Greenlight Capital drops lawsuit against Apple over $137B cash reserves

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 77

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post



    In practice, a CEO who ignores the Board's direction doesn't last long.


     


    LOL. You mean Steve Jobs' hand-picked board of directors?

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 62 of 77
    igrivigriv Posts: 1,177member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


     


    LOL. You mean Steve Jobs' hand-picked board of directors?



     


    This point is correct, but as I have already said, having a weak board is VERY bad for any company. It appeared work  for Apple with Jobs in charge, because Jobs had an exceptionally clear vision, and with a bunch of puppets he did not have to convince anyone of anything, AND he started with a much smaller company, but now that Apple is either the first or second company in the world by market cap, a strong board is very helpful.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 63 of 77
    robmrobm Posts: 1,068member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by igriv View Post


     


    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.



    1) Yes. A small technicality he won and ok fair enough. I don't believe it was Apples intent for one minute.


    2) Yes again - he certainly drew attention to the pile of cash to the limelight.


    There are still ethics in business - although I fully appreciate that there are no ethics in options or the wider market in general.


    He could have done this after the meeting and would have been seen in a totally different light.


    However he didn't - and for that I bag him completely.


    The board was reelected by the shareholders. That ought to tell you something.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 64 of 77
    igrivigriv Posts: 1,177member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RobM View Post


    1) Yes. A small technicality he won and ok fair enough. I don't believe it was Apples intent for one minute.


    2) Yes again - he certainly drew attention to the pile of cash to the limelight.


     


    He could have done this after the meeting and would have been seen in a totally different light.


     


    The board was reelected by the shareholders. That ought to tell you something.



     


    On your second paragraph ("He could have...")  -- different, yes, but I am not sure in what way.


     


    On the board: not so fast. Most of apple stock is held by huge institutions, and I would not be surprised if it is their policy to not oppose the board/management (I am certain that that is their policy, but am not certain whether this means they vote for or abstain. I conjecture the former, but am not sure). Further, most people don't care, so don't vote. In my (all too considerable) experience, companies who care about your opinion have people call you and solicit your vote. I hold a nonzero amount of Apple stock, and have NEVER been contacted by them as a shareholder. If they had, I absolutely would not have voted for window dressing (Andrea Jung? Al Gore? Bill Campell? Millard Drexler?) and even non-window-dressing is debatable (Levinson is the Chairman, but it is clear that his first priority is Genentech, of which he is also Chairman of the board, but where he has spent his entire professional life).

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 65 of 77
    igrivigriv Posts: 1,177member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by igriv View Post


     


    On your second paragraph ("He could have...")  -- different, yes, but I am not sure in what way.


     


    On the board: not so fast. Most of apple stock is held by huge institutions, and I would not be surprised if it is their policy to not oppose the board/management (I am certain that that is their policy, but am not certain whether this means they vote for or abstain. I conjecture the former, but am not sure). Further, most people don't care, so don't vote. In my (all too considerable) experience, companies who care about your opinion have people call you and solicit your vote. I hold a nonzero amount of Apple stock, and have NEVER been contacted by them as a shareholder. If they had, I absolutely would not have voted for window dressing (Andrea Jung? Al Gore? Bill Campell? Millard Drexler?) and even non-window-dressing is debatable (Levinson is the Chairman, but it is clear that his first priority is Genentech, of which he is also Chairman of the board, but where he has spent his entire professional life).



     


    To follow up, I found this:


     


    http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/articles/mutualfunds.html


     


    with the following paragraph:


     


    As for elections of board members, many companies state that they tend to support the board's nominees. Others provide some criteria, such as expecting that directors attend a minimum number of board meetings, usually three of every four. 


     


    So, I guess Al and Millard showed up.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 66 of 77
    robmrobm Posts: 1,068member


    Look I don't agree with the way all elections turn out.


    I do accept and agree with philosophy behind an election.


    They reflect the opinion of the majority.


     


    The board was reelected - Tim ain't going no where.


    Stop the fud and get over it.


    Buy some some shares and vote next GM.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 67 of 77
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    igriv wrote: »
    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: 
    <table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:1.22em;background-color:rgb(161,161,161);" width="100%"><tbody style="line-height:1.22em;"><tr style="font-size:12px;line-height:1.22em;" valign="top"><td class="yfnc_tabledata1" style="white-space:nowrap;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);line-height:1.22em;background-image:none;background-attachment:scroll;padding:3px 8px;background-position:0px 0px;">Jan 14, 2013</td>

    <td class="yfnc_tabledata1" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);line-height:1.22em;background-image:none;background-attachment:scroll;padding:3px 8px;background-position:0px 0px;"><a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/t/15/7385.html" style="color:rgb(26,84,136);line-height:1.22em;" target="_blank">GORE ALBERT JR</a>
    <span style="line-height:1.22em;font-size:11px;display:block;">Director</span>
    </td>

    <td align="right" class="yfnc_tabledata1" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);line-height:1.22em;background-image:none;background-attachment:scroll;padding:3px 8px;background-position:0px 0px;">59,000</td>

    <td align="center" class="yfnc_tabledata1" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);line-height:1.22em;background-image:none;background-attachment:scroll;padding:3px 8px;background-position:0px 0px;">Direct</td>

    <td align="left" class="yfnc_tabledata1" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);line-height:1.22em;background-image:none;background-attachment:scroll;padding:3px 8px;background-position:0px 0px;">Option Exercise at $7.48 per share.</td>

    </tr>
    </tbody>
    </table>

    (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.

    You need to check your facts.

    Automatic sales can not be stopped other than under very extreme circumstances. =
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 68 of 77
    igrivigriv Posts: 1,177member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    You need to check your facts.



    Automatic sales can not be stopped other than under very extreme circumstances. =


     


    The suggestion to check my facts was a good one. See


     


    http://www.paulhastings.com/assets/publications/801.pdf


     


    At the beginning of page 2, item (4): plans may be stopped EVEN if the person is in possession of insider info. So, you can't alter the plan, but you can stop it altogether. So, Tim did not HAVE to sell essentially all his shares ($80MM worth), and likewise for Shiller and Oppenheim.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 69 of 77
    igrivigriv Posts: 1,177member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RobM View Post


    Look I don't agree with the way all elections turn out.


    I do accept and agree with philosophy behind an election.


    They reflect the opinion of the majority.


     


    The board was reelected - Tim ain't going no where.


    Stop the fud and get over it.


    Buy some some shares and vote next GM.



     


    What I am telling you is that for Apple 2/3 of the voting shares are held by mutual funds and such and they ALWAYS agree with the board on board election (unless the guy shirks his duties completely), so the shareholder vote is a rubber stamp.


     


    And otherwise, FUD? Really? Also, I do hold shares (as I told you in a previous post) and (a) as you see in the previous line, my vote would not have made an iota of difference (even Einhorn's $500MM doesn't) and (b) I never got any communique from Apple advising me how, or whether, to vote.


     


    Pretty lousy governance, if you ask me.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 70 of 77
    robmrobm Posts: 1,068member


    I do apologise - I must have developed an Internet stutter ;-)


    I know you are a shareholder, I meant to say, Buy some more shares ..


     


    Yea - fud may have been a bit harsh. But you rag on about Tim and Apples lack of concern for shareholders more than necessary, imnsho.


    What's changed since Steve was running the company ?


    The share price went up and now there's huge pile of cash and growing for Apple to use as it sees fit.


    The board has made noise about doing things with it and returning some to investors - give them chance to make sense of it all and make prudent decisions.


     


    I know about 2/3 corporate ownership, I know. Majority rules, shrug


     


    Voting ? Details are explained in this doc. 


    http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/2339926367x0x626674/95ab899e-7084-4e7c-9650-d608ef900059/Apple_2013_Proxy_Statement_01.07.13.pdf


    Register and you shall receive.


    I wrote in and did it the formal way years ago.


    I just found this however, it may be easier I'm not sure.


    http://investor.apple.com/faq.cfm?FaqSetID=5


    cheers

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 71 of 77
    igrivigriv Posts: 1,177member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RobM View Post


    I do apologise - I must have developed an Internet stutter ;-)


    I know you are a shareholder, I meant to say, Buy some more shares ..


     


    Yea - fud may have been a bit harsh. But you rag on about Tim and Apples lack of concern for shareholders more than necessary, imnsho.


    What's changed since Steve was running the company ?


    The share price went up and now there's huge pile of cash and growing for Apple to use as it sees fit.


    The board has made noise about doing things with it and returning some to investors - give them chance to make sense of it all and make prudent decisions.


     


    I know about 2/3 corporate ownership, I know. Majority rules, shrug


     


    Voting ? Details are explained in this doc. 


    http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/2339926367x0x626674/95ab899e-7084-4e7c-9650-d608ef900059/Apple_2013_Proxy_Statement_01.07.13.pdf


    Register and you shall receive.


    I wrote in and did it the formal way years ago.


    I just found this however, it may be easier I'm not sure.


    http://investor.apple.com/faq.cfm?FaqSetID=5


    cheers



     


    Thanks. What has changed since Steve was running the company is this: Steve screwed up in many, many ways, but he got a "get out of jail card" since he had some pretty good product ideas (and he was always a product guy, ever since he and Wozniak founded the company), he was also a phenomenal salesman, and was able to move some of Apple's less stellar stuff. The current CEO, Tim Cook, seems to be a nice fellow, and a very competent operations guy, but these are not as rare as Jobs' qualifications, and there is no evidence whatever that he has any of Jobs' talents in the areas of product development or reality distortion. The senior management team, in the meantime, are all old Apple hands (they have ALL been there since at least 1998), and given that the Jobs legacy board is weak, and the rubberstamping by the mutual funds, the prospects of change (in either the board or the management team) are somewhat dim. Apple's products, in the meantime, while marvels of industrial design, are losing out on pure functionality to the competition (notice that the new iMac was widely panned for being essentially not user upgradeable; the lightning connector, while objectively better designed than its predecessor or the standard USB connector was very poorly timed [it offered no performance advantage but did inflict considerable upgrade costs]; the iPhone is very seriously lagging, not in its lack of NFC (at the moment, no one cares), but in screen size [if you try one of the competing phones, you will quickly see that bigger is really better], and also in software -- Siri is, to be mild, not better than Google's competitive system, and the iPhone keyboard input is WAY worse than any of the competitors [Android has swype, while Win 8 phones and blackberries have "Wordflow". If you ever try it you will see that it allows you to type a lot faster]. I could go on, but you get the idea). The fact that the iDevices are very well built and designed, and are also ubiquitous (so there is a lot of inertia in the system) buys Apple some time, but they appear to have no real sense of urgency. Samsung's R&D budget is 5.7% of revenue, Apple's is 2.2% -- that should give you some idea. The very real fear is that the Cook era is the second coming of Sculley -- very good financial results, combined with the loss of technological leadership. Apple NEEDS strong leadership from the board to snap out of it, but the prospects for this seem grim. The Cook response to Einhorn could be described as, umm, mealy-mouthed, which is why, I believe, the stock nosedived immediately thereafter (I mean "we are discussing possibilities"? Could he be any lamer?) 


     


    I should say that I have many apple products, and I do like using them, and I very much hope that they continue to make great stuff, but the omens are not good.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 72 of 77
    robmrobm Posts: 1,068member


    "Could he be any lamer ?"


    lol


    Yea - he could be like Squirter !


     


    I dunno - to me he comes across as very sincere, very capable. A little "grey" in a bean counterish way perhaps but enthusiastic for Apples prospects. I don't think there's any need for replacement at all. Heck, he hasn't been in the job very long and has got huge shoes to fill.


    I think he's done very well.


     


    I can't think of anybody who has his indepth knowledge and experience of Apple who could replace him anyway. Definitely don't want anybody outside of Apple to come in, IMO.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 73 of 77
    igrivigriv Posts: 1,177member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RobM View Post


    "Could he be any lamer ?"


    lol


    Yea - he could be like Squirter !


     


    I dunno - to me he comes across as very sincere, very capable. A little "grey" in a bean counterish way perhaps but enthusiastic for Apples prospects. I don't think there's any need for replacement at all. Heck, he hasn't been in the job very long and has got huge shoes to fill.


    I think he's done very well.


     


    I can't think of anybody who has his indepth knowledge and experience of Apple who could replace him anyway. Definitely don't want anybody outside of Apple to come in, IMO.



    I hope you are right, and I like the guy, but we will see how it all unfolds over the next while...

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 74 of 77
    robmrobm Posts: 1,068member


    Fair enough. Im doing exactly the same.


    Keep your powder dry is my motto !

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 75 of 77


    Quote:



    Originally Posted by igriv View Post


     


    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.



     


    I have a much simpler theory as to why the case was dropped.  The meeting is over.  Einhorn did not want Prop 2 to pass, he latched on to the "Bundling" issue (Which may or may not be valid).  Since it was not considered at the meeting and can not be brought up again until the next shareholder's meeting why pay the lawyers when you already got your way.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 76 of 77
    igrivigriv Posts: 1,177member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AJMonline View Post


    Quote:


     


    I have a much simpler theory as to why the case was dropped.  The meeting is over.  Einhorn did not want Prop 2 to pass, he latched on to the "Bundling" issue (Which may or may not be valid).  Since it was not considered at the meeting and can not be brought up again until the next shareholder's meeting why pay the lawyers when you already got your way.



     


    Your theory sounds very plausible (but I was actually not offering a competing theory :))

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 77 of 77
    yazolightyazolight Posts: 118member


    I wonder, what is the percentage of Apple shares in the hands of Apple itself? And is there anybody with more than 20% in his sole hands?

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.