Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer Sells $16.4 Million in AAPL Stock

SusanK said:
Cook was an excellent lieutenant. He is not much of a general.
Click to expand...

He's been the de facto general for a lot longer than you seem to realize.

I'm not 100% sold on Cook, but then I wasn't 100% sold on Jobs either. One way or another, I'm not interested in overlooking Jobs' faults just so we can compare Cook unfavorably to Jobs.
 
SusanK said:
Cook was an excellent lieutenant. He is not much of a general.
Click to expand...

I agree with Susan. I don't have anything against Cook, but he is not an entrepreneur - and definitely comes off as a bean-counter type.
 
IJ Reilly said:
He's been the de facto general for a lot longer than you seem to realize.

I'm not 100% sold on Cook, but then I wasn't 100% sold on Jobs either. One way or another, I'm not interested in overlooking Jobs' faults just so we can compare Cook unfavorably to Jobs.
Click to expand...


My original comment that you quoted was about my equity position in AAPL. I am not comfortable with Cook. My stock, my call. You are free to buy, sell or hold with your funds.
 
Mums said:
I agree with Susan. I don't have anything against Cook, but he is not an entrepreneur - and definitely comes off as a bean-counter type.
Click to expand...

The CEO of one of the world's largest corporations is not an entrepreneur. Interesting concept. Got anything to back it up?

SusanK said:
My original comment that you quoted was about my equity position in AAPL. I am not comfortable with Cook. My stock, my call. You are free to buy, sell or hold with your funds.
Click to expand...

Oh, thanks. I didn't know I had your permission. Sure beats an explanation.
 
SusanK said:
Cook was an excellent lieutenant. He is not much of a general.
Click to expand...

Mums said:
I agree with Susan. I don't have anything against Cook, but he is not an entrepreneur - and definitely comes off as a bean-counter type.
Click to expand...

Both of you have weird notions of CEO job duties. Product design and engineering do not originate there.
 
SusanK said:
I have the same notion as Oppenheimer. A sell order :)
Click to expand...

Oh I wasn't commenting on whether you should hold stock in the company. I hope you didn't take it that way. I just sometimes get the impression that people think Jobs did everything.
 
thekev said:
Oh I wasn't commenting on whether you should hold stock in the company. I hope you didn't take it that way. I just sometimes get the impression that people think Jobs did everything.
Click to expand...

That, and he never made any mistakes. Warning, hagiography in process.

The entire critical review of Cook seems to be that he isn't Jobs. As we all know, Steve did a remarkable thing in revitalizing Apple, beyond anyone's wildest expectations. And yet we know he wasn't always right, some of his decisions didn't work out. And as we should also know, through all those years of revitalization, it was Cook who kept the sails in trim; he was the one who made sure that all the wheels turned in the right direction. This was no small thing, either.

So now Apple is an immense company, with more turning wheels than ever. At this point, does Apple need a Dear Leader or someone who knows how to make it all work? The truth is, if Apple's corporate culture isn't strong enough to keep it on the same trajectory then it doesn't matter a great deal who runs the company, provided they are competent and understand how the company works. If Cook has a problem with either one, then I haven't heard of it.

We've seen this play out at Microsoft. The culture at Microsoft dictates who they are and what they do far more than the person at the top. The DNA at big companies changes slowly, if at all. This is why Microsoft continues to make the same mistakes year after year, and why I think Apple will be just fine with Tim Cook at the top. Even if he isn't the sainted Steve Jobs.
 
iLondoner said:
Yet another thread heads off into the tangential jungle of comparing Tim against Saint Steve.

;)
Click to expand...

I suppose this subject does have a way of coming up time and again, and it isn't a crime to discuss. The puzzlement is why it comes up whenever a top exec sells some of their shares. As the article explains, and others have commented, insiders must sell their shares on a schedule to comply with SEC regulations. They are rarely buyers and frequently sellers because their compensation involves grants of stock and options. The markets don't dwell on insider trading because it means so little in the larger scheme of things. Using Oppenheimer's stock sale to bash Tim Cook is a case of poorly informed opportunism.
 
IJ Reilly said:
That, and he never made any mistakes. Warning, hagiography in process.

The entire critical review of Cook seems to be that he isn't Jobs. As we all know, Steve did a remarkable thing in revitalizing Apple, beyond anyone's wildest expectations. And yet we know he wasn't always right, some of his decisions didn't work out. And as we should also know, through all those years of revitalization, it was Cook who kept the sails in trim; he was the one who made sure that all the wheels turned in the right direction. This was no small thing, either.
Click to expand...

Especially on these boards, people build up an image of Jobs in their heads. I don't think anyone could really follow that flawlessly, as it's impossible to fight nostalgia.
 
thekev said:
Oh I wasn't commenting on whether you should hold stock in the company. I hope you didn't take it that way.
Click to expand...

The thread is about Apple Inc's CFO selling shares of company stock. Some of us mere mortals sell shares too. Positions are very small by comparison but important to the mere mortal. This mere mortal anyway.
 
thekev said:
Especially on these boards, people build up an image of Jobs in their heads. I don't think anyone could really follow that flawlessly, as it's impossible to fight nostalgia.
Click to expand...

It's also impossible to justify nostalgia.

Nobody is flawless. Cook isn't, and neither was Jobs. The big distinction between Jobs and Cook (and every other CEO) is that no CEO in living memory cultivated a rock star image like Steve Jobs. But that's in the past. We can't live in the past, and neither can Apple.
 
Are you assigning nostalgia where it does not exist?

IJ Reilly said:
It's also impossible to justify nostalgia.

Nobody is flawless. Cook isn't, and neither was Jobs. The big distinction between Jobs and Cook (and every other CEO) is that no CEO in living memory cultivated a rock star image like Steve Jobs. But that's in the past. We can't live in the past, and neither can Apple.
Click to expand...

Please reread this thread. Did I make any reference to Cook's predecessor? You went on about what I forgot or never knew. Condescending, sarcastic. What do you get from that?

The thread is about the CFO selling shares as soon as he could. My investments are my own. Yours are to manage as you see fit. Why did you have a need to get on me?

Please read the thread again. If I made a reference to Cook's predecessor other than this post I would like you to call it to my attention.

Thanks you very much.
 
SusanK said:
Please reread this thread. Did I make any reference to Cook's predecessor? You went on about what I forgot or never knew. Condescending, sarcastic. What do you get from that?

The thread is about the CFO selling shares as soon as he could. My investments are my own. Yours are to manage as you see fit. Why did you have a need to get on me?

Please read the thread again. If I made a reference to Cook's predecessor other than this post I would like you to call it to my attention.

Thanks you very much.
Click to expand...

Okay, we'll close our eyes for a moment and try to imagine that Tim Cook did not have a predecessor. Sorry, it doesn't work for me. YMMV.

The point of discussing the person who preceded Cook is to make the point that Cook was the named and de facto CEO of Apple for several years before that other person died, and seems to have done so with some measure of success. Do you not agree? If not, why?

I also made the point that Oppenheimer's stock sale isn't a significant event, for stated reasons.

Did you respond to this point or any of the others in any way, shape or form? Did you tell us why Cook makes you "uncomfortable" or attempt to substantiate any other of your vague criticisms of his leadership or record? Ample opportunity provided.

I did not ask you about your investments. You volunteered that. I don't care about your investments. I didn't mention mine, either, as I assumed you would be equally disinterested in my investments.

I took the trouble to make a detailed point. When you bothered to respond at all, your response was vague and dismissive. This by my definition is condescending and sarcastic. But again, YMMV.
 
I am not required to run my buy/sell orders past you for sign off. I was not comfortable having money on the table with Cook at the helm.

My posts made no reference to Steve. That's your hangup.
 
twoodcc said:
that doesn't sound too good. unless he's about to go on a spending spree
Click to expand...

Malfeasance on Mr. Cook's part never crossed my mind. I am confident he is doing the best possible job he can for Apple. Unfortunately share prices have fallen and during a market rally.

AAPL closed at $453.32 today down from a 52 week high of $705.07 on September 21, 2012. A share repurchase plan was instituted this spring in an attempt to put a floor under the share price. Debt was issued to finance the plan.

I am more comfortable with other investment opportunities at this time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back