Despite a track record of baseless comments, this contention takes the cake.
You are implying the value of the company would trade below the cash value which could and would never happen. When you take the market cap and back out the cash, Apple would have to come up with $260+ billion of additional cash. That assumes no premium to the current price, which is comical because the owners of the company - the shareholders - would never let it happen with no substantial premium. So ABOVE AND BEYOND the cash they already have, where exactly do you see them coming up with $300 billion or so? The vast majority of going private transactions are LBOs, a leveraged buyout. Where does the leverage part of the equation come from? Investors. Where does the equity check come from because clearly even in an MBO (management buyout) none of the current management have $300 billion sitting in their bank accounts? Investors.
Please stop this absurd contention that Apple could somehow go private with no investor help.
Shareholders own this company. Shareholders will soon be kicking Tim Cook out of it, in my opinion.
Who would be a better replacement and besides the stock price movement, what are you basing these assessments of ability on?
Someone that doesn't have the personality of a rock to begin with. Someone who instills confidence in the investment community AND its employees. Someone who doesn't decide to go the longest in more than 10 years to roll out a new product. Someone that can run this company for its primary purpose - to create shareholder value, not destroy it. Apple isn't trading where it is simply due to its deteriorating earnings.... the market has lost all confidence in Tim Cook, otherwise how can you explain the stock trading below the valuation metrics of Dell, HPQ, Intel, Microsoft, and virtually every other tech company. The market is pricing in the future and saying the future under Tim Cook doesn't look good.
Someone that doesn't have the personality of a rock to begin with. Someone who instills confidence in the investment community AND its employees. Someone who doesn't decide to go the longest in more than 10 years to roll out a new product. Someone that can run this company for its primary purpose - to create shareholder value, not destroy it. Apple isn't trading where it is simply due to its deteriorating earnings.... the market has lost all confidence in Tim Cook, otherwise how can you explain the stock trading below the valuation metrics of Dell, HPQ, Intel, Microsoft, and virtually every other tech company. The market is pricing in the future and saying the future under Tim Cook doesn't look good.
Longest in 10 years to roll out new products? Are you talking about brand new products or updates? Almost the entire product line was updated last fall. Cook has been on the job for less than two years. There were six years between the iPod and iPhone.
Apple still made a lot of money last qtr. go troll somewhere else.
Longest in 10 years to roll out new products? Are you talking about brand new products or updates? Almost the entire product line was updated last fall. Cook has been on the job for less than two years. There were six years between the iPod and iPhone.
Apple still made a lot of money last qtr. go troll somewhere else.
I was paraphrasing a Bloomberg story today that says its the longest period with no new product since at least 2000. Maybe you should tell that reporter he/she is a troll.
Yes, Apple made a lot of money. Yes the products are still great, that isn't the issue. The issue is the money they make is shrinking while others continue to make more in mobile. Why is that?
Why do YOU matter? You being the investment community, since you never shut up about it, that is.
No, that's not its primary purpose. Go educate yourself.
Screw your market. Apple cares about the real market.
"It hasn't happened, therefore it can't," is a laughable "argument".
And really, please use the actual quote feature.
You mean the real market where their real earnings will drop over 20% year over year? Or is there another real market where they are making money that nobody knows about? The reality is any public company must create shareholder value or shareholders will leave in droves, which is what we are seeing now, with a majority of the largest investors in this company dumping the stock this year. That is reality. Long term investors, who manage money for a living and have the reality that they themselves must perform or lose their investors see better opportunity than in this company.
Of course something that hasn't happened before can happen, but I don't think you have the ability to articulate how it could happen because its so nonsensical.
I don't matter. Internet forums don't matter. Why do you keep responding to comments that don't matter. Let me voice my opinion and gloss over it if you disagree. Your responses only show that you think something I say is going to have an impact as you attempt to refute.
I was paraphrasing a Bloomberg story today that says its the longest period with no new product since at least 2000. Maybe you should tell that reporter he/she is a troll.
Yes, Apple made a lot of money. Yes the products are still great, that isn't the issue. The issue is the money they make is shrinking while others continue to make more in mobile. Why is that?
Yes because Bloomberg is known for journalistic integrity (if you ignore the Bloomberg terminal stories). Apple still has 60-70% of the mobile profits. Only Sammy is making money on the Android side.
Someone that doesn't have the personality of a rock to begin with.
He can be a little dry but he has the confidence of a rock and I like that in a CEO. Look at Zuckerberg when he was under questioning at All Things D - sweatin' like a fat guy in a sauna. Tim is always calm and very resolute. He manages to get a few one-liners in now and again too and his values are totally aligned with the company. I really can't think of many candidates who could do a better job than he is doing. Look at Google, Larry Page was terrible at the IO conference. I don't want to criticise him as an individual as he came across as a nice guy but he looks like he's not in control of the company at all.
Someone who instills confidence in the investment community AND its employees.
The investment community is not really his focus. The company doesn't need new investors. Slowed growth was an inevitability. As for the employees, that's up to them to decide.
Someone who doesn't decide to go the longest in more than 10 years to roll out a new product.
They can't update most of their products until they have the components from suppliers. This is just some unfortunate scheduling. Haswell arrives June 3rd, the iOS components should be available in time for a September launch.
Someone that can run this company for its primary purpose - to create shareholder value, not destroy it.
More value was created under his leadership than has been destroyed and the term 'value' here is of course referring to the stock price, which is not really directly based on anything tangible.
Under Tim's leadership, emotional investors moved their valuation of Apple to double what it was in a matter of months. Apple did very little during that time. A while later, savvy investors decided to reassess that valuation (this is called profiting). Emotional investors now tell stories about how Tim destroyed it all. Wall Street, big banks and insurance companies (the biggest shareholders) took all the 'value' out of it, while pointing the finger at the only people generating value.
The market is pricing in the future and saying the future under Tim Cook doesn't look good.
These would be the same people who predicted the financial turmoil they were responsible for? If they can't predict their own business, how qualified are they to predict the future of a business they know nothing about?
I thought others had explained this in prior threads. Apple can buy back shares. They cannot vote with the shares they buy back, and a corporation cannot own itself. Let me ask, what would it take to put this matter to rest? I know it's come up before (edit: not referring to the current thread), and you don't seem to believe what others have already stated.
Guess I missed a key point: they still have to have vote on it, regardless if they themselves own all the shares? That doesn't make any sense.
Buying it up would affect the value of stock still in circulation, assuming no new shares are issued. You still haven't answered who you thought would own it at that point. Corporations can own subsidiaries, but they do not own themselves. If Apple tried to buy up all shares, they would just inflate the price of those remaining in circulation. If thousands rather than millions of shares were left in circulation, the price would be much higher, assuming those shareholders were willing to sell. You seem to hold the view that Apple has some kind of autonomy when it's still owned by its shareholders.
Comments
Originally Posted by hmm
…they would require investors with the funds to buy out all shareholders.
Why, if they had the cash necessary?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Why, if they had the cash necessary?
Despite a track record of baseless comments, this contention takes the cake.
You are implying the value of the company would trade below the cash value which could and would never happen. When you take the market cap and back out the cash, Apple would have to come up with $260+ billion of additional cash. That assumes no premium to the current price, which is comical because the owners of the company - the shareholders - would never let it happen with no substantial premium. So ABOVE AND BEYOND the cash they already have, where exactly do you see them coming up with $300 billion or so? The vast majority of going private transactions are LBOs, a leveraged buyout. Where does the leverage part of the equation come from? Investors. Where does the equity check come from because clearly even in an MBO (management buyout) none of the current management have $300 billion sitting in their bank accounts? Investors.
Please stop this absurd contention that Apple could somehow go private with no investor help.
Shareholders own this company. Shareholders will soon be kicking Tim Cook out of it, in my opinion.
Originally Posted by jdnc123
You are implying the value of the company would trade below the cash value which could and would never happen.
It can be done in stages, however.
Shareholders own this company. Shareholders will soon be kicking Tim Cook out of it, in my opinion.
Your opinion is bollocks. Forgive me if I don't care about the other things you say, then.
Who would be a better replacement and besides the stock price movement, what are you basing these assessments of ability on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Who would be a better replacement and besides the stock price movement, what are you basing these assessments of ability on?
Someone that doesn't have the personality of a rock to begin with. Someone who instills confidence in the investment community AND its employees. Someone who doesn't decide to go the longest in more than 10 years to roll out a new product. Someone that can run this company for its primary purpose - to create shareholder value, not destroy it. Apple isn't trading where it is simply due to its deteriorating earnings.... the market has lost all confidence in Tim Cook, otherwise how can you explain the stock trading below the valuation metrics of Dell, HPQ, Intel, Microsoft, and virtually every other tech company. The market is pricing in the future and saying the future under Tim Cook doesn't look good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
It can be done in stages, however.
Your opinion is bollocks. Forgive me if I don't care about the other things you say, then.
>>It can be done in stages, however.>>
Give me one example where a company went private without the help of outside investors. Your contention is baseless and hogwash.
Originally Posted by jdnc123
Someone who instills confidence in the investment community AND its employees.
Why do YOU matter? You being the investment community, since you never shut up about it, that is.
…this company for its primary purpose - to create shareholder value…
No, that's not its primary purpose. Go educate yourself.
…the market has lost all confidence…
Screw your market. Apple cares about the real market.
Originally Posted by jdnc123
Give me one example where a company went private without the help of outside investors. Your contention is baseless and hogwash.
"It hasn't happened, therefore it can't," is a laughable "argument".
And really, please use the actual quote feature.
Longest in 10 years to roll out new products? Are you talking about brand new products or updates? Almost the entire product line was updated last fall. Cook has been on the job for less than two years. There were six years between the iPod and iPhone.
Apple still made a lot of money last qtr. go troll somewhere else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Longest in 10 years to roll out new products? Are you talking about brand new products or updates? Almost the entire product line was updated last fall. Cook has been on the job for less than two years. There were six years between the iPod and iPhone.
Apple still made a lot of money last qtr. go troll somewhere else.
I was paraphrasing a Bloomberg story today that says its the longest period with no new product since at least 2000. Maybe you should tell that reporter he/she is a troll.
Yes, Apple made a lot of money. Yes the products are still great, that isn't the issue. The issue is the money they make is shrinking while others continue to make more in mobile. Why is that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Why do YOU matter? You being the investment community, since you never shut up about it, that is.
No, that's not its primary purpose. Go educate yourself.
Screw your market. Apple cares about the real market.
"It hasn't happened, therefore it can't," is a laughable "argument".
And really, please use the actual quote feature.
You mean the real market where their real earnings will drop over 20% year over year? Or is there another real market where they are making money that nobody knows about? The reality is any public company must create shareholder value or shareholders will leave in droves, which is what we are seeing now, with a majority of the largest investors in this company dumping the stock this year. That is reality. Long term investors, who manage money for a living and have the reality that they themselves must perform or lose their investors see better opportunity than in this company.
Of course something that hasn't happened before can happen, but I don't think you have the ability to articulate how it could happen because its so nonsensical.
I don't matter. Internet forums don't matter. Why do you keep responding to comments that don't matter. Let me voice my opinion and gloss over it if you disagree. Your responses only show that you think something I say is going to have an impact as you attempt to refute.
Yes because Bloomberg is known for journalistic integrity (if you ignore the Bloomberg terminal stories). Apple still has 60-70% of the mobile profits. Only Sammy is making money on the Android side.
He can be a little dry but he has the confidence of a rock and I like that in a CEO. Look at Zuckerberg when he was under questioning at All Things D - sweatin' like a fat guy in a sauna. Tim is always calm and very resolute. He manages to get a few one-liners in now and again too and his values are totally aligned with the company. I really can't think of many candidates who could do a better job than he is doing. Look at Google, Larry Page was terrible at the IO conference. I don't want to criticise him as an individual as he came across as a nice guy but he looks like he's not in control of the company at all.
The investment community is not really his focus. The company doesn't need new investors. Slowed growth was an inevitability. As for the employees, that's up to them to decide.
They can't update most of their products until they have the components from suppliers. This is just some unfortunate scheduling. Haswell arrives June 3rd, the iOS components should be available in time for a September launch.
More value was created under his leadership than has been destroyed and the term 'value' here is of course referring to the stock price, which is not really directly based on anything tangible.
Under Tim's leadership, emotional investors moved their valuation of Apple to double what it was in a matter of months. Apple did very little during that time. A while later, savvy investors decided to reassess that valuation (this is called profiting). Emotional investors now tell stories about how Tim destroyed it all. Wall Street, big banks and insurance companies (the biggest shareholders) took all the 'value' out of it, while pointing the finger at the only people generating value.
These would be the same people who predicted the financial turmoil they were responsible for? If they can't predict their own business, how qualified are they to predict the future of a business they know nothing about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Why, if they had the cash necessary?
I thought others had explained this in prior threads. Apple can buy back shares. They cannot vote with the shares they buy back, and a corporation cannot own itself. Let me ask, what would it take to put this matter to rest? I know it's come up before (edit: not referring to the current thread), and you don't seem to believe what others have already stated.
Originally Posted by jdnc123
…will…
lol.
The reality is any public company must create shareholder value or shareholders will leave in droves, which is what we are seeing now…
Yes, we're seeing idiots sell a stock they don't comprehend.
I don't matter.
Good, so you can just stop posting entirely, then.
Why do you keep responding to comments that don't matter.
Why do you keep making them?
Let me voice my opinion…
Your opinion is lies. "Let" becomes the wrong word.
Originally Posted by hmm
Apple can buy back shares. They cannot vote with the shares they buy back, and a corporation cannot own itself.
Guess I missed a key point: they still have to have vote on it, regardless if they themselves own all the shares? That doesn't make any sense.
Let me ask, what would it take to put this matter to rest?
Apple going private.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Guess I missed a key point: they still have to have vote on it, regardless if they themselves own all the shares? That doesn't make any sense.
Buying it up would affect the value of stock still in circulation, assuming no new shares are issued. You still haven't answered who you thought would own it at that point. Corporations can own subsidiaries, but they do not own themselves. If Apple tried to buy up all shares, they would just inflate the price of those remaining in circulation. If thousands rather than millions of shares were left in circulation, the price would be much higher, assuming those shareholders were willing to sell. You seem to hold the view that Apple has some kind of autonomy when it's still owned by its shareholders.
Quote:
Apple going private.
Fair enough.