BS.
Icahn's entire opinion is based on the notion that lots of cash is liability rather than a strength. Which of course, is utter nonsense.
Wonderful rebuttal of the proposal of one of the greatest investors ever.
As a long term shareholder, the overall health, sustainability and growth of the company is light years more important to that value that Ichan's highly speculative and risky proposal.
High speculative and risky? You want to know what I think is speculative and risky? Holding onto $150b (and counting) of cash which by its very existence presents a risk that management will use it sub-optimally. Look at 2013: if Apple had given the cash back to shareholders they could have invested that money in other companies and returned about 30% instead of the....1% it made at Apple. You should be furious but you're too ignorant to realize it.
I've said this before: If I buy a share of stock for around $500 I want to buy as much of a great technology company as I can, not $300 worth of a tech company and $200 worth of cash. People don't understand how much $150b is. If Apple ever needed to materially tap into that cash horde due to their underlying businesses drying up then I'd have rather they not have the cash on hand and liquidate before running through all the shareholders' money.
If this clown wanted a better return, and is such an investing whiz, where the hell was he when AAPL was at $12? Or $20? Or $120?
Hearing a random person on the internet criticizing the investment record of Carl Icahn is beyond absurd.
It's really interesting how people NOT responsible for the earning and saving of Apple's cash, feel so entitled to suggest how it should be spent.
Wait, the OWNERS of the company shouldn't feel entitled to suggest how their cash should be spent?
It's not even close to your job, nor expertise. Fact: Tim Cook has way more experience managing and turning that cash into something, and creating value for the company's shareholders than Carl. The amazing part is that he's done it through actual productivity (which also kinda explains why AAPL has grown so well over time).
The existence and massive growth of the cash position is proof that it wasn't needed to fund Apple's greatest growth years.
That money gives Apple lots of room to ride out dramatically increasing labor costs in China, any future 3rd party parts supplier hiccups, misguided national (or international) economic policies or trends, etc. Any of these alone is a huge reason to keep that cash, long before any acquisition or future product/market talk ever enters the picture. The fact that you don't see any of this, is proof enough that you are completely wrong and very short-sighted.
You simply don't understand how much money $150b is, how easily Apple can tap into the debt markets at near-record low interest rates (and get a tax shield), and how much cash they generate every year.
If I had over a hundred million dollars like this guy, yes it would be enough
You say that now. Have you considered the idea that he actually likes/loves what he does? Someone in finance can't love their job like a teacher can? How wonderfully condescending of you.
And this is were the differences of opinion flow from. Some believe as you and I do, that the proper thing for the company to do to reward it's shareholders, is to continue to invest in making the best Apple possible and that the rewards will come.
They can continue to invest untold billions and still give shareholders money.
One thing is clear to me...One should know what they are buying before they buy it. I don't think Mr. Icahn has any idea what he bought here- He clearly does not get Apple or understand it's history. It didn't work out for him at Dell and it's not going to work out at Apple.
Oh, you mean the situation at Dell where he secured hundreds of millions more for all common shareholders after Dell and Silverlake made a deficient offer to a rubber-stamping Board before he got involved?
Newsflash to Apple shareholders: you trailed the market by ~20% last year. You have lots of cash tied up in your Apple stock earning nothing (and not being used) when it could have been put into a passive index fund.
