You're saying their quarterly financial earnings improved with Icahn's involvement? I doubt it. You must be talking about their stock price rising, which has nothing to do with the success of Apple's business. The stock price changed with the buyback, which they set out long before Carl got involved:
Maybe Carl has some influence over other traders' confidence but again that's got nothing to do with Apple's business operation.
Again Apple has a great business and that is why it should not be losing 40% of its value for no reason. And the board to sit by and watch this happen. Its not that hard people.
Stop talk about people's mothers being whores please, that lowers the tone, and should not be the go-to insult.
On a broader point, no, Apple should not respond to unsubstantiated gossip. If they do, they'll set a precedent and then they'll have to respond to all unsubstantiated gossip.
So if Apple doesn't respond to something, does that inherently make it true? So Apple has to respond to everything then. Again, time would be wasted on that. And what's worse , analysts lying about Apple or Apple lying about something?
The stock price , losing 40% tells you waht people thought. I am surprised you even had to ask that question.
Again Apple has a great business and that is why it should not be losing 40% of its value for no reason. And the board to sit by and watch this happen. Its not that hard people.
What was the reason it increased 90% in 2011/2012? This was right after losing Steve and whose loss is repeatedly mentioned when the stock falls. Surely losing such an important person would have made the stock plummet immediately.
What was the reason it increased 90% in 2011/2012? This was right after losing Steve and whose loss is repeatedly mentioned when the stock falls. Surely losing such an important person would have made the stock plummet immediately.
It's because Cook had daily seances w Jobs that stopped when Apple hit $700.
Chart for posterity. Jobs’ return to death (black line) to today.
Seems that almost half the stock price was, at one time, generated after his death. And it keeps going up.
Exactly. They’re listening to Steve Jobs himself. No one cares about defending the stock price. It will defend itself.
Most people are idiots. They aren’t.
That couldn’t be further from the truth. I’m not going to listen to 100 idiots if 10 people actually know what they’re talking about.
Yeah. Icahn. Knows nothing but has money.
Man, you guys are hilarious. Again, gonna just keep repeating it until you shut up, give up, and do it: sell AAPL, go away. You don’t understand the company, you don’t understand what it means, you don’t understand how to handle this kind of stock.
You buy it, you sit on it, you cash in later. If you bought at $700, quit whining.
1.) You used an 8 year time frame in your post. And, I correctly replied that Jobs oversaw Apple for 6 of the past 8 years.
2.) LOL, they're listening to a dead guy, huh? Sheesh. Unbelievable. Their boss is the shareholders. Period. They are the only people the board should be getting their directions from as they shareholders can fire board members and they own the company.
3.) You clearly could not comprehend my post. It doesn't matter who is smarter on a subject. What matters in the real world is the perception of those in power. Whether they are running Apple or investing in Apple. You may think (as indicated by your ridiculous number of posts on this forum) that you know more about Apple than most institutional investors, or, perhaps, even Apple management. But, you are not in a position of power. You do not control the direction of Apple and you are not a significant shareholder of Apple. Therefore, as well versed as you think you are on the subject matter, you are just a tree falling in the proverbial forrest (with the small exceptions of some posters on this forum who are equally inconsequential).
4.) Carl Icahn was not born into money. He is now worth over 15 billion dollars. He didn't get there by "knowing nothing." We should all be so lucky to know as little as he, LOL.
5.) I've been in Apple for a long time and currently have a position that's quite large. It will take a lot more than financially obtuse person such as yourself to shake me out of the stock. I've been blogging and posting on Apple for many years in many forums. A am a big Apple bull and don't really care if you agree with me on capital structure issues. So, I guess you'll just have to deal with me.
6.) I very much know how to handle this stock and the many others in my portfolio as I have had an great track record investing. So, sorry to disappoint you. You will be hearing from me on this forum from time to time. Although I don't really have the spare time to make 30,000 posts as I am usually out enjoying the money I have made on Apple and the rest of my portfolio. Maybe some day you'll get to that point.
See, lies don’t affect reputation. Thanks for the ad-homs, though. They affect yours.
Go watch the WWDC 1997 keynote. Do not comment on the stock again until you have watched it.
God, this Tallest Skil character is hysterical. He thinks he's the grand wizard of Apple discussions. I have some advice for you Tallest Skil: DO NOT comment on this stock again until you have taken a course in How to Win Friends an Influence People, LOL!
They can't and should not respond. They have more important things to do. The news is out there easy for anyone with a brain to read. They can't help it if analysts are stupid. So take your grubby hands out of my portfolio and sell.
You have no idea what you are talking about. As a shareholder, his opinion matters as much as yours, and, possibly a lot more. So, he could just as easily tell you to take your apathetic hands out of HIS portfolio.
2.) LOL, they're listening to a dead guy, huh? Sheesh. Unbelievable.
LOL, we still have the constitution as our country’s system of laws despite being written by dead guys. Sheesh. Unbelievable.
Their boss is the shareholders. Period.
Genuine laughter, as opposed to the mocking kind above.
They are the only people the board should be getting their directions from
Nah. The board should probably be getting direction from the product makers.
as they shareholders can fire board members and they own the company.
Mild chuckling.
What matters in the real world is the perception of those in power.
Those in power are the board and executive vice president group. And their perception is that the stock will take care of itself.
Therefore, as well versed as you think you are on the subject matter, you are just a tree falling in the proverbial forrest (with the small exceptions of some posters on this forum who are equally inconsequential).
Funny how you’re the same, isn’t it.
4.) Carl Icahn was not born into money. He is now worth over 15 billion dollars.
‘Kay, and?
He didn't get there by "knowing nothing."
Thanks for pretending you can take things out of context and respond to them. He knows nothing about Apple, as you yourself admitted is possible.
5.) I've been in Apple for a long time and currently have a position that's quite large.
Then you ought to be behaving more intelligently than you are. Your excuse is what?
It will take a lot more than financially obtuse person such as yourself to shake me out of the stock.
How about Apple going private? Will that work?
Maybe some day you'll get to that point.
So since you have no argument to prove you actually have an understanding of Apple, you resort to ad-homs. Enjoy.
Originally Posted by Jack Baker
DO NOT comment on this stock again…
Did you watch it? I bet you didn’t watch it. You should watch it. It’ll tell you how little you know about how Apple operates.
Originally Posted by Jack Baker
Really, What in my post is inaccurate?
Well, given the statements therein, I’d have to guess your claims of underperformance.
You have no idea what you are talking about. As a shareholder, his opinion matters as much as yours, and, possibly a lot more. So, he could just as easily tell you to take your apathetic hands out of HIS portfolio.
And I can say you have no idea what you're talking about. And my opinion is on par with yours.
LOL, we still have the constitution as our country’s system of laws despite being written by dead guys. Sheesh. Unbelievable.
Genuine laughter, as opposed to the mocking kind above.
Nah. The board should probably be getting direction from the product makers.
Mild chuckling.
Those in power are the board and executive vice president group. And their perception is that the stock will take care of itself.
Funny how you’re the same, isn’t it.
‘Kay, and?
Thanks for pretending you can take things out of context and respond to them. He knows nothing about Apple, as you yourself admitted is possible.
Then you ought to be behaving more intelligently than you are. Your excuse is what?
How about Apple going private? Will that work?
So since you have no argument to prove you actually have an understanding of Apple, you resort to ad-homs. Enjoy.
Did you watch it? I bet you didn’t watch it. You should watch it. It’ll tell you how little you know about how Apple operates.
Well, given the statements therein, I’d have to guess your claims of underperformance.
Wow, LOL, you're really quite a comical individual. You're so smug in your sanctimonious, pseudo-intellectualism. You have a ready-made answer for everything and somehow you've convinced yourself and a handful of lemmings on this forum that you are well-versed in all aspects of anything involving Apple. I mean, anyone who has the time for 30,000 post should, right? But you have proven, by you incorrect and nonsensical posts about the capital markets, that you know next to nothing about the capital markets. And, surprise surprise, Apple is a public company OWNED by the shareholders in the public equity market. If the shareholders vote for a binding proxy for a share-buy back of a certain amount, guess what? It happens. Whether the board likes it or Cook likes it -- It happens. If the shareholders vote to remove a board member and it passes. Guess what? That person is fired. Maybe you should educate yourself on how public companies work instead of telling other people to educate themselves on how Apple thinks. I am well aware of the Apple culture and much more regarding Apple. I have been a student of Apple for MANY years. Maybe you should spend less time preaching to people and more time listening to other people's perspectives. Of course, then you would put yourself in a position of learning from others, which I'm sure is a very awkward position for you.
So you can’t answer ANY of my questions? Why would we listen to you, then?
If the shareholders vote for a binding proxy for a share-buy back of a certain amount, guess what? It happens. Whether the board likes it or Cook likes it -- It happens.
Exactly. Which is why Apple doesn’t want it to happen. Because they know what it implies and what it will do to the company. And you don’t. This is fact. They know better than you do about what to do with the money that THEY earn.
Maybe you should educate yourself on how public companies work…
Shame you can’t read. If you could, you’d stop basing your posts on ad-homs and start knowing what I’ve already said. Then you wouldn’t be repeating things that have already been proven wrong.
I am well aware of the Apple culture…
Are you? Did you watch the keynote? I bet you didn’t watch it. If you had watched it, you’d have a response that 1) supported your position and 2) showed what was wrong with Apple’s.
So you can’t answer ANY of my questions? Why would we listen to you, then?
Exactly. Which is why Apple doesn’t want it to happen. Because they know what it implies and what it will do to the company. And you don’t. This is fact. They know better than you do about what to do with the money that THEY earn.
Shame you can’t read. If you could, you’d stop basing your posts on ad-homs and start knowing what I’ve already said. Then you wouldn’t be repeating things that have already been proven wrong.
Are you? Did you watch the keynote? I bet you didn’t watch it. If you had watched it, you’d have a response that 1) supported your position and 2) showed what was wrong with Apple’s.
Maybe watch it.
LOL. Let me explain something to you. I don't answer to you. If I deem a question to be too inane to merit with a response, I don't dignify it with a response. Remember that moving forward. And, who are "we?" You and your imaginary friends? Are you going to start referring to yourself in the third person next? Or do you just assume that other posters that have echoed your sentiments in the past blindly agree with every digit you decide to peck-out on your keyboard. Yes, I know others are not for a buy-out. Many others. That doesn't mean you speak for anyone else.
The money is "earned" for the shareholders and the shareholders own that money. What part of that is so difficult to understand.
I'm not going to play your little game of watching things you ask me to watch. I have watched many many keynotes and listen to Cook and Oppenheimer 4 times a year on their earnings conference call. I also monitor Cook's comments and Apple events very closely throughout the year. He, or anyone in Apple management for that matter, have not specifically articulated a position that supports sitting on 150 (soon to be 160+) billion dollars. The total of Apple's R & D budget and acquisitions is a small fraction of annual profits. Apple would have to increase their current R & D spend and acquisition spend by orders of magnitude to eat through their annual profits. Apple continues to make relatively tiny acquisitions and has a relatively small R & D spend. They can also vertically integrate and build all of the robotic assembly plants they want and still not have to dip into the war chest. As I have posted earlier, the only logical reason for Apple to be sitting on such a ridiculously large war chest (earning 1% for the owners of the company) is if they are planning something huge. Something much larger than their historical R & D and acquisition spend. And, I hope that IS the reason they have been seemingly obtuse with respect to capital. If they don't do something big with that capital soon investors will become more impatient and eventually a proxy forcing their hand will pass. Ultimately Apple will have to spend the money growing the business or return it to shareholders. I would rather they do spend it on the business. But, they will not get a free pass from the largest owners of the companies stock forever. And, several years of inaction with the massive war chest of capital has already occurred. Thus, the entry of Carl Icahn who has made his billions extracting shareholder value from company managements that don't put the owners of the company first. Apple management must act or ultimately they will lose control of the capital.
Let me explain something to you. I don't answer to you.
Now I see where you get your superiority complex over the Apple board. Do you also think that double spacing your sentences makes you better than others, or is that just a holdover from you learning to type in the ‘80s?
If I deem a question to be too inane to merit with a response, I don't dignify it with a response.
That’s really neat, because it’s identical to what you can do when you don’t know the answer. That’s how you get the big bucks.
And, who are "we?"
I’d imagine the people with whom you’re conversing. People here, basically. If you don’t answer their questions, why would they care about yours?
The money is "earned" for the shareholders and the shareholders own that money. What part of that is so difficult to understand.
The part where whiny shareholders make for poor policy.
I'm not going to play your little game of watching things you ask me to watch.
That’s a shame, you’d actually learn something about Apple by doing so.
I have watched many many keynotes…
Have you seen the WWDC 1997 keynote?
I also monitor Cook's comments and Apple events very closely throughout the year. He, or anyone in Apple management for that matter, have not specifically articulated a position that supports sitting on 150 (soon to be 160+) billion dollars.
Right, they say they’ll continue discussing how to intelligently process the earnings and diversify them, yada yada yada. Exactly. They don’t explicitly say they want to sit on it, but what they do say isn’t anything concrete about acquisitions (too many are unnecessary), dividends, and the like. That gives them the leeway to do… just about anything they want with the money, because deliberation takes time; we all know that. And if it just so happens that another quarter rolls around and that deliberation isn’t over, so much the better.
The total of Apple's R & D budget and acquisitions is a small fraction of annual profits. Apple would have to increase their current R & D spend and acquisition spend by orders of magnitude to eat through their annual profits. Apple continues to make relatively tiny acquisitions and has a relatively small R & D spend. They can also vertically integrate and build all of the robotic assembly plants they want and still not have to dip into the war chest.
All of this is 100% correct. As to the last point, they’re trying to do that, but it’s not completely possible, at least yet.
As I have posted earlier, the only logical reason for Apple to be sitting on such a ridiculously large war chest (earning 1% for the owners of the company) is if they are planning something huge.
Which is incorrect. It’s a valid option, but it’s by far not the only one.
…seemingly obtuse…
There you go with your assumptions.
Apple management must act or ultimately they will lose control of the capital.
And the company will be destroyed by morons who don’t have a clue what they’re doing, because push comes to shove they care more about getting back “their” money (you cannot possibly question the quotation marks) than Apple expanding logically, carefully and intelligently, as evidenced by what Icahn has explicitly stated he wants to do with his power.
And yet you vote with them.
That’s our problem with you.
Ooh, I used a plural pronoun again. What’re you gonna do about it?
Let me explain something to you. I don't answer to you.
Now I see where you get your superiority complex over the Apple board. Do you also think that double spacing your sentences makes you better than others, or is that just a holdover from you learning to type in the ‘80s?
Double spacing/80's? LOL, Now who is throwing around the platitudes? Your modus operandi is to throw non-sequetors at people until you frustrate them with you breathtaking lack of logic.
If I deem a question to be too inane to merit with a response, I don't dignify it with a response.
That’s really neat, because it’s identical to what you can do when you don’t know the answer. That’s how you get the big bucks.
Um, no. It's identical to what I do when I am asked a juvenile or illogical question.
And, who are "we?"
I’d imagine the people with whom you’re conversing. People here, basically. If you don’t answer their questions, why would they care about yours?
I see. So you are responding to me on behalf of all the people with whom I am conversing? LOL Interesting. So, as I said, in your deluded sense of who you think you are, you think you speak for other people when no one has authorized you to do so.
The money is "earned" for the shareholders and the shareholders own that money. What part of that is so difficult to understand.
The part where whiny shareholders make for poor policy.
I suppose when your boss is talking to you, you think he is "whiny" too. If Apple doesn't like their boss they can take the company private and answer only to themselves. They haven't done that as of yet because apparently they still need the public equity market. As long as they do, the shareholders are boss. Too damn bad if they don't like it or, lol, you don't like it.
I'm not going to play your little game of watching things you ask me to watch.
That’s a shame, you’d actually learn something about Apple by doing so.
So far I have learned absolutely nothing about Apple in many exchanges with you. So, I don't value your opinion on what I may learn about Apple. The funny thing is you have no idea how much I know about Apple because you spend all of you time trying to impress yourself with your trite little non-sequetor barbs and links to keynotes that happened 16 years ago.
I have watched many many keynotes…
Have you seen the WWDC 1997 keynote?
You're kidding, right?
I also monitor Cook's comments and Apple events very closely throughout the year. He, or anyone in Apple management for that matter, have not specifically articulated a position that supports sitting on 150 (soon to be 160+) billion dollars.
Right, they say they’ll continue discussing how to intelligently process the earnings and diversify them, yada yada yada. Exactly. They don’t explicitly say they want to sit on it, but what they do say isn’t anything concrete about acquisitions (too many are unnecessary), dividends, and the like. That gives them the leeway to do… just about anything they want with the money, because deliberation takes time; we all know that. And if it just so happens that another quarter rolls around and that deliberation isn’t over, so much the better.
So, you agree that I am right on that point.
The total of Apple's R & D budget and acquisitions is a small fraction of annual profits. Apple would have to increase their current R & D spend and acquisition spend by orders of magnitude to eat through their annual profits. Apple continues to make relatively tiny acquisitions and has a relatively small R & D spend. They can also vertically integrate and build all of the robotic assembly plants they want and still not have to dip into the war chest.
All of this is 100% correct. As to the last point, they’re trying to do that, but it’s not completely possible, at least yet.
As I have posted earlier, the only logical reason for Apple to be sitting on such a ridiculously large war chest (earning 1% for the owners of the company) is if they are planning something huge.
Which is incorrect. It’s a valid option, but it’s by far not the only one.
Really, what are the other option as you see it?
…seemingly obtuse…
There you go with your assumptions.
It not an "assumption" to say that Apple has seemed obtuse with their capital allocation strategy. When a company has a ridiculously large about of money sitting in the bank earning next to nothing for shareholders, what that says to the market is that "we don't know whatto do with this money. " "We don't know how to use it to grow our business and we don't want to return it to the people who the money belongs to." That engenders bad will towards the company and the stock from the market, which is why Apple sells at a ridiculous discount to the S & P 500 right now. Apple stock has been underperforming the market for 5 quarters now. Don't think this doesn't have repercussions for Apple. Many of Apple's key people are attracted to Apple with stock options. This is a key to retaining key people. It's no secret that Apple has faced a brain drain of late with many talented people leaving and going to other techs. Don't think for a minute that there isn't a direct correlation with Apples stock price over the past 5 quarters.
Apple management must act or ultimately they will lose control of the capital.
And the company will be destroyed by morons who don’t have a clue what they’re doing, because push comes to shove they care more about getting back “their” money (you cannot possibly question the quotation marks) than Apple expanding logically, carefully and intelligently, as evidenced by what Icahn has explicitly stated he wants to do with his power.
?All your misguided opinions. The company won't be destroyed. Apple already has a large 60 billion dollar buy-back in place and returns billions to shareholders in the form of a dividend. Has that "destroyed" the company? Apple just had it's best quarter in its history. I'll bet you were against the current 60 billion dollar buy-back too. You were probably posting that it would destroy the company, right? LOL.
And yet you vote with them.
?Yes, because unlike you, I understand what makes stock prices go up. The parabolic growth phase for Apple is over. The years of transitioning from a sleepy niche computer company to a global wireless device behemoth is over. Apple is a massive company now with close to 200 billion dollars a year in revenue. It is very hard to move the growth needle for them even with stellar execution. The company has matured and it needs to do the things that a company Apple's size must to to release shareholder value. And you are still living in 1997, LOL. 10 years before the first iphone came out.
That’s our problem with you.
Again, it's only you. Unless someone happens to be in your basement with you who agrees with what you are typing.
Ooh, I used a plural pronoun again. What’re you gonna do about it?
Comments
You're saying their quarterly financial earnings improved with Icahn's involvement? I doubt it. You must be talking about their stock price rising, which has nothing to do with the success of Apple's business. The stock price changed with the buyback, which they set out long before Carl got involved:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2012/03/19Apple-Announces-Plans-to-Initiate-Dividend-and-Share-Repurchase-Program.html
Maybe Carl has some influence over other traders' confidence but again that's got nothing to do with Apple's business operation.
Again Apple has a great business and that is why it should not be losing 40% of its value for no reason. And the board to sit by and watch this happen. Its not that hard people.
Stop talk about people's mothers being whores please, that lowers the tone, and should not be the go-to insult.
On a broader point, no, Apple should not respond to unsubstantiated gossip. If they do, they'll set a precedent and then they'll have to respond to all unsubstantiated gossip.
They absolutely should respond to lies.
I notice you didn't respond to any of my queries so all of them must be true.
So if Apple doesn't respond to something, does that inherently make it true? So Apple has to respond to everything then. Again, time would be wasted on that. And what's worse , analysts lying about Apple or Apple lying about something?
The stock price , losing 40% tells you waht people thought. I am surprised you even had to ask that question.
What was the reason it increased 90% in 2011/2012? This was right after losing Steve and whose loss is repeatedly mentioned when the stock falls. Surely losing such an important person would have made the stock plummet immediately.
It's because Cook had daily seances w Jobs that stopped when Apple hit $700.
The naysayers wouldn't believe them anyway.
Chart for posterity. Jobs’ return to death (black line) to today.
Seems that almost half the stock price was, at one time, generated after his death. And it keeps going up.
Exactly. They’re listening to Steve Jobs himself. No one cares about defending the stock price. It will defend itself.
Most people are idiots. They aren’t.
That couldn’t be further from the truth. I’m not going to listen to 100 idiots if 10 people actually know what they’re talking about.
Yeah. Icahn. Knows nothing but has money.
Man, you guys are hilarious. Again, gonna just keep repeating it until you shut up, give up, and do it: sell AAPL, go away. You don’t understand the company, you don’t understand what it means, you don’t understand how to handle this kind of stock.
You buy it, you sit on it, you cash in later. If you bought at $700, quit whining.
1.) You used an 8 year time frame in your post. And, I correctly replied that Jobs oversaw Apple for 6 of the past 8 years.
2.) LOL, they're listening to a dead guy, huh? Sheesh. Unbelievable. Their boss is the shareholders. Period. They are the only people the board should be getting their directions from as they shareholders can fire board members and they own the company.
3.) You clearly could not comprehend my post. It doesn't matter who is smarter on a subject. What matters in the real world is the perception of those in power. Whether they are running Apple or investing in Apple. You may think (as indicated by your ridiculous number of posts on this forum) that you know more about Apple than most institutional investors, or, perhaps, even Apple management. But, you are not in a position of power. You do not control the direction of Apple and you are not a significant shareholder of Apple. Therefore, as well versed as you think you are on the subject matter, you are just a tree falling in the proverbial forrest (with the small exceptions of some posters on this forum who are equally inconsequential).
4.) Carl Icahn was not born into money. He is now worth over 15 billion dollars. He didn't get there by "knowing nothing." We should all be so lucky to know as little as he, LOL.
5.) I've been in Apple for a long time and currently have a position that's quite large. It will take a lot more than financially obtuse person such as yourself to shake me out of the stock. I've been blogging and posting on Apple for many years in many forums. A am a big Apple bull and don't really care if you agree with me on capital structure issues. So, I guess you'll just have to deal with me.
6.) I very much know how to handle this stock and the many others in my portfolio as I have had an great track record investing. So, sorry to disappoint you. You will be hearing from me on this forum from time to time. Although I don't really have the spare time to make 30,000 posts as I am usually out enjoying the money I have made on Apple and the rest of my portfolio. Maybe some day you'll get to that point.
Nope. Why should they legitimize things?
See, lies don’t affect reputation. Thanks for the ad-homs, though. They affect yours.
Go watch the WWDC 1997 keynote. Do not comment on the stock again until you have watched it.
God, this Tallest Skil character is hysterical. He thinks he's the grand wizard of Apple discussions. I have some advice for you Tallest Skil: DO NOT comment on this stock again until you have taken a course in How to Win Friends an Influence People, LOL!
They can't and should not respond. They have more important things to do. The news is out there easy for anyone with a brain to read. They can't help it if analysts are stupid. So take your grubby hands out of my portfolio and sell.
You have no idea what you are talking about. As a shareholder, his opinion matters as much as yours, and, possibly a lot more. So, he could just as easily tell you to take your apathetic hands out of HIS portfolio.
You sure are clueless.
Really, What in my post is inaccurate?
Wait, where?
2.) LOL, they're listening to a dead guy, huh? Sheesh. Unbelievable.
LOL, we still have the constitution as our country’s system of laws despite being written by dead guys. Sheesh. Unbelievable.
Their boss is the shareholders. Period.
Genuine laughter, as opposed to the mocking kind above.
They are the only people the board should be getting their directions from
Nah. The board should probably be getting direction from the product makers.
as they shareholders can fire board members and they own the company.
Mild chuckling.
What matters in the real world is the perception of those in power.
Those in power are the board and executive vice president group. And their perception is that the stock will take care of itself.
Therefore, as well versed as you think you are on the subject matter, you are just a tree falling in the proverbial forrest (with the small exceptions of some posters on this forum who are equally inconsequential).
Funny how you’re the same, isn’t it.
4.) Carl Icahn was not born into money. He is now worth over 15 billion dollars.
‘Kay, and?
He didn't get there by "knowing nothing."
Thanks for pretending you can take things out of context and respond to them. He knows nothing about Apple, as you yourself admitted is possible.
5.) I've been in Apple for a long time and currently have a position that's quite large.
Then you ought to be behaving more intelligently than you are. Your excuse is what?
It will take a lot more than financially obtuse person such as yourself to shake me out of the stock.
How about Apple going private? Will that work?
Maybe some day you'll get to that point.
So since you have no argument to prove you actually have an understanding of Apple, you resort to ad-homs. Enjoy.
Did you watch it? I bet you didn’t watch it. You should watch it. It’ll tell you how little you know about how Apple operates.
Well, given the statements therein, I’d have to guess your claims of underperformance.
And I can say you have no idea what you're talking about. And my opinion is on par with yours.
Wait, where?
LOL, we still have the constitution as our country’s system of laws despite being written by dead guys. Sheesh. Unbelievable.
Genuine laughter, as opposed to the mocking kind above.
Nah. The board should probably be getting direction from the product makers.
Mild chuckling.
Those in power are the board and executive vice president group. And their perception is that the stock will take care of itself.
Funny how you’re the same, isn’t it.
‘Kay, and?
Thanks for pretending you can take things out of context and respond to them. He knows nothing about Apple, as you yourself admitted is possible.
Then you ought to be behaving more intelligently than you are. Your excuse is what?
How about Apple going private? Will that work?
So since you have no argument to prove you actually have an understanding of Apple, you resort to ad-homs. Enjoy.
Did you watch it? I bet you didn’t watch it. You should watch it. It’ll tell you how little you know about how Apple operates.
Well, given the statements therein, I’d have to guess your claims of underperformance.
Wow, LOL, you're really quite a comical individual. You're so smug in your sanctimonious, pseudo-intellectualism. You have a ready-made answer for everything and somehow you've convinced yourself and a handful of lemmings on this forum that you are well-versed in all aspects of anything involving Apple. I mean, anyone who has the time for 30,000 post should, right? But you have proven, by you incorrect and nonsensical posts about the capital markets, that you know next to nothing about the capital markets. And, surprise surprise, Apple is a public company OWNED by the shareholders in the public equity market. If the shareholders vote for a binding proxy for a share-buy back of a certain amount, guess what? It happens. Whether the board likes it or Cook likes it -- It happens. If the shareholders vote to remove a board member and it passes. Guess what? That person is fired. Maybe you should educate yourself on how public companies work instead of telling other people to educate themselves on how Apple thinks. I am well aware of the Apple culture and much more regarding Apple. I have been a student of Apple for MANY years. Maybe you should spend less time preaching to people and more time listening to other people's perspectives. Of course, then you would put yourself in a position of learning from others, which I'm sure is a very awkward position for you.
So you can’t answer ANY of my questions? Why would we listen to you, then?
Exactly. Which is why Apple doesn’t want it to happen. Because they know what it implies and what it will do to the company. And you don’t. This is fact. They know better than you do about what to do with the money that THEY earn.
Shame you can’t read. If you could, you’d stop basing your posts on ad-homs and start knowing what I’ve already said. Then you wouldn’t be repeating things that have already been proven wrong.
Are you? Did you watch the keynote? I bet you didn’t watch it. If you had watched it, you’d have a response that 1) supported your position and 2) showed what was wrong with Apple’s.
Maybe watch it.
So you can’t answer ANY of my questions? Why would we listen to you, then?
Exactly. Which is why Apple doesn’t want it to happen. Because they know what it implies and what it will do to the company. And you don’t. This is fact. They know better than you do about what to do with the money that THEY earn.
Shame you can’t read. If you could, you’d stop basing your posts on ad-homs and start knowing what I’ve already said. Then you wouldn’t be repeating things that have already been proven wrong.
Are you? Did you watch the keynote? I bet you didn’t watch it. If you had watched it, you’d have a response that 1) supported your position and 2) showed what was wrong with Apple’s.
Maybe watch it.
LOL. Let me explain something to you. I don't answer to you. If I deem a question to be too inane to merit with a response, I don't dignify it with a response. Remember that moving forward. And, who are "we?" You and your imaginary friends? Are you going to start referring to yourself in the third person next? Or do you just assume that other posters that have echoed your sentiments in the past blindly agree with every digit you decide to peck-out on your keyboard. Yes, I know others are not for a buy-out. Many others. That doesn't mean you speak for anyone else.
The money is "earned" for the shareholders and the shareholders own that money. What part of that is so difficult to understand.
I'm not going to play your little game of watching things you ask me to watch. I have watched many many keynotes and listen to Cook and Oppenheimer 4 times a year on their earnings conference call. I also monitor Cook's comments and Apple events very closely throughout the year. He, or anyone in Apple management for that matter, have not specifically articulated a position that supports sitting on 150 (soon to be 160+) billion dollars. The total of Apple's R & D budget and acquisitions is a small fraction of annual profits. Apple would have to increase their current R & D spend and acquisition spend by orders of magnitude to eat through their annual profits. Apple continues to make relatively tiny acquisitions and has a relatively small R & D spend. They can also vertically integrate and build all of the robotic assembly plants they want and still not have to dip into the war chest. As I have posted earlier, the only logical reason for Apple to be sitting on such a ridiculously large war chest (earning 1% for the owners of the company) is if they are planning something huge. Something much larger than their historical R & D and acquisition spend. And, I hope that IS the reason they have been seemingly obtuse with respect to capital. If they don't do something big with that capital soon investors will become more impatient and eventually a proxy forcing their hand will pass. Ultimately Apple will have to spend the money growing the business or return it to shareholders. I would rather they do spend it on the business. But, they will not get a free pass from the largest owners of the companies stock forever. And, several years of inaction with the massive war chest of capital has already occurred. Thus, the entry of Carl Icahn who has made his billions extracting shareholder value from company managements that don't put the owners of the company first. Apple management must act or ultimately they will lose control of the capital.
Now I see where you get your superiority complex over the Apple board. Do you also think that double spacing your sentences makes you better than others, or is that just a holdover from you learning to type in the ‘80s?
That’s really neat, because it’s identical to what you can do when you don’t know the answer. That’s how you get the big bucks.
I’d imagine the people with whom you’re conversing. People here, basically. If you don’t answer their questions, why would they care about yours?
The money is "earned" for the shareholders and the shareholders own that money. What part of that is so difficult to understand.
The part where whiny shareholders make for poor policy.
That’s a shame, you’d actually learn something about Apple by doing so.
Have you seen the WWDC 1997 keynote?
Right, they say they’ll continue discussing how to intelligently process the earnings and diversify them, yada yada yada. Exactly. They don’t explicitly say they want to sit on it, but what they do say isn’t anything concrete about acquisitions (too many are unnecessary), dividends, and the like. That gives them the leeway to do… just about anything they want with the money, because deliberation takes time; we all know that. And if it just so happens that another quarter rolls around and that deliberation isn’t over, so much the better.
All of this is 100% correct. As to the last point, they’re trying to do that, but it’s not completely possible, at least yet.
Which is incorrect. It’s a valid option, but it’s by far not the only one.
There you go with your assumptions.
And the company will be destroyed by morons who don’t have a clue what they’re doing, because push comes to shove they care more about getting back “their” money (you cannot possibly question the quotation marks) than Apple expanding logically, carefully and intelligently, as evidenced by what Icahn has explicitly stated he wants to do with his power.
And yet you vote with them.
That’s our problem with you.
Ooh, I used a plural pronoun again. What’re you gonna do about it?
Now I see where you get your superiority complex over the Apple board. Do you also think that double spacing your sentences makes you better than others, or is that just a holdover from you learning to type in the ‘80s?
Double spacing/80's? LOL, Now who is throwing around the platitudes? Your modus operandi is to throw non-sequetors at people until you frustrate them with you breathtaking lack of logic.
That’s really neat, because it’s identical to what you can do when you don’t know the answer. That’s how you get the big bucks.
Um, no. It's identical to what I do when I am asked a juvenile or illogical question.
I’d imagine the people with whom you’re conversing. People here, basically. If you don’t answer their questions, why would they care about yours?
I see. So you are responding to me on behalf of all the people with whom I am conversing? LOL Interesting. So, as I said, in your deluded sense of who you think you are, you think you speak for other people when no one has authorized you to do so.
The money is "earned" for the shareholders and the shareholders own that money. What part of that is so difficult to understand.
The part where whiny shareholders make for poor policy.
I suppose when your boss is talking to you, you think he is "whiny" too. If Apple doesn't like their boss they can take the company private and answer only to themselves. They haven't done that as of yet because apparently they still need the public equity market. As long as they do, the shareholders are boss. Too damn bad if they don't like it or, lol, you don't like it.
That’s a shame, you’d actually learn something about Apple by doing so.
So far I have learned absolutely nothing about Apple in many exchanges with you. So, I don't value your opinion on what I may learn about Apple. The funny thing is you have no idea how much I know about Apple because you spend all of you time trying to impress yourself with your trite little non-sequetor barbs and links to keynotes that happened 16 years ago.
Have you seen the WWDC 1997 keynote?
You're kidding, right?
Right, they say they’ll continue discussing how to intelligently process the earnings and diversify them, yada yada yada. Exactly. They don’t explicitly say they want to sit on it, but what they do say isn’t anything concrete about acquisitions (too many are unnecessary), dividends, and the like. That gives them the leeway to do… just about anything they want with the money, because deliberation takes time; we all know that. And if it just so happens that another quarter rolls around and that deliberation isn’t over, so much the better.
So, you agree that I am right on that point.
All of this is 100% correct. As to the last point, they’re trying to do that, but it’s not completely possible, at least yet.
Which is incorrect. It’s a valid option, but it’s by far not the only one.
Really, what are the other option as you see it?
There you go with your assumptions.
It not an "assumption" to say that Apple has seemed obtuse with their capital allocation strategy. When a company has a ridiculously large about of money sitting in the bank earning next to nothing for shareholders, what that says to the market is that "we don't know what to do with this money. " "We don't know how to use it to grow our business and we don't want to return it to the people who the money belongs to." That engenders bad will towards the company and the stock from the market, which is why Apple sells at a ridiculous discount to the S & P 500 right now. Apple stock has been underperforming the market for 5 quarters now. Don't think this doesn't have repercussions for Apple. Many of Apple's key people are attracted to Apple with stock options. This is a key to retaining key people. It's no secret that Apple has faced a brain drain of late with many talented people leaving and going to other techs. Don't think for a minute that there isn't a direct correlation with Apples stock price over the past 5 quarters.
And the company will be destroyed by morons who don’t have a clue what they’re doing, because push comes to shove they care more about getting back “their” money (you cannot possibly question the quotation marks) than Apple expanding logically, carefully and intelligently, as evidenced by what Icahn has explicitly stated he wants to do with his power.
?All your misguided opinions. The company won't be destroyed. Apple already has a large 60 billion dollar buy-back in place and returns billions to shareholders in the form of a dividend. Has that "destroyed" the company? Apple just had it's best quarter in its history. I'll bet you were against the current 60 billion dollar buy-back too. You were probably posting that it would destroy the company, right? LOL.
And yet you vote with them.
?Yes, because unlike you, I understand what makes stock prices go up. The parabolic growth phase for Apple is over. The years of transitioning from a sleepy niche computer company to a global wireless device behemoth is over. Apple is a massive company now with close to 200 billion dollars a year in revenue. It is very hard to move the growth needle for them even with stellar execution. The company has matured and it needs to do the things that a company Apple's size must to to release shareholder value. And you are still living in 1997, LOL. 10 years before the first iphone came out.
That’s our problem with you.
Again, it's only you. Unless someone happens to be in your basement with you who agrees with what you are typing.
Ooh, I used a plural pronoun again. What’re you gonna do about it?
Continue laughing!
Is your Cmd key stuck, everytime you want to write 'Bollocks', or 'BS', 'Bullshit'?