Most native English speakers don't seem to notice for some reason, but a lot of it is strange and ungrammatical. Weak writing skills with no editorial oversight will produce these results.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Carl Icahn Pushed for $150 Billion Stock Buyback at Dinner with Apple CEO Tim Cook [Update: Has $2 Billion Invested]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Most native English speakers don't seem to notice for some reason, but a lot of it is strange and ungrammatical. Weak writing skills with no editorial oversight will produce these results.
Usually Carl files a 13D to notify the world about a stock he likes. With Apple, that would cost him around 25 billion, so tweets are a simpler method. Before everyone thinks he'll ruin Apple, take a look at Netflix. Icahn took a 10% stake in September last year at $55 a share. Today Netflix is trading at $320.
I thought the buy back + dividends was currently intended to be $100B, not $60B. It'll be interesting to see the outcome, since Apple would have to either finance the money again (with the business case of reallocating the reduced dividends towards interest) or start to repatriate the overseas cash holdings.
.
.
Close. There is no such thing as a company becoming "more private-owned". The public company is still 100% owned by the public shareholders. The shares bought back by the company (even if not cancelled) don't count as they sit in company treasury.
How is it material information? They had dinner and Icahn suggested a larger buyback. Now if Cook made some promises to Icahn about what he (or the board) intends to do that is not public information, AND then Icahn makes a trade in AAPL based on that non public information, then you have something. Otherwise, the SEC has better things to investigate.
It's obvious he didn't get the answer he wanted. The very fact that this guy is tweeting about it, it's obvious. This way, when it doesn't happen, Icahn wants Cook to have egg on his face. "The shareholders of the world will know I tried, but Cook just wouldn't listen!"
Not quite. They can probably handle the $100B over the next three years out of US cash reserves and cash flow. It would be close. If they tried to do it over two years (or less) then yes repatriating or financing would be necessary.
yep, I was thinking a bit of the same... by tweeting about it, he wants to make it look like he is the shareholder advocate and that Cook is not fully representing the shareholders.
.
Hahahaha!!
Icahn: You need to increase the share buyback to $150B.
Cook: Okay! We start with yours! Now, get the heck out of here!
A private company needs to be owned by someone. It by definition can't have a significant number of owners. If you are suggesting that Tim Cook and J. Ivy would like to own ALL of Apple to do whatever they want with it, then yes you are right. If you are suggesting that there is some way that Tim Cook and J. Ivey can scratch together the trillion dollars or so it would take to buy out all the shareholders, then you are delusional.
Because it isn't illegal for companies to do buybacks or for shareholders to ask them to. He's fully disclosing what he's doing. What would be illegal is if Apple told him they were doing a buyback before they told the rest of the market, and he traded on that information.
Agreed, they can but whats the business case? The last financing they did was can be justified as a cost savings (along with the main buy-back benefits), since they were able to borrow money at a rate less than (or comparable to) their dividend rate. I guess they may be able do it again.
.
How is it not illegal? Because it was announced pretty much as soon as Icahn asked for it. It isn't hidden for the other investors or the public.
Is that big a buyback a good idea? That's another question. And I'd have to say Apple needs a certain amount of cash aorund to be able to effectively deal with suppliers. As long as they don't go below that amount there will be no problem.
The real question is... how much stock buyback is needed to correct the stock price and not cause other issues by buying too much back.
In the US the SEC has established a protocol for using social media. As long as you inform people in a public notice that you will use a social media site like Twitter to disseminate information, it's perfectly fine to do so. It's no different from giving a press interview to announce your plans.
Also note that it isn't Apple who is actually tweeting information. It's fine for any shareholder to meet with a CEO and disclose what he asked the CEO to do. The CEO can't approve a buyback by himself. Only the Board can do that. If they do, they will have to tell everyone at the same time.
I don't see how stock buybacks are going to hurt. The company is still generating cash like a beast and the price point is a bargain in my opinion. Apple should continue to buy back stock and retire those shares.
Playing into Wall Street is playing with dice, you could get a nice hand or it could make you go bankrupt.
I know this phrase has been over used, but it makes sense. Steve would have never done it. He knew better. Reason why he never did something with Apple's cash hoard.
It's not because it's common knowledge, it'd be illegal if it weren't. I'm suspecting that's why he's tweeting it and making a big deal about it.
Funny... but no, if you can't understand why, then you are not worth my time. We are talking about the same person who invested in Dell, made Dell do idiotic investments (for his gain) and then abandoned them.
----------
Peculiar idea that worked. Why fix what isn't broken? Why does Wall Street have to have a say on that cash?