That is not a remotely realistic proposal, given Apple's size.
Also, many shareholders will vehemently oppose it legally, since the long-run upside potential is huge, and people want a piece of it. Taking it private will deny them -- people like me -- that opportunity, and it will be fought, believe me. (Look at what's happening with a company with low growth potential, like Dell -- large shareholders are already fighting the move).
The only ones wanting those sorts of outcome are people whose investing horizons are no longer than the lifespan of a gnat.
I wouldn't go that far. True it won't happen, but that doesn't mean he can't want it to happen. I have no Apple stock, at least not directly so this issue means nothing to me either way. I just hate seeing these people interfering with the best run company in the world. Wall Street makes a mess of everything they touch and they are never held accountable. I know this issue will not effect the daily operations at Apple but nothing good comes from Wall Street meddling.
(ii) The filing talks about something like "regulatory" assets. Who knows what it does/does not account for?
For someone who brags about being 'familiar with' the industry, it is laughable that you don't know what Regulatory AUM means! Especially considering it is the basic number an investment adviser has to report to the SEC. (It's actually quite straightforward, but I am sure you can ask your industry pals.)
'Nuff said with you. The rest of your points don't even merit a response.
I wouldn't go that far. True it won't happen, but that doesn't mean he can't want it to happen. I have no Apple stock, at least not directly so this issue means nothing to me either way. I just hate seeing these people interfering with the best run company in the world. Wall Street makes a mess of everything they touch and they are never held accountable. I know this issue will not effect the daily operations at Apple but nothing good comes from Wall Street meddling.
I don't disagree with you about Wall Streets 'meddling.'
But you'd also expect the 'best-run company in the world' to be a bit more savvy and sophisticated in the way that it deals with the noise from these meddlers.
For someone who brags about being 'familiar with' the industry, it is laughable that you don't know what Regulatory AUM means! Especially considering it is the basic number an investment adviser has to report to the SEC. (It's actually quite straightforward, but I am sure you can ask your industry pals.)
'Nuff said with you. The rest of your points don't even merit a response.
I feel so wounded to be dismissed by such a great authority as yourself. But if there are regulatory assets, perhaps there are also non-regulatory assets which Greenlight also manages?!
For someone who brags about being 'familiar with' the industry, it is laughable that you don't know what Regulatory AUM means! Especially considering it is the basic number an investment adviser has to report to the SEC. (It's actually quite straightforward, but I am sure you can ask your industry pals.)
'Nuff said with you. The rest of your points don't even merit a response.
I feel so wounded to be dismissed by such a great authority as yourself. But if there are regulatory assets, perhaps there are also non-regulatory assets which Greenlight also manages?!
There is no such thing as a 'non-regulatory' AUM in the SEC's reporting requirement for investment advisors. Essentially, it is a new definition of AUM that is a grossed-up number (as opposed to what is traditionally reported, which is Net AUM), and includes long plus short positions, and does not subtract liabilities or leverage.
You can easily look all this up quite easily in the SEC's website, you know.
The rest of what you say is just false. ......And if "this is bad because I am too dumb to understand it" were a legitimate argument, I know a place when you can get a reasonably priced stone axe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
As are Apple's. What's your point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
And your point is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
I initially did not contest your claim, even though it sounded suspect
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
You reference (on answers.com) is useless.... you apparently can't read
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
Firstly, I don't give a flying f*** if I get censured.... you have no idea who I am, what I know, or what I do. ..... is an idiot in my book, but I am willing to give you a pass this once ....
Pie in the sky question but what does Apple gain by remaining a public company? I know they will not go private but what is the current advantage? Wall Street never let's up on them no matter how good they perform. It is not enough to put out great products and make great profits. There is always someone badgering them for more. What a pain in the ass for Cook and Co to have to deal with. Innovate don't litigate Einhorn.
1. Going private would be very difficult. Convincing Apple shareholders to sell would require a large premium over current share price. Obtaining the $700-900 B in capital to even begin such a venture would not be easy.
2. Apple retains access to capital if they should ever need it.
3. Employee incentive compensation is very easy with a publicly traded company. While a private company can give employees tracking stock (which behaves like stock for purposes of calculating distributions and value), there's no liquidity.
4. If the investment comes from a variety of different sources (as it would pretty much have to, given the size), management oversight becomes an issue. Getting the 20 different funds to agree on how to run things would be an endless battle.
Pie in the sky question but what does Apple gain by remaining a public company? I know they will not go private but what is the current advantage? Wall Street never let's up on them no matter how good they perform. It is not enough to put out great products and make great profits. There is always someone badgering them for more. What a pain in the ass for Cook and Co to have to deal with. Innovate don't litigate Einhorn.
1. Going private would be very difficult. Convincing Apple shareholders to sell would require a large premium over current share price. Obtaining the $700-900 B in capital to even begin such a venture would not be easy.
2. Apple retains access to capital if they should ever need it.
3. Employee incentive compensation is very easy with a publicly traded company. While a private company can give employees tracking stock (which behaves like stock for purposes of calculating distributions and value), there's no liquidity.
4. If the investment comes from a variety of different sources (as it would pretty much have to, given the size), management oversight becomes an issue. Getting the 20 different funds to agree on how to run things would be an endless battle.
There's not a chance that Apple would go private.
I agree wholeheartedly, especially with #3 and #4.
Moreover, the history of large private equity buyouts -- e.g., TXU, HCA, Harrahs, Hilton -- is replete with failures. (Dell is the next big disaster waiting to happen).
Wall Street really dont give a shit about a company. Having cash is a big asset to any company's ability to stay competitive. Money in stockholder's pocket doesn't help create any new products. Leave Apple alone you effing bean counters!
Saying someone must be 5 years old when they do the unthinkable¡ by using what you've previously stated to prove their point is neither a salient nor mature rebuttal.
This is how you entered the thread:
But you seem to miss the point: Einhorn is a money manager, therefore he is evil, therefore everything he says is wrong! Just because it makes sense, and will put money in the pockets of Apple shareholders, and will correct the gross inefficiencies in the management of the company is no reason to accept it.
In no way does that sound like you are coming it to have a civil discourse with others. In no way does it sound like you want to give any knowledge back to others or learn what they have to offer.
Saying someone must be 5 years old when they do the unthinkable¡ by using what you've previously stated to prove their point is neither a salient nor mature rebuttal.
This is how you entered the thread:
In no way does that sound like you are coming it to have a civil discourse with others. In no way does it sound like you want to give any knowledge back to others or learn what they have to offer.
Sorry, I did not realize sarcasm is viewed as unacceptable. Thank you for your gaberation.
Sorry, I did not realize sarcasm is viewed as unacceptable. Thank you for your gaberation.
So you admit you were conveying contempt and yet you don't see how this can be not lead to reasonable discourse? There is no problem with being sarcastic or sardonic but it's a hostile tone so if it's the only thing you bring to the table you can't expect to be taken seriously. I don't even know if you're sorry and thank you are stated sarcastically or not but they come across as such because of what I've read in this thread.
Saying someone must be 5 years old when they do the unthinkable¡ by using what you've previously stated to prove their point is neither a salient nor mature rebuttal.
This is how you entered the thread:
In no way does that sound like you are coming it to have a civil discourse with others. In no way does it sound like you want to give any knowledge back to others or learn what they have to offer.
Sorry, I did not realize sarcasm is viewed as unacceptable. Thank you for your gaberation.
So you admit you were conveying contempt and yet you don't see how this can be not lead to reasonable discourse? There is no problem with being sarcastic or sardonic but it's a hostile tone so if it's the only thing you bring to the table you can't expect to be taken seriously. I don't even know if you're sorry and thank you are stated sarcastically or not but they come across as such because of what I've read in this thread.
PS: All sarcasm is irony but not all irony is sarcasm.
I was conveying contempt because I thought the knee-jerk reaction I was describing was contemptible [the people involved did NOT watch the Einhorn presentation, which was quite well reasoned, and certainly an excellent starting point for discussion -- anything he said was anathema, and you can see by going over the history], and, as you say, that post led to no discussion. But, as far as I can say, that post had absolutely nothing to do with the later back and forth with anantksundaram, which began with him making flatly factual statements which were, umm, not, to an audience which is not in the finance business [with the exception of yours truly, apparently] so could not easily call him on the misrepresentation.. I freely admit that this drew my contempt also, which explains (though does not excuse) the tone of my follow-ups. The most recent thing you have gotten involved in as moderator, however, happened after (I thought) all the steam had been blown off, and I was shocked he was still holding the grudge. I am explaining this to you because while I don't always agree with your views, I do respect the work you and TS are doing as moderators.
Comments
I wouldn't go that far. True it won't happen, but that doesn't mean he can't want it to happen. I have no Apple stock, at least not directly so this issue means nothing to me either way. I just hate seeing these people interfering with the best run company in the world. Wall Street makes a mess of everything they touch and they are never held accountable. I know this issue will not effect the daily operations at Apple but nothing good comes from Wall Street meddling.
For someone who brags about being 'familiar with' the industry, it is laughable that you don't know what Regulatory AUM means! Especially considering it is the basic number an investment adviser has to report to the SEC. (It's actually quite straightforward, but I am sure you can ask your industry pals.)
'Nuff said with you. The rest of your points don't even merit a response.
I don't disagree with you about Wall Streets 'meddling.'
But you'd also expect the 'best-run company in the world' to be a bit more savvy and sophisticated in the way that it deals with the noise from these meddlers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
For someone who brags about being 'familiar with' the industry, it is laughable that you don't know what Regulatory AUM means! Especially considering it is the basic number an investment adviser has to report to the SEC. (It's actually quite straightforward, but I am sure you can ask your industry pals.)
'Nuff said with you. The rest of your points don't even merit a response.
I feel so wounded to be dismissed by such a great authority as yourself. But if there are regulatory assets, perhaps there are also non-regulatory assets which Greenlight also manages?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
For someone who brags about being 'familiar with' the industry, it is laughable that you don't know what Regulatory AUM means! Especially considering it is the basic number an investment adviser has to report to the SEC. (It's actually quite straightforward, but I am sure you can ask your industry pals.)
'Nuff said with you. The rest of your points don't even merit a response.
http://ria-compliance.com/images/upload_images/Calculating Regulatory Assets Under Management 2012.pdf
As you can tell, there can be plenty "non-regulatory" assets. And by the way, why exactly are you being rude?
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
I feel so wounded to be dismissed by such a great authority as yourself. But if there are regulatory assets, perhaps there are also non-regulatory assets which Greenlight also manages?!
There is no such thing as a 'non-regulatory' AUM in the SEC's reporting requirement for investment advisors. Essentially, it is a new definition of AUM that is a grossed-up number (as opposed to what is traditionally reported, which is Net AUM), and includes long plus short positions, and does not subtract liabilities or leverage.
You can easily look all this up quite easily in the SEC's website, you know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
And by the way, why exactly are you being rude?
Take a guess......
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
The rest of what you say is just false. ......And if "this is bad because I am too dumb to understand it" were a legitimate argument, I know a place when you can get a reasonably priced stone axe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
As are Apple's. What's your point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
And your point is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
I initially did not contest your claim, even though it sounded suspect
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
You reference (on answers.com) is useless.... you apparently can't read
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
Firstly, I don't give a flying f*** if I get censured.... you have no idea who I am, what I know, or what I do. ..... is an idiot in my book, but I am willing to give you a pass this once ....
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
And you know this how?
1. Going private would be very difficult. Convincing Apple shareholders to sell would require a large premium over current share price. Obtaining the $700-900 B in capital to even begin such a venture would not be easy.
2. Apple retains access to capital if they should ever need it.
3. Employee incentive compensation is very easy with a publicly traded company. While a private company can give employees tracking stock (which behaves like stock for purposes of calculating distributions and value), there's no liquidity.
4. If the investment comes from a variety of different sources (as it would pretty much have to, given the size), management oversight becomes an issue. Getting the 20 different funds to agree on how to run things would be an endless battle.
There's not a chance that Apple would go private.
I agree wholeheartedly, especially with #3 and #4.
Moreover, the history of large private equity buyouts -- e.g., TXU, HCA, Harrahs, Hilton -- is replete with failures. (Dell is the next big disaster waiting to happen).
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Take a guess......
You are maybe five years old?
Saying someone must be 5 years old when they do the unthinkable¡ by using what you've previously stated to prove their point is neither a salient nor mature rebuttal.
This is how you entered the thread:
In no way does that sound like you are coming it to have a civil discourse with others. In no way does it sound like you want to give any knowledge back to others or learn what they have to offer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Saying someone must be 5 years old when they do the unthinkable¡ by using what you've previously stated to prove their point is neither a salient nor mature rebuttal.
This is how you entered the thread:
In no way does that sound like you are coming it to have a civil discourse with others. In no way does it sound like you want to give any knowledge back to others or learn what they have to offer.
Sorry, I did not realize sarcasm is viewed as unacceptable. Thank you for your gaberation.
So you admit you were conveying contempt and yet you don't see how this can be not lead to reasonable discourse? There is no problem with being sarcastic or sardonic but it's a hostile tone so if it's the only thing you bring to the table you can't expect to be taken seriously. I don't even know if you're sorry and thank you are stated sarcastically or not but they come across as such because of what I've read in this thread.
PS: All sarcasm is irony but not all irony is sarcasm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Saying someone must be 5 years old when they do the unthinkable¡ by using what you've previously stated to prove their point is neither a salient nor mature rebuttal.
This is how you entered the thread:
In no way does that sound like you are coming it to have a civil discourse with others. In no way does it sound like you want to give any knowledge back to others or learn what they have to offer.
Sorry, I did not realize sarcasm is viewed as unacceptable. Thank you for your gaberation.
Well I guess that answers that question about your sincerity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
So you admit you were conveying contempt and yet you don't see how this can be not lead to reasonable discourse? There is no problem with being sarcastic or sardonic but it's a hostile tone so if it's the only thing you bring to the table you can't expect to be taken seriously. I don't even know if you're sorry and thank you are stated sarcastically or not but they come across as such because of what I've read in this thread.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s16e08-sarcastaball
PS: All sarcasm is irony but not all irony is sarcasm.
I was conveying contempt because I thought the knee-jerk reaction I was describing was contemptible [the people involved did NOT watch the Einhorn presentation, which was quite well reasoned, and certainly an excellent starting point for discussion -- anything he said was anathema, and you can see by going over the history], and, as you say, that post led to no discussion. But, as far as I can say, that post had absolutely nothing to do with the later back and forth with anantksundaram, which began with him making flatly factual statements which were, umm, not, to an audience which is not in the finance business [with the exception of yours truly, apparently] so could not easily call him on the misrepresentation.. I freely admit that this drew my contempt also, which explains (though does not excuse) the tone of my follow-ups. The most recent thing you have gotten involved in as moderator, however, happened after (I thought) all the steam had been blown off, and I was shocked he was still holding the grudge. I am explaining this to you because while I don't always agree with your views, I do respect the work you and TS are doing as moderators.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Well I guess that answers that question about your sincerity.
Umm, you had already responded to that post -- my browser accidentally sent it twice.