Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Icahn is 77 and worth $20 Billion, he doesn't need any more money. He is the poster boy for Disgusting Greed.

"Icahn went on to say that he is excited about Apple's future"

He then dirtied his adult diapers due to all the excitement.
 
Last edited:
Bush_mission_accomplished.jpg


You mean if a company just ignores him he's powerless to pump and dump? Shocking!

The best part of this is that we no longer have to read these bitch-ass posts about this jackass. MacRumors can now get back to posts that matter: Hints of Apple store openings in countries I'll never visit.
 
Nope. Carl Icahn a greedy blood sucker with a history of attempting hostile takeover and pushing for harmful short term profit so he can cash out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_C._Icahn

Carl Icahn is a business man and a shareholder of Apple...his goals are (1) Bolster the share value by a certain percentage of COH. This is a short and long term strategy. (2) By buying back stock, Apple becomes stronger against any takeover efforts and allows them to pursue their business goals from a place of strength.

Both of these things will mean more business, more profit and a larger economy for those that work in and around the Apple business plan, which includes Apple Employees, the thousands of 3rd party Apple Developers (me included) and all the consumers that use and enjoy the products produced by Apple.

If it weren't for people like Mr. Icahn that "...try to make a quick buck...", there might not be an Apple, Inc (Formerly Apple Computer), in the first place.

Not that your question has anything to do with the comment, but the fact remains, his "history" isn't actually relevant to anything under discussion.
 
If the direct result of the $14 billion buyback was a net -$25 on the stock price then I would agree with you. However there are a lot more factors at play, which I suspect you already know.
Exactly, and that's why the question whether Carl Icahn "got what he wanted" is also more complex. I suspect he wanted not only a big buyback, but more generally a hugely profitable investment. The buyback may not work out this way, if company profit and outlook remain disappointingly flat.
 
He gave up? He doesn't strike me the guy to give up easily. Something went down.
No he didn't give up. He knew he was going to lose the proxy vote by a huge margin so he's pretending not to care. Icahn is trying to control Apple's board through threats, intimidation, and public harassment- he has no intention of actually following through with anything he says.
 
Not that your question has anything to do with the comment, but the fact remains, his "history" isn't actually relevant to anything under discussion.

He is an old crook with no other agenda then to siphon the dough from Apple an then move on. That might be considered cunning and rationale but is really the tragedy of capitalism. No long term growth or innovation will come from that.
 
Last edited:
"Pump and dump" is a felony, and a very specific crime at that. People who throw this term around loosely to describe any investor should look it up first, so at least they will know what crime they are accusing someone of committing.
Your focus on pedantry belies a lack of understanding of the underlying topic. The overall strategy of "pump and dump" is commonplace and results in little chance of a felony conviction. The basic idea is you buy a stock, you talk it up, and you quickly sell having made money even though the prospects and fundamentals of that company did not change during the time you owned it. This is certainly what Icahn is trying to do, otherwise he wouldn't be wasting his time on twitter. This is also practiced by analysts and high-profile commentators all the time (Cramer has admitted to doing it himself at various points in his life and has pointed out many other doing the same).

Only in certain very specific circumstances is it a felony, such as if you fabricate the information you are pumping with, promise prospective investors returns (such as by certain spammers), fail to disclose your interests, etc. Even then, the chance of getting caught is pretty close to zero. Calling someone a pump and dump does not mean you are calling them a felon, but it does mean that you are calling them a leach- someone who is trying to make money on financial transactions while no underlying value has been created.
 
Exactly, and that's why the question whether Carl Icahn "got what he wanted" is also more complex. I suspect he wanted not only a big buyback, but more generally a hugely profitable investment. The buyback may not work out this way, if company profit and outlook remain disappointingly flat.

If the stock price stays the same--or even falls--the period immediately during or just after (1 to 2 quarters) the buyback then the logical conclusion is the stock price would have suffered even more without the buyback. In other words, using your argument of a net -$25 decrease, it would've been worse without the $14 billion buyback.
 
Last edited:
The minute he pulls out his invested cash, people are going to scramble and do the same. Not because of anything concrete, but only because he did it
 
The minute he pulls out his invested cash, people are going to scramble and do the same. Not because of anything concrete, but only because he did it

Is that his fault? Or "people's" fault?

I ask that because if you're long on AAPL, the day-to-day yips on the stock prices really shouldn't bother you.
 
Last edited:
His buyback was [much] bigger than the one Apple is doing. So I fail to see where he 'won'.

Much is a relative amount. He has been pushing for buybacks in one way or another for quite some time. Apple has conducted a huge buyback program. It isn't really a question of winning, but that it is pointless for him to continue to go through corporate governance gyrations now that his proposed buyback is not much more than what Apple has been doing and signaling that they will continue doing.

He has always mainly been doing this to rally the support of other shareholders to put pressure on Apple's board. Maybe he thought he wouldn't get the support in light of the fact that Apple really is already buying back a tremendous amount of shares. And also using a huge amount of the available US cash to do so. I don't think Icahn really expecting Apple to do the necessary financial engineering on a large scale to tap the overseas cash. So once a good chunk of the US cash is spent, there wasn't much reason to keep banging this drum.
 
Glucose levels? As a type 1 diabetic since 12 (now 37 and in great health), that would be absolutely amazing, a great alternative to testing ~20 times a day.
 
Right, but doesn't Apple seem to be ahead of this schedule on how much they have bought back. This buyback program was $15B per year. Last quarter they announced that they did $14B, I think. So they may be doing a program that is larger than the 2012 announcement. That is all Icahn wanted.

Maybe they decided to use almost the entire year's allowance now believing that the stock price is as low as it's going to go considering their confidence in the new products to be announced this year. Whether that's the case or it's as you say, a ramp up in their buyback strategy, a stockholder can dream, right? ;)
 
Nope. Carl Icahn a greedy blood sucker with a history of attempting hostile takeover and pushing for harmful short term profit so he can cash out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_C._Icahn

He has also signed the Giving Pledge and done a great service to other investors who held common stock in companies he's involved himself with in many situations. But please, Mr. Consultant, tell me more about this black and white world you live in.

No he didn't give up. He knew he was going to lose the proxy vote by a huge margin so he's pretending not to care. Icahn is trying to control Apple's board through threats, intimidation, and public harassment- he has no intention of actually following through with anything he says.

Threats, intimidation, and public harassment? Are you just stringing together bad things and hoping they apply here? If tweeting out a sentence saying that Apple is holding on to too much of the stockholders' cash constitutes intimidation and public harassment I'd hate to see your outrage at actual intimidation!

He is an old crook with no other agenda then to siphon the dough from Apple an then move on. That might be considered cunning and rationale but is really the tragedy of capitalism. No long term growth och innovation will come from that.

Or, you know, maybe Apple should allow the owners of the company to access the unnecessarily large cash position they've been accumulating (and not spending) for years earning 1% interest...
 
Nope. Carl Icahn a greedy blood sucker with a history of attempting hostile takeover and pushing for harmful short term profit so he can cash out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_C._Icahn

All of which is irrelevant.

----------

He is an old crook with no other agenda then to siphon the dough from Apple an then move on. That might be considered cunning and rationale but is really the tragedy of capitalism. No long term growth or innovation will come from that.

You just made that up, right?

----------

Your focus on pedantry belies a lack of understanding of the underlying topic. The overall strategy of "pump and dump" is commonplace and results in little chance of a felony conviction. The basic idea is you buy a stock, you talk it up, and you quickly sell having made money even though the prospects and fundamentals of that company did not change during the time you owned it. This is certainly what Icahn is trying to do, otherwise he wouldn't be wasting his time on twitter. This is also practiced by analysts and high-profile commentators all the time (Cramer has admitted to doing it himself at various points in his life and has pointed out many other doing the same).

Only in certain very specific circumstances is it a felony, such as if you fabricate the information you are pumping with, promise prospective investors returns (such as by certain spammers), fail to disclose your interests, etc. Even then, the chance of getting caught is pretty close to zero. Calling someone a pump and dump does not mean you are calling them a felon, but it does mean that you are calling them a leach- someone who is trying to make money on financial transactions while no underlying value has been created.

You mean my focus on facts? Pump and dump is a felony, under all circumstance to which the term actually applies, no matter what you say. It is only "certainly" what he is trying to do on your say-so. And since you are essentially accusing him of committing a federal crime, I think I will just let you prove it, instead of repeating it -- which certainly proves nothing except your ability to say the same incorrect thing over and over.

Yes, it does mean you are calling him a criminal. Absolutely. You should look at the number of people who call him a crook, and worse, right here in this thread (and every other one on this topic). You are just trying to say it by another word, and hope we don't notice. We do notice. Sorry.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.