Kingdom Holding Company & Apple
No, this isn't a scandal thread, there is no "AHA!" or conspiracy. I'm simply interested in potential public perception, right or wrong though it may be.
As we begin to see the Saudi society begin to unravel over the summer, combined with the fact that the majority of 9-11 hijackers were Saudis, plus the oil price scandal and any and all negative press regarding Saudi Arabia in general, I have to wonder what effect, if any, might be seen in Apple's stock price, considering Kingdom Holding Company's 5% stock holdings in Apple totaling $314 million (a bit more than twice what MS owns).
I only noticed because of the latest Kingdom Holding Company ads on CNN which all-too prominently (imo) shows Apple as one of several other companies it is invested in. (replete with rainbow logo - tré 80's!)
I'm not arguing it is right or fair to ostracize Saudi companies or mere associations, but I am asking what you think might happen if a negative association between Apple and Saudi investment develops if only as a byproduct of the Democrats making a stink about Bush's Saudi ties.
Is $314 million trivial or significant to Apple? I would think it is significant.
Prince Al Waleed bin Talal, the 44-year-old grandson of Saudi Arabia's founder, King Saud, is the chairman of the private Kingdom Holding Company. By the way, he is the man that offered New York City $10 million dollars after 9/11 and was refused by Guliani.
Ideas? Fantasies? Reality checks?
Pseudo Interview: (It is infomercial, not journalism but at least gets some raw facts and history right, albeit from 1999)
http://www.iht.com/IHT/SUP/060199/sp-saudi-02.html
As we begin to see the Saudi society begin to unravel over the summer, combined with the fact that the majority of 9-11 hijackers were Saudis, plus the oil price scandal and any and all negative press regarding Saudi Arabia in general, I have to wonder what effect, if any, might be seen in Apple's stock price, considering Kingdom Holding Company's 5% stock holdings in Apple totaling $314 million (a bit more than twice what MS owns).
I only noticed because of the latest Kingdom Holding Company ads on CNN which all-too prominently (imo) shows Apple as one of several other companies it is invested in. (replete with rainbow logo - tré 80's!)
I'm not arguing it is right or fair to ostracize Saudi companies or mere associations, but I am asking what you think might happen if a negative association between Apple and Saudi investment develops if only as a byproduct of the Democrats making a stink about Bush's Saudi ties.
Is $314 million trivial or significant to Apple? I would think it is significant.
Prince Al Waleed bin Talal, the 44-year-old grandson of Saudi Arabia's founder, King Saud, is the chairman of the private Kingdom Holding Company. By the way, he is the man that offered New York City $10 million dollars after 9/11 and was refused by Guliani.
Ideas? Fantasies? Reality checks?
Pseudo Interview: (It is infomercial, not journalism but at least gets some raw facts and history right, albeit from 1999)
http://www.iht.com/IHT/SUP/060199/sp-saudi-02.html
Comments
Originally posted by johnq
combined with the fact that the majority of 9-11 hijackers were Saudis
But don't forget that pakistan is the country to look at wrt 9/11. And any Saudi Royal -> 9/11 theory starts with Bandar's wife, the woman who sayq George Sr. and Barbara are "like my father and mother."
Anyway, my response: I like my powerbooks. Jobs gets paid way too much, which gives me reasons to hate the company as it is (besides the whole lack of the powerbook G5 thing), so whatever.
Originally posted by giant
But don't forget that pakistan is the country to look at wrt 9/11. And any Saudi Royal -> 9/11 theory starts with Bandar's wife, the woman who sayq George Sr. and Barbara are "like my father and mother."
Anyway, my response: I like my powerbooks. Jobs gets paid way too much, which gives me reasons to hate the company as it is (besides the whole lack of the powerbook G5 thing), so whatever.
I agree mostly, it is probably a whatever thing. If anything it might help Apple's stock since negative news seems to always make it go up, go figure. I mean negative news like competing companies unveiling rival services or products, never seems to lower the stock, but raise it. I assume it is an "imitation = flattery / must be doing something right" thing.
Besides, Apple will be little more than a consumer electronics company within 5 years. iPods, iLife, iCrap, etc.
Apple should buy the stock back. I think I need to start looking at what stock my 403b is buying.
Originally posted by segovius
Err...Hi - me again.
I'm on a coffee break and I finished the crossword early so I'll quickly correct the above (just for fun - you don't need to address the points):
That definition means specifically Saudi, Oman, Kuwait, UAE and Bahrain. It's probably not a good idea - the US economy isn't in the best shape to absorb that sort of hit right now.
The US economy is doing much much better. This would be much more of a hit on the ME and not us. Even if it did hurt the US you have to stand on principle sometimes.
Originally posted by segovius
Ah yes, knew I'd forgotten something - Are the Arabs Semitic or not ?
Everyone knows what the definition of "anti-Semitic" is. Trying to redefined it to give a pass to some hate mongers is reprehensible on your part. Maybe you prefer a more accurate phrase like "anti-Jew bigots"?
Originally posted by segovius
Who did ? I can think of only two groups against whom this accusation has been levelled:
1) The dancing Israelis laughing and exchanging high-fives whilst filming the twin towers in flames (I take it you don't mean them).
I've never heard of this before. Unless you have some hard proof of this I can only conclude this is an anti-Jew lie. By retelling it you are anti-Jew bigot. Please provide proof.
Originally posted by segovius
2) The Palestinians alleged to have been dancing in the streets of Gaza. This
is probably what you mean by 'they' because it is characteristically wrong in two ways - one, the footage has been debunked (but don't stress over that) and two, there probably isn't that much US investment in Gaza right now that could be withdrawn. I think there isn't much of your tax-dollars left over from the Israel fund.
Wow!:eek: You are ignorant. The footage was confirmed by the networks that shot and aired it. A student posted on IndyMedia that his/her university prof claimed that the footage was faked. He later retracted it on IndyMedia. The footage is real, It was shot on 9-11 in reaction to the events in the US. The people in the video were cheering the attacks in the US. CONFIRMED.
Now you're in a bad state. You are repeating what I think is an anti-Jew lie (please provide information on this to back up your claim). Then you are here claiming that the video that shows the arab muslims in a bad light was in fact faked when we all know ('cept you) that it wasn't.
You're on the wrong side of this one.
To continue: Don't you remember the coverage from Egypt? Syria?
Originally posted by segovius
Again, by your own definition of middle eastern arab muslim countries - ie: Saudi, Oman, Kuwait, UAE and Bahrain, which one specifically supports terrorism and how?
Many of the citizens of those countries do. To that I'll add Iran, Syria, Egypt....
Originally posted by segovius
Hint: it's a trick question so be careful - one of them does but one is also an ally, Bush's stated model for reform in the ME and a 'loyal friend' of the US. You don't want to find out they're the same one so skip this bit.
According to Bush, none of those countries actually need reform. Saudi is 'moving toward democracy' and is a model for other Islamic states. Kuwait is well, it was attacked by Saddam so it must be great and...
....oh-oh, there's the siren, drones being called back to work.....later.......
You're reply was interesting because it exposed your ignorance and hatred. You need to take a personal inventory and try to right yourself.
I am not done with the book, but it strikes me as one of the most backwards relationships we have. Even more backwards than our blind-eye-towards-Israel policies over the years, only because on a societal level, we have nothing in common with these people. They stand for all the things we have traditioanally stood against, yet all it took was a few billion here and there to overlook that.
Not saying foreign nationals shouldn't be allowed to buy American stock, but the influence the Saudi Royal Family (and the Bin Ladens) have over certain aspects of our economy and political system, are disturbing to say the least.
Read the book; it's worth it just to understand our relationship with these people, Bush the Second aside.
Originally posted by Scott
Everyone knows what the definition of "anti-Semitic" is. Trying to redefined it to give a pass to some hate mongers is reprehensible on your part. Maybe you prefer a more accurate phrase like "anti-Jew bigots"?
Not everyone knows what the definition of "anti-Semitic" is because the term HAS been redefined.
In my opinion, the Jews have lost their Semitic background and that anti-Semitic undertones exist in Israel. (This based on a port visit on a military ship during which we were required to have an Israeli chaperon. He often talked about the "nice" Jewish houses with their angled roofs built on the plains, which could be distinguished from "dirty-looking" Arab houses which had flat roofs and were built on the hillsides.)
I'll acknowledge that the common usage in the west is "anti-Jewish", but it is no wonder that history is confusing and there are small understandings that turn into big arguments when we keep redefining terms to agree with some agenda.
I don't know about the original poster, but "anti-Semitic" seems too polite and sanitized, and "anti-Jew bigot" conveys the feeling more emphatically.
Originally posted by johnq
totaling $314 million (a bit more than twice what MS owns).
Just a little side note:
Microsoft sold all their shares in Apple - they don't "own" any of Apple.
Originally posted by Skipjack
Not everyone knows what the definition of "anti-Semitic" is because the term HAS been redefined.
In my opinion, the Jews have lost their Semitic background and that anti-Semitic undertones exist in Israel. (This based on a port visit on a military ship during which we were required to have an Israeli chaperon. He often talked about the "nice" Jewish houses with their angled roofs built on the plains, which could be distinguished from "dirty-looking" Arab houses which had flat roofs and were built on the hillsides.)
I'll acknowledge that the common usage in the west is "anti-Jewish", but it is no wonder that history is confusing and there are small understandings that turn into big arguments when we keep redefining terms to agree with some agenda.
I don't know about the original poster, but "anti-Semitic" seems too polite and sanitized, and "anti-Jew bigot" conveys the feeling more emphatically.
Of course, there's also the problem that if you come out in disagreement with the actions of the Israeli government then you're anti-Semitic, and therefore racist... which is odd, since Judaism is a *religion*, not a *race*, but... *shrug*
For the record: pro-Jew, anti-Zionist. Kind of like how I'm pro-Muslim anti-Jihadist, pro-Christian anti-Fundie, etc, etc, etc.
I think our government is flat out wrong in supporting the Israeli government's actions the way it does, and shows a serious lack of fair and rational relations with foreign nations... of course, expecting fairness or rationality out of a political body is pretty silly anyway.
Originally posted by segovius
Luckily (perhaps unluckily ?) I've just got another coffee break heh !
Well, obviously not everyone. I have a warped definition - I take it to mean a member of the grouping of Semitic peoples of which Jews and Arabs are a part.
Anti-Jew bigot does express your meaning more clearly though so, yes, I would prefer you to use it.
No problem.
Check Sunday Herald Newspaper
Or perhaps you'd find Haaretz more unimpeachable as a source.
You see it's difficult to argue against this one because the five Israelis were arrested by the Feds. From Haaretz:
From Sunday Herald the account of eyewitness Maria A:
I'm more interested in why you have never heard of this. It's not conspiracy - it's a matter of record that these characters were arrested by the FBI on Sept 11th. And you have never heard of it.
Do you think you would have heard of it if they'd been Arabs ? Really ?
I heard they were cheering something else - how do you know they were cheering the attacks ? Do you speak Arabic ? Did they say so - what indicators were there other than that you were told this by your accredited media sources ?
First off you said the video of the palestinians was "debunked". Now you're trying to tell me it was lost in the translation. You're the ultimate terrorist apologist. When the Egyptians say in english "this is very very good" there's no confusion there. When you see an arab muslim watching a replay of the plane hitting the WTC and shaking his fist in victory IT'S NOT VERY HARD TO UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WERE CHEERING IN THE STREETS FOR THE 9-11 ATTACKS.
Then you pull out some old story about some men in a van with box cutters. Jews none the less. How many of those stores did we go though right after 9-11? How many turned out to be nothing? Yet you repeat this anti-Semitic (anti-Jew bigot in your language) as if it's an undisputed fact and implicates the jews in 9-11.
You make every excuse in the world for the despicable behavior of arab Muslims and present as fact news stories from one off the most confusing times in recent history about Jews cheering 9-11.
So you repeat lies against the Jews and condone those that hate the Jews. What does that make you?
You'll say almost anything to excuse the terrorists and indict the jews wont you?
Scott have you ever been to Israel? If so, did you make any effort to speak with people who might --at the same time-- be devout Jews and also firmly anti-Sharon? Because I have to tell you, such people do exist in the state of Israel. There are many of them.
They love their country, their freedom, their religion and their culture... and at the same time they dislike Sharon and his policies. See if you can get that notion and what it implies through your thick skull. Would you claim anyone who is anti-Bush to be "anti-Christian", by definition? No, even you wouldn't claim that. But that's analagous to what you're saying every time you call someone "anti-semitic".
Sharon = Chief Representative of Israel's government
Sharon = Chief Policy-maker of Israel
Sharon = person who is Jewish
BUT
Speaking out against Sharon's policies ≠ Speaking out against Jews.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? Or, do you just choose to ignore the obvious because it makes you feel better to label people in here with slanderous words?
Originally posted by johnq
Ideas? Fantasies? Reality checks?
How about this for a reality check.
"April 25, 2004 -- Rebel Apple Computer, which cast itself as the foe of Big Brother in its famous "1984" ad spot during Super Bowl XVIII, has become the oppressor, say some Apple dealers.
Two retailers pleaded their case directly to shareholders at Apple's annual meeting last week in Cupertino, Calif.
"Microsoft screws over everyone, but Apple screws over its friends, and that's worse," said Tom Santos, owner of MACadam computers in San Francisco."
Not completely on topic, but after Scott's suicide bombing of another thread I thought I'd try something...
Apple might be in deep shit again...
Originally posted by Moogs
...
Speaking out against Sharon's policies ≠ Speaking out against Jews.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? Or, do you just choose to ignore the obvious because it makes you feel better to label people in here with slanderous words?
Did I ever say that? If I did please provide proof. I'll consider your statement retracted until you do.
Originally posted by segovius
I can't say anymore Scott, really - I provided a link that shows how it happened and that these Israelis were arrested by the Feds.
I don't know how else to help you - go and check out the rap sheet or something or hassle the cop who was quoted in the article I posted. Maybe hound the reporter in the article or something.....what can I say ????
Fair enough but some of the facts rely on eye witness testimony that we all know that's faulty. I heard the same story about arabs on a roof in NJ waiting for the planes. Remember the guy in the hotel with the aviation radio? Or the guys on the train in Texas with rolls of cash and box cutters?
What about the other side of the coin. You're still trying to tell me they were not cheering in the streets of Palestine and Egypt. In Grease they cheered in the football stand. Even in Canada. If you want to put your head in the sand and ignore all this don't go around telling your little story about the arrested jews and claim to be informed.