Apple's stock was going up on Apple's own buybacks, not based on what Icahn was saying. Would you mortgage your house or sell all of your other investments right now to buy more Apple stock? Because that's exactly what Icahn is wanting Apple to do: they'd either have to take out another loan to buy back more stock (your mortgage equivalent), or repatriate existing cash from overseas, at a tax rate of 25% percent (equivalent to selling all of your stock gainers and paying capital gains tax, but worse).
What Icahn wants is to run up the stock so he can SELL it. Do you seriously believe he's going to hold onto it when it hits his target price? No, he wants to sell it at $198 to some schmucks who think that because *he* says it's worth $203, they'll buy it at his "mighty-hard-to-let-go-of-it-below-my-target" price of $198. Carl has no interest in any other shareholders than himself. He wants to artificially balloon the price beyond what it should reasonably be. And we know how well that turned out for the real estate market in the mid 2000s when housing prices were unrealistically high. I don't want Apple to become a "popped balloon" stock. That will kill its position as a desirable stock forever. The market should dictate Apple's price, not Icahn's greed.
I have to say that I think your comment here is silly. The main reason is that it is OBVIOUS that, for ANY investor, a stock can reach a price at which the investor will quickly sell. This is absolutely true of all investors, including you, yet you make it seem as though this is something that is special or unique about Carl Icahn, i.e., that he would sell his shares at some point, and that because he would, he is a bad person and should be regarded as such. If it did not occur to you to look at it this way, you did not think about it very deeply at all. I find your comment silly and annoying, because if you had really given much thought to what you were thinking, you would not have written it. And as for that part about Apple's stock going up because of "Apple's own buybacks", and not based on what Icahn was saying, this as well is absurd because it very overtly implies the complete absence of any linkage between what Carl Icahn was saying and Apple's buyback program. The suggestion that there was no cause-and-effect relationship there is ludicrous. It is obvious to me that you are not capable of clear thinking. Sorry, but when something is as obvious to me as this is, I do not refrain from saying it.
Self correction - It was Johnny Ola speaking to Michael Corleone about Hyman Roth about why he was still around and had never been whacked. In my original post, I meant to say, "as said in the Godfather ... "
I'm not hating on Icahn. Quite the contrary. He might be a huge buttwipe and his tactics, at times, may amount to extortion, but you can not argue with his record of success or the fact he pulls no punches with respect to who he is and what his objectives are. He plays hard, just about never lets up and almost always comes out on top.
sog35 wrote: »
I just don't understand why some Apple investors hate on Ichan. The man is supporting Apple unlike the thousands in the media who are constantly BASHING and HATING on Apple (bendgate anyone?)
I don't get the value of a stock buy-back. Apple's cash would essentially be vaporized when the shares are retired.
Marvin wrote: »
He's not supporting Apple, their stock price doesn't impact their earnings. He's boosting the stock price to profit. He's 78 and in it to get out before he croaks:
It took what 14 months to ditch Netflix and he's been with Apple since about a year ago. He's probably getting a bit anxious for Apple to drain their cash so he can bail. Question is, who can he sell all his stock to? Who would buy so much at such a high value? He said he's not in it to eventually sell it back to Apple but that might end up being the case.
Most of the valuation of Apple is based on future earnings not cash (current value is over $600b with just over $100-150b in cash), it actually seems like investors ignore the cash balance. So under the assumption that the market cap remains the same then trading cash for erasing stock should push remaining stock higher. If they factored cash in, it shouldn't change. If Apple kept the stock then there would be more incentive for Apple as they could use it in deals like with Beats but taking it off the table is purely a move to benefit shareholders (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Oh sweet naive ...
If Icahn can bring Apple down, he can easily earn 30-40 billions or even more. What's more important, he will do something that no one would think is possible. He will be legend - the man who took Apple down to dirt.
Everything he's done so far goes point by point by textbook "What is hostile takeover and how to perform it". Only time he's done something wrong was trying to oust Cook before right time. He understood his mistake and right now it's going as planned. I just hope that Lenovo outbids Samsung with iPhone. iPhone Galaxy would be horrible.
And if I could eat the whole company I would be the biggest buffalo in all Estonia. What is common to both theses statements is neither one makes a lick of sense. I can see him closing in on the 308.55B he would need wrest control of the company, at 5B he's almost there! /s
It doesn't make sense because he does not need put his own 308.55B in. What he needs is support from other shareholders (what he is already gaining) and sum of supporters shares value doesn't have to be 308,55B. This number is just number based on todays value and don't forget, Apple has shares as well and those shares are already considered as shareholders property. Is it really too hard to look up, how those things are done?