are plenty of intelligent people on here, many of whom I often agree with. But in this case, I find that I have a different view than some of those people. I read his whole proposal, and it does appear to be the superior way to return cash to shareholders with no drawbacks. If anyone can please explain why this would be bad for ordinary investors, I would appreciate it.
Here's what I see: - Large buyback would deplete cash and require paying high taxes on repatriated cash
- Larger dividend wouldn't increase share value as much, because it would require a higher % to support the share price. Growth investors are interested in growth, and place less value on the divi. With iPrefs, value investors would value a good yield on a high quality instrument. With the debt markets like they are and rates so low, Apple should strike while the iron is hot.
- If Einhorn is correct and the iPrefs fetch $50 and a 4% yield, they are essentially borrowing $47B at 4% interest from iPref buyers to pay a dividend to investors who sell their iPrefs. Except there is no chance of default, since iPrefs are equity not debt. Yes, iPref holders could demand board representation, but only if Apple missed several dividend payments. Since they currently have 15 years of iPref divs in cash, doesn't seem like a threat.
- I would guess that anyone who sold their iPrefs but not their common would just have a decreased cost basis in their common position, so not even a taxable event. Could be wrong, but imagine determining cost basis of the iPref would be difficult. Or basis would be $50, with same result. So, that's a win for shareholders vs regular dividend right?
--- Added an "I" to first sentence, to make it clear I was saying I just read it, not telling everyone else to read it.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
And? Is it Apple's fault the share price is what it is? Apple just had the most profitable quarter in it's history, and possibly in any company's history. Stock should generally reflect performance. Apple IS doing its job, and PERFORMING. The fact that the stock is so low has to do with other horse-shit that has nothing to do with the metrics of Apple's performance as a company.
I agree that they are performing well, however, they are now a much bigger company now and their growth rate is slower. They can compensate for that by offering more dividend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cincytee
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007
Why? Incentives to do what? Not sell their shares? You'd think running an insanely profitable company would do that.
Running a great public company means providing value to share holders. As growth rate slows, more dividend is needed especially when the company is making a lot of money.
Why? Because you want it to be? Not up to you. If you're not satisfied with a stock's gains, the standard protocol, as I recall, is to sell it.
No, because Apple can make it so by offering more dividend or growing faster. If the company is making a lot of money and keeping it all to itself, then as the company's growth rate slows, investors lose interest.
Do they not? Say you and what forensic accountants? You sound like a poor person who says the affluent don't "need" their money and should share some.
Not exactly. When you invest in a public company and the company uses your investment to make more money, you are not asking for charity when you ask for dividend as the company's growth slows.
"Throw us a bone"? I like the begging, drooling dog visual. Except the dog is intellectually honest about it.
Again, it's not begging because as a share holder you own part of the company and you should have a say. Apple understands that and wants to give the share holders voting power.
Bottom line, it is Apple's responsibility make money for all it's share holders. It is Apple's responsibility to understand how the market operates and safely position itself to shine. A company that makes great products and makes a lot of money but keeps all the money to itself is not attractive to investors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
And? Is it Apple's fault the share price is what it is? Apple just had the most profitable quarter in it's history, and possibly in any company's history. Stock should generally reflect performance. Apple IS doing its job, and PERFORMING. The fact that the stock is so low has to do with other horse-shit that has nothing to do with the metrics of Apple's performance as a company.
Yes it is. Again, if a company makes great products and makes a lot of money but keeps all the money to itself while its growth is slowing, then it is not attractive to investors. Also, your investors are very often your clients and partners. If you drive your investors away, they will invest else where and eventually buy their products elsewhere.
I bet Apple increases dividends soon.
Time will tell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM
Apples board should just send a clear message to the Street.
We are not going to be pushed around by you period
If you don't like the way we run the company then sell.
Apple doesn't need this bs - constantly having to defend itself from attacks in court or through the media. That's the future right there - we have only a small taste of what will come.
Wall St doesn't like us - bfd. Then sell.
I suspect though the board will want to appear to be conciliatory to all shareholders and the above will not happen. But how to appease the voracious and conniving amongst them ? Doesn't seem to be any answer to that - I don't like Einhorn or his tactics but he has certainly brought attention to an issue that was bound to rear it's head sooner or later.
Well, the Apple Board works for the share holders and the fact is that the stock is down about $250, so there is no doubt, people have sold.
Some believe this could have been prevented it by keeping the carrot stick in front of the investors.
Can't blame Einhorn for being greedy, he has huge responsibilities for a lot of money and is well paid to be greedy.
Some folks who are complaining *are* huge Apple share holders, so they have a say.
Some share holders are hurting right now and are hoping to recover. Based on what Apple does, they may or may not recover.
They probably will.
Time will tell.
Exactly.
As a shareholder, you are entitled to about 1 one billionth of Apple - everything it owns, including cash, profits, IP, and so on - for each share that you hold. Distributing cash doesn't do anything to the true value of your holdings. You simply transferred it from one pocket to another (except that you have to pay taxes on the transfer, so you're actually worse off).
Shareholders are only hurting if they sell. If you're holding the stock, the change in value doesn't affect you in any significant way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007
Well, the Apple Board works for the share holders and the fact is that the stock is down about $250, so there is no doubt, people have sold.
Some believe this could have been prevented it by keeping the carrot stick in front of the investors.
Can't blame Einhorn for being greedy, he has huge responsibilities for a lot of money and is well paid to be greedy.
Some folks who are complaining *are* huge Apple share holders, so they have a say.
Some share holders are hurting right now and are hoping to recover. Based on what Apple does, they may or may not recover.
They probably will.
Time will tell.
I agree.
If you take a long term view and accept the facts that the fundamentals look great, the company is exceptionally well run and has just had the best quarter ever - the only cloud on the horizon is how to best manage the money it's making and how to best redistribute some of wealth to shareholders.
Thats what all this hoopla is all about.
Those shareholders that sold were probably acting prudently - taking profit. Can't blame them for that.
Apple shares are transitioning from something that was providing many multipliers into a steady long term Blue Chip stock. The market is reflecting that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by msuberly
This was really a clear loser argument for Apple. I think it is time for the general counsel to go, or at least the securities lawyer. Now they have to wait a year (or hold a special shareholder meeting) to split the initiative into three separate shareholder proposals.
The only thing Greenhorn has managed to do is to get the votes separate outside of that he has accomplished nothing. Apple was in the wrong on a legal technicality and they have complied with the courts wishes. As far as this idiot getting his wet dream money from apple we will see how the stock holders vote but the sentiment i'm getting is that there not super impressed with Tinhorns argument. He is just trying to get money back for his funds poor performance this last year, pure and simple trying to cover his backside.
I personally think that if you buy shares in a company you already know how they operate before you purchase. If you are not happy with how they operate then you don't buy the shares. No one puts a gun to their head to buy Apple stock. The company is well run and solid. They have no debt and a lot of cash that the spend when they see fit. To buy the stock and then complain that they are not providing enough shareholder value and sue them on top of it is nuts but does seem to be the American way lately. "I'm the victim. I bought the stock of my own free will but I want more in return". Usually a person would sell said stock if it was not performing up to expectations, but such volume would have adverse effects elsewhere as well. I could see complaining if the company was poorly run but not now. Owning Apple stock is not like other companies it seems and Wall Street does not know how to handle it. They do not care much for investors and have not for a long time. However, based on their performance you could argue that their way works and works well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic
The only thing Greenhorn has managed to do is to get the votes separate outside of that he has accomplished nothing. Apple was in the wrong on a legal technicality and they have complied with the courts wishes. As far as this idiot getting his wet dream money from apple we will see how the stock holders vote but the sentiment i'm getting is that there not super impressed with Tinhorns argument. He is just trying to get money back for his funds poor performance this last year, pure and simple trying to cover his backside.
Yeah - the whole court case thing seems to have been a vehicle to gain publicity so that he could push his scheme squarely in front of the boards faces.
I personally would take that as an attack and a challenge. I doubt the board will see any merit in his wizard scheme. As we know there are plenty here who do see merit in it - and to a certain extent he and they have a point.
That being, how to redistribute wealth in the most equitable manner possible.
The difference being, shareholders only have their position to consider - Apples board has to consider all shareholders and what is best for the company.
I fear that this type of attack may become more frequent as the stockpile grows and hinders the company in doing what it does best. Apple has to in someway clearly separate the expectations of the market from affecting its operations.
Actually, he's more of a symptom than the problem itself. Apple has far too much institutional ownership and should be encouraging individual investors. Individual investors tend to buy and hold and have a long term horizon. Institutional investors don't mind jumping in and out of a stock with a very short time horizon.
Split the stock, please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by msuberly
DRIP. If Apple doesn't have such a plan, your broker will.
Yes! And the day we get broker start running the companies, we are heading in the same direction as we have given politicians to run this country - DRIP down the toilet!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic
The only thing Greenhorn has managed to do is to get the votes separate outside of that he has accomplished nothing. Apple was in the wrong on a legal technicality and they have complied with the courts wishes. As far as this idiot getting his wet dream money from apple we will see how the stock holders vote but the sentiment i'm getting is that there not super impressed with Tinhorns argument. He is just trying to get money back for his funds poor performance this last year, pure and simple trying to cover his backside.
Well, Einhorn has huge investments in Apple, wrong or right, he has a say and Apple at least listened.
Apple will probably increase dividends or have a special dividend unless they have some new insanely great products that will make them grow at the fast rate that they use to grow.
Ummmm...... look up 'DRIP' wrt stock ownership. It has nothing to do with brokers running the companies.
In general, it does add value to use capital efficiently. Right now, Apple isn't using much of their capital at all (essentially). If they see a potential need for it that cash flows won't cover, then I agree they should keep it. Otherwise, investors must account for the risk of them doing something dumb with it. Which I agree, is not likely at all, besides doing nothing with it and losing value to inflation. However, with such a large market cap, many investors have sizable positions in it, and so are probably cautious about having so many eggs in one basket (AAPL).
Using cash for buybacks or dividends would reduce investors' capital at risk, which would likely help its multiple grow. Personally, I would prefer a large buyback if there are no drawbacks I am not aware of. Makes the most sense while shares are so undervalued right now.
Wrong. It doesn't really add anything. Apple can increase dividends to whatever level they want even without Einhorn's proposal. Heck, Apple can even borrow money to pay dividends if they wish without issuing preferred stock (even though that's a ridiculous idea). It doesn't free up one penny of value.
Einhorn's proposal adds nothing - except a way to take advantage of uninformed investors.
https://www.greenlightcapital.com/905284.pdf
I know there are plenty of intelligent people on here, many of whom I often agree with. But in this case, I find that I have a different view than some of those people. I read his whole proposal, and it does appear to be the superior way to return cash to shareholders with no drawbacks. If anyone can please explain why this would be bad for ordinary investors, I would appreciate it.
Here's what I see:
- Large buyback would deplete cash and require paying high taxes on repatriated cash
- Larger dividend wouldn't increase share value as much, because it would require a higher % to support the share price. Growth investors are interested in growth, and place less value on the divi. With iPrefs, value investors would value a good yield on a high quality instrument. With the debt markets like they are and rates so low, Apple should strike while the iron is hot.
- If Einhorn is correct and the iPrefs fetch $50 and a 4% yield, they are essentially borrowing $47B at 4% interest from iPref buyers to pay a dividend to investors who sell their iPrefs. Except there is no chance of default, since iPrefs are equity not debt. Yes, iPref holders could demand board representation, but only if Apple missed several dividend payments. Since they currently have 15 years of iPref divs in cash, doesn't seem like a threat.
- I would guess that anyone who sold their iPrefs but not their common would just have a decreased cost basis in their common position, so not even a taxable event. Could be wrong, but imagine determining cost basis of the iPref would be difficult. Or basis would be $50, with same result. So, that's a win for shareholders vs regular dividend right?
---
Added an "I" to first sentence, to make it clear I was saying I just read it, not telling everyone else to read it.