Hedge fund manager David Einhorn sues Apple over $137B cash hoard

2456789

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 169


    What a pathetic sleazebag. I hope that his major intestine will leap straight up through his neck and throttle his brain. I have no respect whatsoever for these parasites.

  • Reply 22 of 169

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Macnewsjunkie View Post



    Perhaps Wall Street is right on this one. I don't think Apple should give up it's conservative money management, but it shouldn't put more and more of it's shareholders money in such tight straights. The company needs 50 or 60 Billion on hand to weather any problems it faces. It does not have the right to tie up the money it's shareholders earned so that that money can't earn more money in it's own right. This is the secret to real wealth creation. Let the shareholders benefit from exponential growth. That is why they invested in the first place.



    Are you aware that Apple has already set aside cash for the taxes on the money that is overseas? If there were a drop in the tax rate to return that money Apple would have a one time income benefit on it's bottom line that would dwarf the current quarter's record income.




    This guy isn't part of "Wall Street." Wall Street is the group of "analysts," more appropriately known as armchair CEOs. This guy is worse than those Wall Street bigwigs who, in the words of a friend of mine, should stick to deciding what cereal to eat in the morning.

  • Reply 23 of 169
    taniwha wrote: »
    APPL

    AAPL
  • Reply 24 of 169


    F'n tool. Lets make this clear. #1 He DOES NOT have the companies best interest in mine. $$ is all he sees. #2 This is the problem with our society and government. Oh man, we're sitting on too much cash... SPEND SPEND SPEND. That's assuming we even had the money which we don't, same with companies. Apple seriously needs to use the cash horde to go private. F investors. They don't care at all about the company other than getting their dividend and bleeding the company to death and then will move on to the next one to bleed dry.

  • Reply 25 of 169
    desarcdesarc Posts: 642member
    ...so Einhorn sues Apple for not getting into business with his company.
    When a leech can sue for not being allowed to leech, we're doomed.

    in other news: when companies do only what's best for the current fiscal quarter, they die.
  • Reply 26 of 169
    fracfrac Posts: 480member
    taniwha wrote: »

    Crap !

    One may argue that the shareholders are the OWNERS of the company. The BOD and Management are servants of the owners. So if Einhorn can persuade the shareholder majority, or whatever the company rules of incorporation define,   to do anything, then that's the way the ball will roll. Thats the capitalist system. I agree that it's not always the smartest way to run things, but it IS the legal way. This is evidenced by the current market cap of APPL. Many here seem to think that it is seriously undervalued. I personally think its seriously overvalued, but whatever your position on that may be, it seems pretty clear that it is corporate investors and speculators who are driving/manipulating the share price in search of a quick buck. That's the American way.

    Crap yourself!

    Read this...
    http://www.directorship.com/stout-shareholders-as-owners/
  • Reply 27 of 169
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    stelligent wrote: »
    Einhorn's position is similar to many people in general (although he's more aggressive about it): Shareholders "own" what a company owns. He should know better than that. Perhaps he does but is misleading the public on purpose.

    Reminds me of the scene in 3rd Rock from the Sun where Dick is told that the stock he bought mean he owns part of the company…


    [VIDEO]
    (link)
  • Reply 28 of 169
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    anonymouse wrote: »
    It's unlikely that a hedge fund manager qualifies as a, "stable long time investor." It's exactly this sort of "shareholder action" that's screwed up many a company in this country, so hopefully they will stamp this out without him being able to do any damage.

    Public ownership sucks. Fiduciary responsibility is just a catch phrase for wresting control of a company from those that comprehend it. IMO, most public companies should go private again (like Dell, curiously). The capitalist insanity disease in the USA needs a major remedy. Wall Street greed is self destructive to society. It's too complicated a system, and the complexity is in the interest of "lawyering what you want by force", over the people that actually comprehend the running of any particular business. Shareholder voting rights to guide a company is a nice idea that's taken to unreasonable extents. Public ownership quickly abandons the idea of any given business and focuses entirely on profits and stock value. There's a fundamental conflict of interest.
  • Reply 29 of 169


    This is how the world sees David 'Lois' Einhorn (except without the penis):


     


    :

  • Reply 30 of 169
    gqbgqb Posts: 1,934member
    creid1987 wrote: »
    Einhorn has been an investor for almost a year now, its not like hes trading the name. He is, as he said, a long-term investor in Apple. 
    Oh wow! A whole YEAR?!!
    Which means he bought high and is pissed about his own poor judgement. Poor baby.
  • Reply 31 of 169
    bugsnwbugsnw Posts: 717member


    I'm surprised Obama and team haven't looked more at this potential source of new revenue. Section 531 of the IRS code calls for a 15% tax on excessive retained earnings. At least that's how I read it. It just hasn't been enforced aggressively.


     


    I imagine the debate would then move on to what is excessive. Either way, holding excess cash from earnings does slow economic growth.


     


    This is part of the damage that occurs when corporations and individuals are in a defensive mode. We see it in nearly all our clients. It's hammering the economy.

  • Reply 32 of 169
    Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with the Preferred approach. A 4-5% yield and some potential for growth would make a lot of investors very happy. The non-preferred shares get the growth potential and the preferred gets the stable income.

    At the same time, Apple can horde the cash offshore and try to wait out a tax holiday or use the money for international expansion if they don't over-stretch their horde. 5% Doesn't seem like much of a stretch though.

    Is the reason Apple always resisted dividends due to the insider shareholders?
  • Reply 33 of 169
    I think Apple could do more, however, I would like to see them expand their current products and services logically. The problem is that I am virtually certain they are doing many of these things already.


    [I][B]Improve existing products and services:[/B][/I]

    AppleTV
    iCloud
    iLife
    iWork
    Maps
    Siri


    [I][B]Do something (more?) with the companies they already purchased:[/B][/I]

    Authentec
    Lala
    Particle


    [I][B]Seriously consider purchasing the following companies:[/B][/I]

    Nuance (speech recognition used by Siri) but don't kill their products and services
    Wolfram Alpha
    Yahoo! (but the company may be overvalued)
    Square (or something similar)
    Waze


    [B][I]Return to the Enterprise market[/I][/B]


    [I][B]Strengthen the Media Market[/B][/I]


    [B][I]Research advancing technologies:[/I][/B]

    Brain-Computer Interfaces
    Motion sensing Interfaces
    Robotics (maybe a operating system or development platform for robotics rather than manufacturing robots)
  • Reply 34 of 169
    sog35 wrote: »
    Apple has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the Apple brand and stock price.  When baseless 'reports' come out about crashing demand Apple needs to speak up.  Cook spoke about it in the earnings call but it was already to late.

    Apple has almost $150 Billion and are doing NOTHING with it.  The cost of doing nothing with the money is a 8-10% loss every year.  There is no reason Apple needs to hoard so much cash.  They need to return some of it to investors, make an acquisition, or at least tell investors what they plan to do in the future.

    While you are right, Applecannot be blamed. That report came out on the first day of the "quiet period" before any earnings report where executives should not be speaking publicly or else the SEC will probably she their asses off.

    That in itself should have given investors a hint about the BS the report was, however, our stock market system is no longer an investment tool, but a con game designed to scam the little guys out of their money.
  • Reply 35 of 169
    bugsnw wrote: »
    Section 531 of the IRS code calls for a 15% tax on excessive retained earnings.
    Does that apply to offshore holdings though? The on-shore money relative to the market cap isn't that excessive.
  • Reply 36 of 169
    What the... That's it! Einhorn is Finkle! Finkle is Einhorn! Einhorn is a man!
    Oh, my GOD! Einhorn is a man!
    [Que: The Crying Game music]
  • Reply 37 of 169
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member


    I'm siding with the hedge fund. 


     


    Making the best products and devices doesn't mean anything if the stock is taking a severe beating. It is Apple's problem to fix and they haven't been proactive enough on that front.


     


    Apple needs to convince me why I should put some of my money into AAPL and keep it there. I don't like the way that the stock has been performing for a while now. Apple has a duty to it's shareholders.

  • Reply 38 of 169

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post





    Public ownership sucks. Fiduciary responsibility is just a catch phrase for wresting control of a company from those that comprehend it. IMO, most public companies should go private again (like Dell, curiously). The capitalist insanity disease in the USA needs a major remedy. Wall Street greed is self destructive to society. It's too complicated a system, and the complexity is in the interest of "lawyering what you want by force", over the people that actually comprehend the running of any particular business. Shareholder voting rights to guide a company is a nice idea that's taken to unreasonable extents. Public ownership quickly abandons the idea of any given business and focuses entirely on profits and stock value. There's a fundamental conflict of interest.


    Nonsense. If it weren't for public ownership, the breadth and depth of wealth creation that companies like Apple have created would vanish overnight, available to just an already-wealthy few. It is the kind of wealth creation that has built many a house, sent many a kid to college, enhanced many a retirement.


     


    If you bought your shares at >$450 and have the investing horizon of a gnat, are you likely pissed? Sure. But millions of people got in much earlier, have longer horizons, and are still massively more wealthy than they were before because of companies like Apple.

  • Reply 39 of 169
    gqbgqb Posts: 1,934member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drewyboy View Post


    F'n tool. Lets make this clear. #1 He DOES NOT have the companies best interest in mine. $$ is all he sees. #2 This is the problem with our society and government. Oh man, we're sitting on too much cash... SPEND SPEND SPEND. That's assuming we even had the money which we don't, same with companies. Apple seriously needs to use the cash horde to go private. F investors. They don't care at all about the company other than getting their dividend and bleeding the company to death and then will move on to the next one to bleed dry.



    You're actually not that off...


    We were sitting on top of budget surpluses in 2000, and instead of investing it or applying it to the Federal Debt, the administration said "Hey... its your money... go spend it", and then proceeded to pull the plug out of the economic tub.


    So you're right... some people can't see cash without wanting to just blow it.

  • Reply 40 of 169
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post


     


    Apple has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the Apple brand and stock price.  When baseless 'reports' come out about crashing demand Apple needs to speak up.  Cook spoke about it in the earnings call but it was already to late.


     


    Apple has almost $150 Billion and are doing NOTHING with it.  The cost of doing nothing with the money is a 8-10% loss every year.  There is no reason Apple needs to hoard so much cash.  They need to return some of it to investors, make an acquisition, or at least tell investors what they plan to do in the future.



    first of all, it's not just cash. It's investments. 1. dividends and buybacks. If you are too skittish, sell or have apple buy your stock. 2. They make strategic acquisitions. They aren't going to drop 12.5 billion on a has-been mobile company. 3. Um, investors don't need to know the details until AFTER the transactions are completed. Yeah, I can see Apple say we are looking to acquire x company. google or MS could steal that company out from under Apple. All the investors should know the product cycle right now. As for new products, why announce if it isn't shipping or ready?

Sign In or Register to comment.