you will get respect when your clients have made BILLIONS.
Icahn has done that and have not. You can talk all you want that you bought Apple at $15 but it does not matter because you have no proof. Ichan files with the SEC every quarter. Let the pro's do their job. You remind me of those losers who call sports talk radio shows to tell coaches how to run their teams. Please.
Um… compared to Apple, his performance is pathetic (see post #52 above).
Someone like him has no business giving advice to Apple. (Looks like he finally realized that, and declared a victory by making a virtue out of a necessity).
Apple will increase the total buyback to over $60B in March or April.
Icahn got EXACTLY what he wanted.
And then he suddenly shows all his cards and the ones of his friends. I speculate it is more than 1%. I somehow get the feeling that he is just a tool for those stockplayers who try to get Apple down. The less shares out there, the easier to manipulate the price, or gain a majority. Not being an investor I would be relieved if Apple would retract from public trading their shares. That would be long term strategy. Not that I know much of all this.
I don't have any idea what Icahn is up to, but it can't be for anything other than his own good. It's just plain wrong to go into debt just so one Billionaire can reap the short term benefits. Make no mistake about it, that's exactly what he has been proposing that Apple do. Be like our own country and bury us in debt, just so a few people can get richer quicker. Apple needs to begin to reinvest profits in themselves. By first of all increasing R&D spending that Steve Jobs had taken them into all time lows.
Sure you can get along for a time without re-investing profits in your own future with increased (or in Steve's case killing it all together in early 2000) spending in those things like CAPeX and R&D that can work to guarantee a better future w/o simply salting it away in off shore long term securities that in many cases can't be even spent for up to 25yrs. But that certainly doesn't mean that a company should simply go into debt, just to buy back the company to make certain share holders happier and richer either!
10 years is a standard investment window, it's not cherry picking.
Some thing called the Great Recession happened in 2006-2008, of course his shares were down. Almost the whole market was down.
Why can't you admit Icahn is a great investor? The man is worth over $20,000,000,000, all from investment activities.
Hey, look, you're the one strutting about these boards as though you're some type of finance guru, berating people for their stupidity and their ignorance of finance (what me to cut and paste quotes?).
First, if you're a serious investor, you would examine prices and returns every which way. Not just some '10-year' number.
Second, you would want to benchmark it -- you'd want to assess him on the excess returns he earned relative to that benchmark, after adjusting for the risks in his portfolio. (He seems to have a higher beta portfolio, relative to the market; I am sure you know what that means).
Third, if we use Apple as the benchmark -- a company he's been after these past few months -- his owns performance sucks (to put it mildly). That kind of performance puts him in no place to be doling out advice to Apple. He should go look in the mirror.
Fourth, I have great admiration for the wealth he's created for himself and his investors. Good for him. But, activism is something else. There is simply no evidence that he's a great activist. In fact, there's some contrary evidence (e.g., destroying companies in the process). There's a huge difference between being an investor and being an activist. He should butt out of trying to oversee the management of one of the most successful companies in recent history. If he has a problem with how it's being managed, he should sell and move on. He has no clue about what Tim Cook and his team are up to, and stuff like financial engineering on the right hand side of the balance sheet and loading up the company with debt are potentially dangerous, distracting moves.
Fifth, he has presented utterly bogus numbers -- or often no numbers at all -- to justify his case for a $150B buyback. I've asked you guys to make the argument for him, instead of swallowing his assertions, and you have not.
Finally, he (and many of his acolytes) comes through as an arrogant know-it-all. No one likes that. Perhaps if he was nicer about it, he'd actually be more persuasive and create greater wealth for his investors.
"As Tim Cook describes them, these recent actions taken by the company to repurchase shares have been both "opportunistic" and "aggressive" and we are supportive. In light of these actions, and ISS's recommendation, we see no reason to persist with our non-binding proposal, especially when the company is already so close to fulfilling our requested repurchase target."
Like I said 1, 5, and 10 years are standard investment windows. Second you are the one who is cherry picking. Talking about starting from 2006........which of course is in line with something called the GREAT RECESSION.
I will put people in their place for spewing out BS. Some one whos says all buybacks are stupid or a company should never take on debt. Those kind of statements are ignorant and dangerous. They people need to be taken to the woodshed and held accountable for their ignorance. If they don't understand finance they need to shutup and learn.
Third Icahn has been crushing the markets broad index's looking at 1, 5, and 10 year windows. I'm not sure about 2.3332544 years or 3.331548454 years.
Fourth Apple is NOT a good benchmark. They were in HYPERGROWTH and are not a normal company. There are very few companies in the history of man that can compare to Apples growth from 90's to mid 2013. Give it a rest. Everyone knows Apple has grew massively. But the same people know that there was massive risk in investing in Apple in the 90's and up to 2008. Risk vs Reward.
Fifth tell me what company Ichan 'destroyed' in the last 10 years? His style has changed. Has he hurt Netflix? Herbalife? Apple? Stop bring up how he bankrupted some airline in the 80's. We all know the airlines were screwed up because of labor problems, fuel cost, ect. They were all going down anyway. Its not Ichan's fault that the Board allowed him to take over the company and do what he pleased.
Sixth Icahn exudes CONFIDENCE and SWAG. Something that Tim Cook has been lacking until recently. If you are not CONFIDENT about your company why would investors be? And Jobs wasn't a know it all? Seriously! What a f'ing double standard.
Um… now you’re adding obfuscation to what increasingly seems like ignorance (given all the substantive finance points – e.g., risk-adjusted returns – that you ignored).
For the record, I gave you IEP returns from starting points of 2001, 2004, 2006, 2007, and 2009.
That aside, if you’d like to substitute swag (look, no caps, ma!) for analysis, be my guest. ‘Nuff said.
Who am I to believe? You? Or Ichan who is worth $20B?
Do you think Ichan is a good investor?
Yes or No.
Good relative to what/whom?
I gave you 10, 7, 5, and threw in additional data for 8-year, and starting this millennium, as bonus. The 8-year is particularly revealing (people did get into the market in in 2006 too, you know) – and obviously data that makes you uncomfortable given that Icahn has destroyed some rather impressive value for those investors. (Just as Apple did for those who bought in at ~700). It happens to everyone. Get over it.
Use it. Or not.
You’re kind getting boring and repetitive at this point. Got better things to do…
There is such a fundamental flaw in that reasoning. An investor's direct interest is in maximizing the share value. Running a company in the optimum way does not equate directly to share value, which is defined by people guessing what the share value should be. To run a company based on an investor's direct interest is totally flawed and a terrible practice.
Some of us choose to invest in companies that are optimally run, but don't assume that the immediate share value represents the true value. We believe that over the long term, the share value will represent the true value.
You are wrong in your basic premise. Public companies should all be run in the shareholders best interest. The shareholders OWN the company. Every decision made by management should be about delivering a return to the owners of the company. I own several private companies and have run them successfully for 20 years using the same modus operandi. Trust me, most private companies are run the same way.
Comments
Watch and learn.
Apple will increase the total buyback to over $60B in March or April.
Icahn got EXACTLY what he wanted.
I don't think it is because of him...it's regardless of him.
you will get respect when your clients have made BILLIONS.
Icahn has done that and have not. You can talk all you want that you bought Apple at $15 but it does not matter because you have no proof. Ichan files with the SEC every quarter. Let the pro's do their job. You remind me of those losers who call sports talk radio shows to tell coaches how to run their teams. Please.
Um… compared to Apple, his performance is pathetic (see post #52 above).
Someone like him has no business giving advice to Apple. (Looks like he finally realized that, and declared a victory by making a virtue out of a necessity).
I don't have any idea what Icahn is up to, but it can't be for anything other than his own good. It's just plain wrong to go into debt just so one Billionaire can reap the short term benefits. Make no mistake about it, that's exactly what he has been proposing that Apple do. Be like our own country and bury us in debt, just so a few people can get richer quicker. Apple needs to begin to reinvest profits in themselves. By first of all increasing R&D spending that Steve Jobs had taken them into all time lows.
Sure you can get along for a time without re-investing profits in your own future with increased (or in Steve's case killing it all together in early 2000) spending in those things like CAPeX and R&D that can work to guarantee a better future w/o simply salting it away in off shore long term securities that in many cases can't be even spent for up to 25yrs. But that certainly doesn't mean that a company should simply go into debt, just to buy back the company to make certain share holders happier and richer either!
Hey, look, you're the one strutting about these boards as though you're some type of finance guru, berating people for their stupidity and their ignorance of finance (what me to cut and paste quotes?).
First, if you're a serious investor, you would examine prices and returns every which way. Not just some '10-year' number.
Second, you would want to benchmark it -- you'd want to assess him on the excess returns he earned relative to that benchmark, after adjusting for the risks in his portfolio. (He seems to have a higher beta portfolio, relative to the market; I am sure you know what that means).
Third, if we use Apple as the benchmark -- a company he's been after these past few months -- his owns performance sucks (to put it mildly). That kind of performance puts him in no place to be doling out advice to Apple. He should go look in the mirror.
Fourth, I have great admiration for the wealth he's created for himself and his investors. Good for him. But, activism is something else. There is simply no evidence that he's a great activist. In fact, there's some contrary evidence (e.g., destroying companies in the process). There's a huge difference between being an investor and being an activist. He should butt out of trying to oversee the management of one of the most successful companies in recent history. If he has a problem with how it's being managed, he should sell and move on. He has no clue about what Tim Cook and his team are up to, and stuff like financial engineering on the right hand side of the balance sheet and loading up the company with debt are potentially dangerous, distracting moves.
Fifth, he has presented utterly bogus numbers -- or often no numbers at all -- to justify his case for a $150B buyback. I've asked you guys to make the argument for him, instead of swallowing his assertions, and you have not.
Finally, he (and many of his acolytes) comes through as an arrogant know-it-all. No one likes that. Perhaps if he was nicer about it, he'd actually be more persuasive and create greater wealth for his investors.
What do you call this?
"As Tim Cook describes them, these recent actions taken by the company to repurchase shares have been both "opportunistic" and "aggressive" and we are supportive. In light of these actions, and ISS's recommendation, we see no reason to persist with our non-binding proposal, especially when the company is already so close to fulfilling our requested repurchase target."
utter BS.
Like I said 1, 5, and 10 years are standard investment windows. Second you are the one who is cherry picking. Talking about starting from 2006........which of course is in line with something called the GREAT RECESSION.
I will put people in their place for spewing out BS. Some one whos says all buybacks are stupid or a company should never take on debt. Those kind of statements are ignorant and dangerous. They people need to be taken to the woodshed and held accountable for their ignorance. If they don't understand finance they need to shutup and learn.
Third Icahn has been crushing the markets broad index's looking at 1, 5, and 10 year windows. I'm not sure about 2.3332544 years or 3.331548454 years.
Fourth Apple is NOT a good benchmark. They were in HYPERGROWTH and are not a normal company. There are very few companies in the history of man that can compare to Apples growth from 90's to mid 2013. Give it a rest. Everyone knows Apple has grew massively. But the same people know that there was massive risk in investing in Apple in the 90's and up to 2008. Risk vs Reward.
Fifth tell me what company Ichan 'destroyed' in the last 10 years? His style has changed. Has he hurt Netflix? Herbalife? Apple? Stop bring up how he bankrupted some airline in the 80's. We all know the airlines were screwed up because of labor problems, fuel cost, ect. They were all going down anyway. Its not Ichan's fault that the Board allowed him to take over the company and do what he pleased.
Sixth Icahn exudes CONFIDENCE and SWAG. Something that Tim Cook has been lacking until recently. If you are not CONFIDENT about your company why would investors be? And Jobs wasn't a know it all? Seriously! What a f'ing double standard.
Um… now you’re adding obfuscation to what increasingly seems like ignorance (given all the substantive finance points – e.g., risk-adjusted returns – that you ignored).
For the record, I gave you IEP returns from starting points of 2001, 2004, 2006, 2007, and 2009.
That aside, if you’d like to substitute swag (look, no caps, ma!) for analysis, be my guest. ‘Nuff said.
Stop the BS.
Good advice. Follow it.
1,5,10 years Ichan is 20%+
stop using arbitary years.
Who am I to believe? You? Or Ichan who is worth $20B?
Do you think Ichan is a good investor?
Yes or No.
Good relative to what/whom?
I gave you 10, 7, 5, and threw in additional data for 8-year, and starting this millennium, as bonus. The 8-year is particularly revealing (people did get into the market in in 2006 too, you know) – and obviously data that makes you uncomfortable given that Icahn has destroyed some rather impressive value for those investors. (Just as Apple did for those who bought in at ~700). It happens to everyone. Get over it.
Use it. Or not.
You’re kind getting boring and repetitive at this point. Got better things to do…
There is such a fundamental flaw in that reasoning. An investor's direct interest is in maximizing the share value. Running a company in the optimum way does not equate directly to share value, which is defined by people guessing what the share value should be. To run a company based on an investor's direct interest is totally flawed and a terrible practice.
Some of us choose to invest in companies that are optimally run, but don't assume that the immediate share value represents the true value. We believe that over the long term, the share value will represent the true value.
You are wrong in your basic premise. Public companies should all be run in the shareholders best interest. The shareholders OWN the company. Every decision made by management should be about delivering a return to the owners of the company. I own several private companies and have run them successfully for 20 years using the same modus operandi. Trust me, most private companies are run the same way.