You certainly haven't made the case. You've simply asserted that "lack of focus" is a problem.
What do you mean by "...presumably last GOING...."? (If it was an attempt that humor, sorry that I seem to be missing hit).
I don't need to make the case (I never said whether I believed this, I am asserting that the market is, and if you don't agree, well, the proof is in the stock price).
As for the second, please stop trying to pick fights. You get it, good. You don't, oh well.
At some point, you'll figure out that what the markets value is not what you did for them yesterday, but what you're able to convince them regarding your future.
Is "Hmm, for roughly ten years this company has consistently broken its sales, revenue, and profit records while continuing to provide unparalleled customer support and satisfaction and a slew of desirable new products. Therefore I would predict that this trend continues, given that they haven't changed up their formula for doing so." not a valid belief? What idiocy must one believe to discount this as a valid belief?
Originally Posted by igriv
To which the nice response is: we own the company, and we would like our views to be represented, and you, Tim, are hired help.
Ha! That's great. You may own it, but you don't know squat about running it. Apple would have been bankrupt five years ago if they had listened to any of the idiotic product suggestions of some of its shareholders.
At any rate, if AAPL keeps getting such negative pressure as it's getting right now, it will be a great time to pick up more. Woe unto those who bought at the peak.
“This was inside information, and Einhorn should have appreciated this,” the regulator said in a statement.
Yet the regulator also said that Mr. Einhorn’s “market abuse” was inadvertent and unintentional because he did not believe that he had been given any inside information.
“However, this was not a reasonable belief,” it said.
"Honest your honour I did not believe sticking that knife in his back 47 times would kill him."
Therefore the murder was inadvertent and unintentional.
I am saying that pixel density helped Apple's sales for a while, and now it does not, since everybody has caught up. Apple was, understandably, loath to have people actually beat them to the punch, and still are, with whatever innovation is coming next.
I thought is was because they don't have a USB port, NFC or dozens of other "essential" smartphone features.
"Honest your honour I did not believe sticking that knife in his back 47 times would kill him."
Therefore the murder was inadvertent and unintentional.
Justice is weird.
Justice is precise. If Einhorn and his lawyers can convince the judge that he was not acting in bad faith, then he is judged to have made a mistake (which, apparently merits a $11MM punishment). Just because you believe he is evil does not mean that he did anything wrong.
Last month, Greenlight Capital sued Apple and accused the company of having a "problem" with hoarding cash. Einhorn and his fund argued that the company was accruing cash in a manner that hurts investors.David Einhorn of Greenlight Capital believes Apple should return more cash to investors, but Apple CEO Tim Cook dismissed Greenlight's lawsuit as a "silly sideshow."
To which the nice response is: we own the company, and we would like our views to be represented, and you, Tim, are hired help.
To which the nice rebuttal is: the CEO is not an overpaid "yes man." As Steve Jobs wisely said unto Tim, "Do what you think is right. Do not ask yourself 'what would Steve have done?'."
Shareholders do not have the skills or nor vision to manage and lead a company. CEOs have these skills, and are highly paid for it. They are most certainly not "hired help."
To which the nice rebuttal is: the CEO is not an overpaid "yes man." As Steve Jobs wisely said unto Tim, "Do what you think is right. Do not ask yourself 'what would Steve have done?'."
Shareholders do not have the skills or nor vision to manage and lead a company. CEOs have these skills, and are highly paid for it. They are most certainly not "hired help."
The CEO is not a yes man, he is, as you say, a person with skills to lead the company, hired BY the shareholders for the purpose. The shareholders do not surrender all authority to the CEO, far from it -- the function of the board is to provide the managementguidance, and to dump themanagement if its work is not satisfactory. The board is (at least in theory) a set of elected (by share count) representatives of the shareholders, so we come back again to the realization that the shareholders have the right and the obligation to provide guidance to the company. One of the problems with Apple is its sheer size, which means that much of the voting stock is held by gigantic mutual fund families, who are generally passive (their way of showing extreme displeasure is selling shares), and the hundreds of thousands of small stakeholders don't feel they have anything to say (apparently you are one of them), which leads to the board not being particularly representative or involved (look at the Apple board -- most of it is window dressing, the power is in the hands of Cook, Iger, and Levinson). Activist shareholders like Greenlight should be thanked profusely, since they are trying to do what we all should be doing (notice by the way that Greenlight's half-billion dollar state is nowhere near enough to move the needle at Apple, so huge is the company).
The CEO is not a yes man, he is, as you say, a person with skills to lead the company, hired BY the shareholders for the purpose. The shareholders do not surrender all authority to the CEO, far from it -- the function of the board is to provide the managementguidance, and to dump themanagement if its work is not satisfactory. The board is (at least in theory) a set of elected (by share count) representatives of the shareholders, so we come back again to the realization that the shareholders have the right and the obligation to provide guidance to the company.
The board does not "provide the managementguidance". Nor do shareholders.
You are confusing the chain of accountability with chain of leadership. Leadership stops at the CEO. Accountability goes up through the board and back to shareholders. What you call "guidance" (determining what the company will do with its resources) is a function of leadership. Leadership is a job skill required by management, and the top manager is CEO. Leadership ends there. The board's job to is make the CEO accountable for providing effective leadership. Leadership is not the board's job, because the board delegates that responsibility to the senior management.
While the board oversees corporate governance, that is the very framework of rules and policies that govern both the board members and senior management. For example, stating who is accountable to whom is described in the governance guides. Apple's governance rules (which are typical for US corporations) gives the CEO (and not the board) authority to (1) lead and (2) speak for the company. Governance recognizes no higher authority with respect to leadership of the corporation.
As for whether the board members "represent the views of the shareholders" is something that is entirely up to the shareholders, since that may or may not factor in when they vote on reelecting board members. However, the views of the board members and the views of the shareholders are irrelevant because Apple's governance policy give Tim Cook the final authority to speak for Apple. Further, it does not require Tim Cook to heed the personal views of any board member or shareholder; he merely has the autonomy to choose to do that.
The board does not "provide the managementguidance". Nor do shareholders.
You are confusing the chain of accountability with chain of leadership. Leadership stops at the CEO. Accountability goes up through the board and back to shareholders. What you call "guidance" (determining what the company will do with its resources) is a function of leadership. Leadership is a job skill required by management, and the top manager is CEO. Leadership ends there. The board's job to is make the CEO accountable for providing effective leadership. Leadership is not the board's job, because the board delegates that responsibility to the senior management.
While the board oversees corporate governance, that is the very framework of rules and policies that govern both the board members and senior management. For example, stating who is accountable to whom is described in the governance guides. Apple's governance rules (which are typical for US corporations) gives the CEO (and not the board) authority to (1) lead and (2) speak for the company. Governance recognizes no higher authority with respect to leadership of the corporation.
As for whether the board members "represent the views of the shareholders" is something that is entirely up to the shareholders, since that may or may not factor in when they vote on reelecting board members. However, the views of the board members and the views of the shareholders are irrelevant because Apple's governance policy give Tim Cook the final authority to speak for Apple. Further, it does not require Tim Cook to heed the personal views of any board member or shareholder; he merely has the autonomy to choose to do that.
That's all true. However, there are a couple of things you left out:
The board can influence the CEO's leadership in at least two ways:
a. The board can approve resolutions that require specific actions.
b. The board can, of course, hire and fire CEOs. So if the CEO is not acting upon the Board's guidance, they can fire him.
In practice, a CEO who ignores the Board's direction doesn't last long.
I thought his tactic of using the court case to promote his idea was shameful, cynical and despicable.
His timing made it worse for Apple.
He probably calls it smart.
Well, you certainly have a perfect right to your opinion, but just to contribute yet another 2c:
1. Einhorn's suite was on the subject of "bundling" a bunch of proposals together -- I agree with him that this was unreasonable.
2. As for his timing, my belief is that his sturm und drang brought the whole issue of what apple was doing with its cash into the limelight, and this actually helped the stock price in the short term -- people believed that Apple would do SOMETHING (if not prefs, then increased dividend, buyback, or even a more detailed explanation of what they were doing sitting on this pile of money). Instead, Apple (in the form of Tim) said some platitudes and did nothing, which really underscores how much it cares about its shareholders. Without one of the parenthesized things, notice that Apple's P/E being low means nothing, since the profits will, apparently, never be distributed to shareholders.
That's all true. However, there are a couple of things you left out:
The board can influence the CEO's leadership in at least two ways:
a. The board can approve resolutions that require specific actions.
b. The board can, of course, hire and fire CEOs. So if the CEO is not acting upon the Board's guidance, they can fire him.
In practice, a CEO who ignores the Board's direction doesn't last long.
I am glad you agree with me I should add another point: When Jobs was around, he was Chairman and CEO, and had a phenomenal track record, so the board was basically all for window dressing (Steve probably helped the process along by hiring completely random outside people, to make sure the board did not get too uppity). This is not helping Apple now.
Well, you certainly have a perfect right to your opinion, but just to contribute yet another 2c:
1. Einhorn's suite was on the subject of "bundling" a bunch of proposals together -- I agree with him that this was unreasonable.
2. As for his timing, my belief is that his sturm und drang brought the whole issue of what apple was doing with its cash into the limelight, and this actually helped the stock price in the short term -- people believed that Apple would do SOMETHING (if not prefs, then increased dividend, buyback, or even a more detailed explanation of what they were doing sitting on this pile of money). Instead, Apple (in the form of Tim) said some platitudes and did nothing, which really underscores how much it cares about its shareholders. Without one of the parenthesized things, notice that Apple's P/E being low means nothing, since the profits will, apparently, never be distributed to shareholders.
And another point, once we are on the subject of stock price: Go to Yahoo! finance, and look up "Insider transactions" for Apple. You will see some interesting things:
(do the math: $7.48 a share is basically free, and the market value of the stock is $25MM. If you tell me that Al has provided $25MM worth of leadership to Apple, I have some nice swamp land I have at a good price).
And 2. The management dumping huge amount of stock at $550 or so. Much of it shows up as automatic sales, but this is well-known to be silly. An automatic sale can always be stopped if the owner is so inclined. In case you don't believe me, look at the previous year (which is included on the Yahoo! Finance page) you will see that the amounts are much smaller, and clearly in line with what people would need to buy houses in Palo Alto and such. (one of the dumpers is Scott Forstall, long before he himself was dumped).
Now tell me whether this indicates that the management has full faith in Apple's fortunes, and therefore, do you have as much faith in the management as you did before you saw this.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
You certainly haven't made the case. You've simply asserted that "lack of focus" is a problem.
What do you mean by "...presumably last GOING...."?
I don't need to make the case (I never said whether I believed this, I am asserting that the market is, and if you don't agree, well, the proof is in the stock price).
As for the second, please stop trying to pick fights. You get it, good. You don't, oh well.
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
At some point, you'll figure out that what the markets value is not what you did for them yesterday, but what you're able to convince them regarding your future.
Is "Hmm, for roughly ten years this company has consistently broken its sales, revenue, and profit records while continuing to provide unparalleled customer support and satisfaction and a slew of desirable new products. Therefore I would predict that this trend continues, given that they haven't changed up their formula for doing so." not a valid belief? What idiocy must one believe to discount this as a valid belief?
Originally Posted by igriv
To which the nice response is: we own the company, and we would like our views to be represented, and you, Tim, are hired help.
Ha! That's great. You may own it, but you don't know squat about running it. Apple would have been bankrupt five years ago if they had listened to any of the idiotic product suggestions of some of its shareholders.
Originally Posted by igriv
…how competitive the industry is.
*snort* The copyist industry, sure.
Perhaps Apple should countersue?
At any rate, if AAPL keeps getting such negative pressure as it's getting right now, it will be a great time to pick up more. Woe unto those who bought at the peak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
Read the article:
“This was inside information, and Einhorn should have appreciated this,” the regulator said in a statement.
Yet the regulator also said that Mr. Einhorn’s “market abuse” was inadvertent and unintentional because he did not believe that he had been given any inside information.
“However, this was not a reasonable belief,” it said.
"Honest your honour I did not believe sticking that knife in his back 47 times would kill him."
Therefore the murder was inadvertent and unintentional.
Justice is weird.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
I am saying that pixel density helped Apple's sales for a while, and now it does not, since everybody has caught up. Apple was, understandably, loath to have people actually beat them to the punch, and still are, with whatever innovation is coming next.
I thought is was because they don't have a USB port, NFC or dozens of other "essential" smartphone features.
They are dropping it because Apple has listened to their demands.
There were side hand deals that the public will never know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
They are dropping it because Apple has listened to their demands.
There were side hand deals that the public will never know.
Like what? Apple is issuing iPrefs, but not telling anyone???
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
"Honest your honour I did not believe sticking that knife in his back 47 times would kill him."
Therefore the murder was inadvertent and unintentional.
Justice is weird.
Justice is precise. If Einhorn and his lawyers can convince the judge that he was not acting in bad faith, then he is judged to have made a mistake (which, apparently merits a $11MM punishment). Just because you believe he is evil does not mean that he did anything wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Last month, Greenlight Capital sued Apple and accused the company of having a "problem" with hoarding cash. Einhorn and his fund argued that the company was accruing cash in a manner that hurts investors.
Can I sue Bill Gates for being too rich?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerk36
Can I sue Bill Gates for being too rich?
Do you own shares in him?
To which the nice rebuttal is: the CEO is not an overpaid "yes man." As Steve Jobs wisely said unto Tim, "Do what you think is right. Do not ask yourself 'what would Steve have done?'."
Shareholders do not have the skills or nor vision to manage and lead a company. CEOs have these skills, and are highly paid for it. They are most certainly not "hired help."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
To which the nice rebuttal is: the CEO is not an overpaid "yes man." As Steve Jobs wisely said unto Tim, "Do what you think is right. Do not ask yourself 'what would Steve have done?'."
Shareholders do not have the skills or nor vision to manage and lead a company. CEOs have these skills, and are highly paid for it. They are most certainly not "hired help."
The CEO is not a yes man, he is, as you say, a person with skills to lead the company, hired BY the shareholders for the purpose. The shareholders do not surrender all authority to the CEO, far from it -- the function of the board is to provide the managementguidance, and to dump themanagement if its work is not satisfactory. The board is (at least in theory) a set of elected (by share count) representatives of the shareholders, so we come back again to the realization that the shareholders have the right and the obligation to provide guidance to the company. One of the problems with Apple is its sheer size, which means that much of the voting stock is held by gigantic mutual fund families, who are generally passive (their way of showing extreme displeasure is selling shares), and the hundreds of thousands of small stakeholders don't feel they have anything to say (apparently you are one of them), which leads to the board not being particularly representative or involved (look at the Apple board -- most of it is window dressing, the power is in the hands of Cook, Iger, and Levinson). Activist shareholders like Greenlight should be thanked profusely, since they are trying to do what we all should be doing (notice by the way that Greenlight's half-billion dollar state is nowhere near enough to move the needle at Apple, so huge is the company).
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
The CEO is not a yes man, he is, as you say, a person with skills to lead the company, hired BY the shareholders for the purpose. The shareholders do not surrender all authority to the CEO, far from it -- the function of the board is to provide the managementguidance, and to dump themanagement if its work is not satisfactory. The board is (at least in theory) a set of elected (by share count) representatives of the shareholders, so we come back again to the realization that the shareholders have the right and the obligation to provide guidance to the company.
The board does not "provide the managementguidance". Nor do shareholders.
You are confusing the chain of accountability with chain of leadership. Leadership stops at the CEO. Accountability goes up through the board and back to shareholders. What you call "guidance" (determining what the company will do with its resources) is a function of leadership. Leadership is a job skill required by management, and the top manager is CEO. Leadership ends there. The board's job to is make the CEO accountable for providing effective leadership. Leadership is not the board's job, because the board delegates that responsibility to the senior management.
While the board oversees corporate governance, that is the very framework of rules and policies that govern both the board members and senior management. For example, stating who is accountable to whom is described in the governance guides. Apple's governance rules (which are typical for US corporations) gives the CEO (and not the board) authority to (1) lead and (2) speak for the company. Governance recognizes no higher authority with respect to leadership of the corporation.
As for whether the board members "represent the views of the shareholders" is something that is entirely up to the shareholders, since that may or may not factor in when they vote on reelecting board members. However, the views of the board members and the views of the shareholders are irrelevant because Apple's governance policy give Tim Cook the final authority to speak for Apple. Further, it does not require Tim Cook to heed the personal views of any board member or shareholder; he merely has the autonomy to choose to do that.
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/559744_455184727881369_1088212196_n.jpg
igriv, I am not going to thank Einhorn.
I thought his tactic of using the court case to promote his idea was shameful, cynical and despicable.
His timing made it worse for Apple.
He probably calls it smart.
That's all true. However, there are a couple of things you left out:
The board can influence the CEO's leadership in at least two ways:
a. The board can approve resolutions that require specific actions.
b. The board can, of course, hire and fire CEOs. So if the CEO is not acting upon the Board's guidance, they can fire him.
In practice, a CEO who ignores the Board's direction doesn't last long.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM
igriv, I am not going to thank Einhorn.
I thought his tactic of using the court case to promote his idea was shameful, cynical and despicable.
His timing made it worse for Apple.
He probably calls it smart.
Well, you certainly have a perfect right to your opinion, but just to contribute yet another 2c:
1. Einhorn's suite was on the subject of "bundling" a bunch of proposals together -- I agree with him that this was unreasonable.
2. As for his timing, my belief is that his sturm und drang brought the whole issue of what apple was doing with its cash into the limelight, and this actually helped the stock price in the short term -- people believed that Apple would do SOMETHING (if not prefs, then increased dividend, buyback, or even a more detailed explanation of what they were doing sitting on this pile of money). Instead, Apple (in the form of Tim) said some platitudes and did nothing, which really underscores how much it cares about its shareholders. Without one of the parenthesized things, notice that Apple's P/E being low means nothing, since the profits will, apparently, never be distributed to shareholders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That's all true. However, there are a couple of things you left out:
The board can influence the CEO's leadership in at least two ways:
a. The board can approve resolutions that require specific actions.
b. The board can, of course, hire and fire CEOs. So if the CEO is not acting upon the Board's guidance, they can fire him.
In practice, a CEO who ignores the Board's direction doesn't last long.
I am glad you agree with me
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
Well, you certainly have a perfect right to your opinion, but just to contribute yet another 2c:
1. Einhorn's suite was on the subject of "bundling" a bunch of proposals together -- I agree with him that this was unreasonable.
2. As for his timing, my belief is that his sturm und drang brought the whole issue of what apple was doing with its cash into the limelight, and this actually helped the stock price in the short term -- people believed that Apple would do SOMETHING (if not prefs, then increased dividend, buyback, or even a more detailed explanation of what they were doing sitting on this pile of money). Instead, Apple (in the form of Tim) said some platitudes and did nothing, which really underscores how much it cares about its shareholders. Without one of the parenthesized things, notice that Apple's P/E being low means nothing, since the profits will, apparently, never be distributed to shareholders.
And another point, once we are on the subject of stock price: Go to Yahoo! finance, and look up "Insider transactions" for Apple. You will see some interesting things:
1. An insanely large stock grant to Al Gore:
Jan 14, 2013
GORE ALBERT JRDirector
59,000
Direct
Option Exercise at $7.48 per share.
(do the math: $7.48 a share is basically free, and the market value of the stock is $25MM. If you tell me that Al has provided $25MM worth of leadership to Apple, I have some nice swamp land I have at a good price).
And 2. The management dumping huge amount of stock at $550 or so. Much of it shows up as automatic sales, but this is well-known to be silly. An automatic sale can always be stopped if the owner is so inclined. In case you don't believe me, look at the previous year (which is included on the Yahoo! Finance page) you will see that the amounts are much smaller, and clearly in line with what people would need to buy houses in Palo Alto and such. (one of the dumpers is Scott Forstall, long before he himself was dumped).
Now tell me whether this indicates that the management has full faith in Apple's fortunes, and therefore, do you have as much faith in the management as you did before you saw this.