Let investors run Apple? I've never heard anything that stupid, I'm gonna quote Tallest and say to Icahn:
"Go away!"
Tim and Peter Op just wasted an evening with this idiot, sure, let investors jerk Apple around like the way they buy and dump stock, those people don't give a crap about Apple and what Apple stands for, Icahn definitely doesn't, just vultures trying to corner fat prey, but stupid vultures.
Yes, Apple should listen to the shareholders! And I'm a shareholder! Tell Carl to FK off! I trust the management of Apple, exclusively, not some corporate raider out to make a quick buck, with absolutely no concern for the long term health of the company. I also believe in one man, one vote, so I want an equal say to Carl.
I posted this the last time we talked about Icahn:
From the Apple Corporate Governance Guidelines:
I.The Role of the Board of Directors
The Board oversees the Chief Executive Officer (the “CEO”) and other senior management in the competent and ethical operation of the Corporation on a day-to-day basis and assures that the long- term interests of the shareholders are being served. To satisfy its duties, directors are expected to take a proactive, focused approach to their position, and set standards to ensure that the Corporation is committed to business success through the maintenance of high standards of responsibility and ethics.
If we could just take out that part about "interests of the shareholders are being served" things would be better. Shareholders ruin everything.
I posted this the last time we talked about Icahn:
From the Apple Corporate Governance Guidelines:
I.The Role of the Board of Directors
The Board oversees the Chief Executive Officer (the “CEO”) and other senior management in the competent and ethical operation of the Corporation on a day-to-day basis and assures that the long- term interests of the shareholders are being served. To satisfy its duties, directors are expected to take a proactive, focused approach to their position, and set standards to ensure that the Corporation is committed to business success through the maintenance of high standards of responsibility and ethics.
If we could just take out that part about "interests of the shareholders are being served" things would be better. Shareholders ruin everything.
Then you have no owners… it becomes a collective… then it's COMMUNISM!
The board needs to consider the needs of all shareholders and how to keep the company valuable.. but Icahn has been able to use lawsuits to sell the idea that "wahtever maximizes shareholder return in the short term is the boards duty".... and that could be very dangerous.
Alas, now that Icahn has a position, it's too late to enact such measures, so hopefully they did it back in the 1990s when they were vulneragble to a hostile takeover.
Icahn doesn't have a board position. You're thinking of Microsoft where an investor was able to elbow for a position.
I posted this the last time we talked about Icahn:
From the Apple Corporate Governance Guidelines:
<strong style="vertical-align:1pt;">I.</strong> The Role of the Board of Directors The Board oversees the Chief Executive Officer (the “CEO”) and other senior management in the competent and ethical operation of the Corporation on a day-to-day basis and assures that the long- term interests of the shareholders are being served. To satisfy its duties, directors are expected to take a proactive, focused approach to their position, and set standards to ensure that the Corporation is committed to business success through the maintenance of high standards of responsibility and ethics.
If we could just take out that part about "interests of the shareholders are being served" things would be better. Shareholders ruin everything.
YOu need to re-read the sentence, as it clearly says LONG-TERM interests of the shareholders... Not the quarterly or annual interests...the LONG-TERM interests.
No one ever claimed that it would weaken Icahn's (or anyone else's) share value.
What it achieves is that it makes the stock more affordable for small investors. The average investor who can set aside $100 a month to buy shares is far more likely to buy AAPL monthly than to wait 5 months and then buy one share. There's also a psychological difference for the small investor. Buying shares at $50 isn't as scary as buying them at $500 - even if the actual proportional value doesn't change.
That yields two results:
1. If it brings new investors into the market, it increases demand for the stock, thereby increasing the price. Even though each individual investor only buys a few shares, the aggregate amount could be significant.
2. It would have absolutely no impact on institutional buyers or large buyers like Icahn. Any effect would be only on smaller buyers - and could therefore shift the ownership slightly away from institutions (who tend to buy and sell at the drop of a hat and create a lot of volatility).
While the total number of shares would be modest, it doesn't take a lot to have an impact. A couple million shares one way or the other could be significant.
Read what you wrote again. All of the points you made are pretty much the antithesis of Apple. Just like Buffet, Jobs wanted the actual value of the stock realized, so splitting the stock achieves the exact opposite.
WS greedy criminals want 150b, so they've selected Icahn as their emissary to lure it out. Pathetic, yet understandable. They want to make one last good earning on AAPL and then move to something else on what they have together decided.
Icahn is like a shark reacting to a waft of blood. No doubt to him, Apple looks beleaguered and its management weak. Good for Cook standing up to him! You don't want Icahn hanging around. He carries an air and reputation of mismanagement and destruction all about him, like the dust cloud around Pig-Pen.
Not sure how any sane person can consider the most successful company on the planet "beleaguered", which recently smashed all of its previous sales records yet again (and that of any other company), and became the most valuable brand in the world, exceeding Coca Cola.
Then again, this is Apple, and standard rational logic does not apply.
Open your eyes. Investors used have a long term interest in a company. Today, it is all about quick wins, sucking as much as they can and then leaving a mess behind.
"And the board, in this kind of a case, should be listening to what the shareholders want." - Yes, we know what you want.
I posted this the last time we talked about Icahn:
From the Apple Corporate Governance Guidelines:
<strong style="vertical-align:1pt;">I.</strong> The Role of the Board of Directors The Board oversees the Chief Executive Officer (the “CEO”) and other senior management in the competent and ethical operation of the Corporation on a day-to-day basis and assures that the long- term interests of the shareholders are being served. To satisfy its duties, directors are expected to take a proactive, focused approach to their position, and set standards to ensure that the Corporation is committed to business success through the maintenance of high standards of responsibility and ethics.
If we could just take out that part about "interests of the shareholders are being served" things would be better. Shareholders ruin everything.
Shareholders own the company.
But none of them on their own. If iCahn has a 2Bn position he owns less than 0.5% as Apple is valued at 420bn at the moment.
While he initially described dinner with Tim Cook as "cordial," Icahn later revealed in an interview that his talks with Apple's CEO about the use of the company's cash reserves were "a little testy" at times.
I’ll bet that after being told he doesn’t know what to do with the money he himself earned, Tim Cook wanted to give a little kick to the testes, at least.
Open your eyes. Investors used have a long term interest in a company. Today, it is all about quick wins, sucking as much as they can and then leaving a mess behind.
"And the board, in this kind of a case, should be listening to what the shareholders want." - Yes, we know what you want.
His statement is true. The Board should be listening to what shareholders want. But that doesn't mean that they have to do it.
The way corporate governance works is that shareholders select a Board. The Board is given responsibility for directing the company and usually does so by hiring a CEO to follow their guidance. If the Board is unhappy with the CEO, they fire him/her. If the shareholders are unhappy with the board, they replace them. That's it.
Now, Icahn is free to try to get the Board replaced if he wishes, but that would be pretty silly given that his biggest complaint is that they're generating so much cash that they are 'only' distributing $100 B to shareholders in the next 2 years. He can't really have it both ways. You don't get to pick and choose which Board actions you like. You either accept the Board or you replace them. And a proposal to replace the Board would get him laughed out of Wall Street (if not locked up in the loony bin).
What I don't get is why did Tim Cook actually meet with him? What is the obligation? Or is it that Tim Cook wants Icahn to be his broker to plan a large buyout? What is about Icahn that should amuse Tim?
Comments
Let investors run Apple? I've never heard anything that stupid, I'm gonna quote Tallest and say to Icahn:
"Go away!"
Tim and Peter Op just wasted an evening with this idiot, sure, let investors jerk Apple around like the way they buy and dump stock, those people don't give a crap about Apple and what Apple stands for, Icahn definitely doesn't, just vultures trying to corner fat prey, but stupid vultures.
If Icahn dumps his AAPL shares in a fit of pique, I hope Apple immediately expands their buyback program to take advantage of the decline.
Love it!
I posted this the last time we talked about Icahn:
From the Apple Corporate Governance Guidelines:
I. The Role of the Board of Directors
The Board oversees the Chief Executive Officer (the “CEO”) and other senior management in the competent and ethical operation of the Corporation on a day-to-day basis and assures that the long- term interests of the shareholders are being served. To satisfy its duties, directors are expected to take a proactive, focused approach to their position, and set standards to ensure that the Corporation is committed to business success through the maintenance of high standards of responsibility and ethics.
If we could just take out that part about "interests of the shareholders are being served" things would be better. Shareholders ruin everything.
Split the stock Cook!
???? is this funny? as it's no strategy to stop iCahn's rant.
I posted this the last time we talked about Icahn:
From the Apple Corporate Governance Guidelines:
I. The Role of the Board of Directors
The Board oversees the Chief Executive Officer (the “CEO”) and other senior management in the competent and ethical operation of the Corporation on a day-to-day basis and assures that the long- term interests of the shareholders are being served. To satisfy its duties, directors are expected to take a proactive, focused approach to their position, and set standards to ensure that the Corporation is committed to business success through the maintenance of high standards of responsibility and ethics.
If we could just take out that part about "interests of the shareholders are being served" things would be better. Shareholders ruin everything.
Then you have no owners… it becomes a collective… then it's COMMUNISM!
Pinko! /s
Icahn doesn't have a board position. You're thinking of Microsoft where an investor was able to elbow for a position.
YOu need to re-read the sentence, as it clearly says LONG-TERM interests of the shareholders... Not the quarterly or annual interests...the LONG-TERM interests.
Icaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhn!
that's 'testy'
No one ever claimed that it would weaken Icahn's (or anyone else's) share value.
What it achieves is that it makes the stock more affordable for small investors. The average investor who can set aside $100 a month to buy shares is far more likely to buy AAPL monthly than to wait 5 months and then buy one share. There's also a psychological difference for the small investor. Buying shares at $50 isn't as scary as buying them at $500 - even if the actual proportional value doesn't change.
That yields two results:
1. If it brings new investors into the market, it increases demand for the stock, thereby increasing the price. Even though each individual investor only buys a few shares, the aggregate amount could be significant.
2. It would have absolutely no impact on institutional buyers or large buyers like Icahn. Any effect would be only on smaller buyers - and could therefore shift the ownership slightly away from institutions (who tend to buy and sell at the drop of a hat and create a lot of volatility).
While the total number of shares would be modest, it doesn't take a lot to have an impact. A couple million shares one way or the other could be significant.
Read what you wrote again. All of the points you made are pretty much the antithesis of Apple. Just like Buffet, Jobs wanted the actual value of the stock realized, so splitting the stock achieves the exact opposite.
WS greedy criminals want 150b, so they've selected Icahn as their emissary to lure it out. Pathetic, yet understandable. They want to make one last good earning on AAPL and then move to something else on what they have together decided.
Icahn is like a shark reacting to a waft of blood. No doubt to him, Apple looks beleaguered and its management weak. Good for Cook standing up to him! You don't want Icahn hanging around. He carries an air and reputation of mismanagement and destruction all about him, like the dust cloud around Pig-Pen.
Not sure how any sane person can consider the most successful company on the planet "beleaguered", which recently smashed all of its previous sales records yet again (and that of any other company), and became the most valuable brand in the world, exceeding Coca Cola.
Then again, this is Apple, and standard rational logic does not apply.
"And the board, in this kind of a case, should be listening to what the shareholders want." - Yes, we know what you want.
Shareholders own the company.
But none of them on their own. If iCahn has a 2Bn position he owns less than 0.5% as Apple is valued at 420bn at the moment.
Get lost.
And this shareholder wants you to sell off all your Apple shares and get the hell out of here.
I’ll bet that after being told he doesn’t know what to do with the money he himself earned, Tim Cook wanted to give a little kick to the testes, at least.
“From Cupertino’s heart I short thee!”
His statement is true. The Board should be listening to what shareholders want. But that doesn't mean that they have to do it.
The way corporate governance works is that shareholders select a Board. The Board is given responsibility for directing the company and usually does so by hiring a CEO to follow their guidance. If the Board is unhappy with the CEO, they fire him/her. If the shareholders are unhappy with the board, they replace them. That's it.
Now, Icahn is free to try to get the Board replaced if he wishes, but that would be pretty silly given that his biggest complaint is that they're generating so much cash that they are 'only' distributing $100 B to shareholders in the next 2 years. He can't really have it both ways. You don't get to pick and choose which Board actions you like. You either accept the Board or you replace them. And a proposal to replace the Board would get him laughed out of Wall Street (if not locked up in the loony bin).
What I don't get is why did Tim Cook actually meet with him? What is the obligation? Or is it that Tim Cook wants Icahn to be his broker to plan a large buyout? What is about Icahn that should amuse Tim?
This is what I want to know...