Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Free-Market Capitalism: a place where greedy, selfish people deceive each other. :eek:
 
Icahn isn't proposing anything that Apple wasn't already planning to do. The only difference is in how much and how soon.
You apparently didn't read Icahn's original plan. If he were just encouraging them to, say, use half of their cash on hand to buy back shares, there'd be a strong argument.

That's not what he was asking at all. He wanted Apple to use their cash in the bank as leverage to take out a loan of as much as $150 billion and then service the interest on that loan with standard income. Which would boost the stock price "longer term" (which is three years, in his own words), but as far as what Apple actually does as a company is nothing at all. It's borrowing money to buy its own stock to increase the share price, then spending its income to service that debt.

If something goes wrong a few years down the line--say, income falls significantly--they now have to dig into their cash hoard just to float the debt they racked up, the stock price is pretty much guaranteed to crash, but Icahn will have long since sold and gotten his profit.

In his own words:
With such an enormous valuation gap and such a massive amount of cash on the balance sheet, we find it difficult to imagine why the board would not move more aggressively to buy back stock by immediately announcing a $150 Billion tender offer (financed with debt or a mix of debt and cash on the balance sheet).

While this would certainly be unprecedented because of its size, it is actually appropriate and manageable relative to the size and financial strength of your company. Apple generates more than enough cash flow to service this amount of debt and has $147 billion of cash in the bank. As we proposed at our dinner, if the company decided to borrow the full $150 billion at a 3% interest rate to commence a tender at $525 per share, the result would be an immediate 33% boost to earnings per share, translating into a 33% increase in the value of the shares, which significantly assumes no multiple expansion. Longer term (in three years) if you execute this buyback as proposed, we expect the share price to appreciate to $1,250, assuming the market rewards EBIT growth of 7.5% per year with a more normal market multiple of 11x EBIT.

That is not simply returning some of their cash hoard to the investors.
 
Sell your stock.

I feel like Jobs's reality distortion field is still going strong at apple. Especially when it comes to profits and cash, I feel like apple is ignoring the truth. They have over $100,000,000,000.00 in cash, yet it seems as though they're not sure what to do with it.
 
Public companies cannot own stock in themselves. Repurchased share are erased from the books, it is not an "investment." OTOH, they also routinely create new shares with grants and options paid out to company execs. If they never do the former, then the latter continually dilutes earnings for every shareholder.

Repurchases shares are not always erased, see "treasury shares".
The shares are limited though when they are held as treasury shares.

----------

If Apple went ahead and just spend a major part of that money on new technologies or put some billions into a "Steve Jobs Foundation" - would that be considered "corporate trolling"?

Bill Gates opted for the latter. Great for humanity, not so great for humans using Windows.

Not sure what you are trying to get at here.
Bill Gates put his own money from Microsoft shares he owned into his foundation. He did not raid Microsoft funds for it.
 
Apple should be spending it's money on researching new technologies, not just hoarding it for its megamillionaire shareholders. They only had like $40B after the whole time Jobs was there and now Tim Cook the beancounter siphoned off another 70-80B in just two years? And all he's doing is churning out boring and predictable iterations of Jobs' iPhone and iPad? No wonder Apple's market share is plummeting, their CEO couldn't innovate his way out of a closet.

You forgot all the magical things cook has done!

-Created a dustbin looking mac pro.

-Removed customisability ie upgradeability across the MBPs, Imacs, and even the mac pros in some respect!

-Plummeting quality control, thus the consumers are left with $3k bricks - and accept the privilege of having an apple item.

- Increased patent trolling and legal quarrels, to a whole new dimension.

-Added a massive 0.5" to the iphone 5(s).

- took an excellent idea, TB: ie more consistent and standardised, high speck i/o tech, and royally raped this! Ok intel has not really been any better in supporting TB (with high costs), but apple could of done more: e.g. added TB to time capsules.

I am sure i may of missed a few things! :p

Sorry to sound cliched, but nostalgia grips me when thinking of when Steve was at the helm of Cupertino, and macs were upgradeable, :(
 
It's the responsibility of the corporation to provide a return on investment to whoever is holding the shares right now. ....
..........
Apple claims they are already doing everything with their cash that they can to grow the business.


No, and no. The responsibility is to the short, medium and longterm benefit/health of the corporation. Just as some corporations will act to benefit execs with excessive short term results to the detriment of the long term holders, a well run corporation will make decisions that might sacrifice short term, immediate benefits to the shareholder for the longer term greater benefit to the corporation, and its shareholders if they continue to hold.

That is not exactly the claim AAPL is making. It makes a difference.
 
…making Apple buy back more shares to limit the number of outstanding shares and hopefully artificially increase the value of his investment. When that happens, he will dump and reap the profit.

He knows very well that Apple keeps that much cash on hand to buy companies outright (so they don't have to borrow to do it) and make themselves very hard to takeover.

This is exactly what he wants to do. It's not illegal, but very immoral. I think Apple should be banned from talking to him about this issue. As I would consider it insider trading. He would know about the stock buy up and would know in advance when to buy or sell his Apple shares.
 
Apple aren't "burning" the stock but. They are holding it under the assumption that it is currently undervalued. If the price rises, then they can sell it at that price or use it as part of bonus packages etc.

.


No. A relatively small part of the buyback program is for benefits to prevent dilution, the major part is buying back to retire, i.e., "burn".
 
Since Apple is already spending as much money as it needs to to grow and the cash pile is continuing to grow as well, a buyback will not affect Apple's business one bit, while giving investors a better share of earnings.




You keep saying that but you have absolutely no idea whether it's true. AAPL's statements on its cash have been far more nuanced. You should review them.

----------

Apple claims they are spending as much money as they can to grow their business and make great products.

Enough. You keep posting that. Provide a citation.
 
AKA throw it away? Nope. I just don't see the point of a buyback at this point, but that's because I no longer consider AAPL so undervalued (which is why I just sold).

Why is it so hard for some to understand the word "reduce" does not mean free.

Apple could, for instance, sell the Cellular version of iPads for $99 more instead of $129, or memory upgrades for $80 instead of $100 and still make large margins.
 
Icahn has no interest but his, period. He wants to max. his profit.

Whether they should buyback more shares with cash would be fine, so long as it s done without creating debt or losing there ability to acquire technology and R&D for long term corporate health.

I am a shareholder and Icahn can F himself. I would never vote for his idea.
 
Worst investor ever.
 

Attachments

  • worstappleever.jpg
    worstappleever.jpg
    14.4 KB · Views: 187
Pretty Clear

Just because you put money into a company because you want to make money doesn't mean you have any particular "right" to make money. Apple has never before given any dividends, but it's been one of the hottest stocks for the last ten years. If you invested in Apple and left your money in there, your stock has done pretty damned well. You make money on it by buying it, holding it, and selling (part of) it, then buying some more. And selling it. I suggest waiting until the right moment just after a keynote or major product announcement and selling at the peak. Then it will fall back, after everyone's gorged on the stock. Buy some more. Rinse. Repeat.

The customers have much more right to Apple's attention. The workforce has much more right to Apple's attention. Don't think Apple can keep capital lying around? Okay, you're Carl Icahn. Once you get some money from Apple out of the front door, then you get more out of them by forcing them to give you their cash reserves. Then, once the first peep comes out of "analysts" that says, "Oh, maybe Apple doesn't have enough cash on hand now," then the next round begins. Eventually, you pry the whole company apart for cash.

Idiotic companies are run by the stockholders. Smart companies are run by the customers.
 
Repurchases shares are not always erased, see "treasury shares".
The shares are limited though when they are held as treasury shares.

Thanks for pointing this out, though it's really little more than a technicality, as these shares only exist on paper, have no voting rights, and pay no dividends. The point being, companies don't repurchase shares in themselves in order to invest in themselves.
 
Just because you put money into a company because you want to make money doesn't mean you have any particular "right" to make money. Apple has never before given any dividends, but it's been one of the hottest stocks for the last ten years. If you invested in Apple and left your money in there, your stock has done pretty damned well. You make money on it by buying it, holding it, and selling (part of) it, then buying some more. And selling it. I suggest waiting until the right moment just after a keynote or major product announcement and selling at the peak. Then it will fall back, after everyone's gorged on the stock. Buy some more. Rinse. Repeat.

The customers have much more right to Apple's attention. The workforce has much more right to Apple's attention. Don't think Apple can keep capital lying around? Okay, you're Carl Icahn. Once you get some money from Apple out of the front door, then you get more out of them by forcing them to give you their cash reserves. Then, once the first peep comes out of "analysts" that says, "Oh, maybe Apple doesn't have enough cash on hand now," then the next round begins. Eventually, you pry the whole company apart for cash.

Idiotic companies are run by the stockholders. Smart companies are run by the customers.

Ridiculous.

First, the factual error: Apple did pay a dividend before, until the mid-1990s. They stopped when they began losing money but did not start again until they'd accumulated tens of billions, more than 15 years later.

Second, not every stockholder is a trader. Some of us (the smart ones, I'd like to think) are investors. We don't buy and sell stocks on the pretense that we're smarter than the market. Pretending that any stock behaves in a predictable way is a fool's game.

Third, Icahn can't "force" Apple do to anything. He can express his opinions, and that's about all.

It's odd, but so many people seem to take such a sentimental view towards investing. They get emotionally involved with the comments of a pro investor like Carl Icahn, presumably because he is so good at making money. Take a lesson from him: the only sentiment you should have as an investor is making money. Your goal is to reach retirement with an account containing enough zeros such that you will be comfortable, or at least won't be surviving on Social Security, food stamps, or charity. The sentimentalists will never get there, and probably neither will those who think they can outsmart the markets.
 

You seem to assume that Apple share cannot go down in value after it's gone up, but the reality is that no share is immune from from the up's and down's of the stock market. It's fairly obvious that during and shortly after the buyback the stock price will go up, but as always after going up, a stock price always eventually comes down.

Another thing to remember is that Apple's stock price is HIGHLY overvalued and other companies with a similar worth are always MUCH bigger and often make a lot more money (thou not on a per employee basis). Apple themselves haven't put this up, it's the stock market that's had it's hand in it. What Icahn is basically trying to do is further inflate Apple's already overinflated share price by claiming Apple's share value is underpriced and that Apple should share more of it's wealth with it's shareholders (Steve Jobs famously stopped Apple handing out dividends when he came back).

What Icahn is doing is basically a pump-and-dump and like any smart investor he'll de-invest only just before he thinks the stock price will start falling as this will make him the most money. Screwing over the next buyer is basically standard faire in this kind of business.

This is basically why no sane person should have to deal with the stock market and it's should basically stay as it's own little game that actual companies dabble in only when they want to take over another company or prevent themselves from being taken over.
 
I am AAPL shareholder and would like Apple to return some money to me instead of hoarding it. It's my profits too and Carl is right.

Uh, no. it is not your money. you own stock in Apple out of the hopes that you bet right and that their stock becomes more valuable so you can sell it and make profit. you however, DO NOT deserve a single cent for owning their stock, nor do you deserve a single penny from the money they've made by creating sought after products.

if you want to say you deserve money for creating good products, become employed by Apple and do something.
 
Another thing to remember is that Apple's stock price is HIGHLY overvalued and other companies with a similar worth are always MUCH bigger and often make a lot more money (thou not on a per employee basis). Apple themselves haven't put this up, it's the stock market that's had it's hand in it. What Icahn is basically trying to do is further inflate Apple's already overinflated share price by claiming Apple's share value is underpriced and that Apple should share more of it's wealth with it's shareholders (Steve Jobs famously stopped Apple handing out dividends when he came back).

Apple's P/E is well below the industry average even now. The price itself isn't always a great indicator, but the number of outstanding shares as well (each share being more valuable if there are fewer of them). With stock splits rare for Apple, they haven't really tried to make individual shares "more affordable".

It's really hard to say something is overvalued when the P/E ratio is this low. If anything it is a tad undervalued compared to their earnings, but that may also be fairly normal depending on the attitude of the CEO and the board (are they stingy with dividends in a non-growth stock?), and other factors. At this point, I'd say the stock is probably fairly valued, but I'm not sure I'd flag it as a buy right now unless you are playing the long game, and believe a post-SJ Apple can pull the next big product out of their hat.

Uh, no. it is not your money. you own stock in Apple out of the hopes that you bet right and that their stock becomes more valuable so you can sell it and make profit. you however, DO NOT deserve a single cent for owning their stock, nor do you deserve a single penny from the money they've made by creating sought after products.

if you want to say you deserve money for creating good products, become employed by Apple and do something.

Then what are dividends and stock buybacks for other than to return investment money back to investors? Keep in mind the initial stock sales are to raise up funds to run the company. Those shares are sold with the intent that the investor gets their money back over some period of time (usually in the form of buybacks and dividends).

At one point, the fluctuations in the value of the shares themselves became the main motivator for investors. Although those who benefit the most from that are those who get in on the ground floor, and then let someone else reap the later dividends. Part of that is because dividend rates can be pretty low, well under 5% per year, which means it would take decades to repay the value of the share.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.