They're already investing heavily in all of that. Your solution is "more"? At what point does a cash heavy company have the responsibility to return some of that cash to its shareholder and let them in turn invest those gains?
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
They're already investing heavily in all of that. Your solution is "more"? At what point does a cash heavy company have the responsibility to return some of that cash to its shareholder and let them in turn invest those gains?
Steve would be spinning in his grave if he read that. I think Apple are about more than that, like making great products.
Yes of course, let's transfer the wealth that Apple has accumulated based on its engineering/design prowess to a bunch of parasite stockholders who just want to buy a new BMW tomorrow and don't give a hoot what happens to Apple. Such a prudent path...
Gotta love the buyback/Wallstreet apologists here, defending a system that has decayed into a pit of unregulated greed. They are a bit too obvious in their cheerleading.
I wonder if your opinion is going to end up like the Verizon iPhone, that in your opinion, wasn't going to happen, and nobody else understood why it wasn't going to happen.
Yes of course, let's transfer the wealth that Apple has accumulated based on its engineering/design prowess to a bunch of parasite stockholders who just want to buy a new BMW tomorrow and don't give a hoot what happens to Apple. Such a prudent path...
Gotta love the buyback/Wallstreet apologists here, defending a system that has decayed into a pit of unregulated greed. They are a bit too obvious in their cheerleading.
Yeah, heaven forbid that the owners of the company want to maximize their return.
Um, duh. Some of those things will make Apple more money. Some are just going to be a waste of money. But don't you think Apple is already making every investment they have been able to identify as likely to be profitable? What do you imagine they do every day in a company like Apple?
Except that last one. Why should Apple open a charity, rather than giving it to their stockholders to make their own choices?
Retracted comment. Apologies.
Last edited:
Yes of course, let's transfer the wealth that Apple has accumulated based on its engineering/design prowess to a bunch of parasite stockholders who just want to buy a new BMW tomorrow and don't give a hoot what happens to Apple. Such a prudent path...
Gotta love the buyback/Wallstreet apologists here, defending a system that has decayed into a pit of unregulated greed. They are a bit too obvious in their cheerleading.
I really don't understand your reasoning. The stockholders are the ones who invest THEIR OWN capital which is then utilized by Apple to help fund their activities. If Apple is buying back their stock at a relatively bargain price how does that hurt anyone? Apple is sitting on a ton of cash that is doing nothing. The more stock they buy back the greater control they will have over their company. They made billions going public and now you want to tell shareholders to shut up while they sit on a mountain of cash?
Yes of course, let's transfer the wealth that Apple has accumulated based on its engineering/design prowess to a bunch of parasite stockholders who just want to buy a new BMW tomorrow and don't give a hoot what happens to Apple. Such a prudent path...
Um, that's the deal when a company goes public-- that's the reason people buy your stock. So you are basically saying Apple's position is that they were dishonest when they went public-- they are not running the company for the benefit of shareholders, who are the legal owners--the owners of the company that has hired all that engineering/design prowess. For whose benefit are they running the company, do you think?
If Apple behaved they way you think they should, the managers would be violating its fiduciary trust. Stockholders should sue them-- and if Apple is running itself the way you say they should be, the shareholders would win-- big time.
It's illegal, dishonest, and unethical to run a company as you seem to see it.
Fortunately, Apple doesn't do it that way.
I'll bet you 10 internet points that no one who is actually riled up about Icahn's involvement understands the point you're making (correctly, I might add).
Apple burnt through their initial share capital long ago. They operate by utilising their profits not shareholder funds. Buying back shares will not give them any greater control and in all fairness most shareholders have already made a nice return on their investment. The only people who would benefit are speculators who buy in now and try to force the share price up so they can sell at a profit. They are not investing in Apple's future and they've done absolutely nothing to contribute to Apple's success.
You're getting a little too personal there, pal. Lighten up. You obviously have very little understanding on capital markets. If Apple doesn't/didn't want to be told what to do by its shareholders, then it should never have gone public. It is not unreasonable, or "greedy" or parasitic for any investor to expect--no, DEMAND--a return on their investment.
You are just plain wrong.
*I see you edited your original post. Kudos for recognizing your unnecessary vitriol.
What's with the
I'd rather they give it all away to charity than let a bunch of grubby parasites like Icahn get their hands on it.
Profuse apologies. I really didn't mean to be sarcastic. It was uncalled for. I really should have said outright "you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about." Just a simple statement of fact.
It's not your money, simple fellow, so it really doesn't matter what you would rather do with it. I would rather you took all your money and bought yourself an education, so you could make informed comments; but it's not my money, so my opinion on how you spend it doesnt matter one bit.
You need to watch your mouth and stop personally attacking me and accusing me of being willfully ignorant or intellectually dishonest.
If anything, it is YOU who is willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest. Just look at what you are saying -- Icahn doing a public service to the common shareholders at Dell?
And don't go accusing and slandering Michael Dell or Silverlake of attempting to "fleece" the common stockholders unless you have evidence.
As for the manipulation and insider trading, you are the one bringing those issues up, not me, so you better have some shred of evidence to suggest this.
You're both completely missing the point. I'm not suggesting that Apple shouldn't try and maximise their shareholder value, I just don't think that a share buyback is the best way to do it. It's a short term fix. Look what happened last time they did it, the shares went up for a short time then came back down again. How does that help long term shareholders? IMO it's best to invest the cash in things that will return a long term gain and will in turn drive the share price up over time.
I realize that this is a little deep for you, but please bear with. The investors who provided the initial capital made a nice profit, by selling it to other investors, who in turn hoped to make a nice profit. Who then, in turn, made a nice profit, by selling it to other investors, who hoped to make a nice profit... and so one. If the nth investors are barred from making a nice profit, then it works backwards that the initial investors don't make their profit, as there would be no demand for their stock. And no one invests Apple in the first place, and Apple never happens. But there are laws that protect the nth investors, which require Tim Cook to manage for the benefit of the nth investors... which is what makes stock markets work.
Too much for you to absorb, I'm sure, but that's how it works.
+10. Too bad it will be lost on the willfully ignorant.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a very good degree from a very expensive University. I have my own business and a nice life. I'm also an Apple shareholder which does give me the right to express an opinion on this subject thank you very much.
----------
LOL. You obviously haven't bothered to read or understand what I said before you jumped on the bandwagon. I agree the shares should go up. I'm a shareholder myself. But a buyback is not the way to do it.
Oh no!
A shareholder has asked the company to take actions that increase shareholder value!
Get the tar and feathers!!!
Throw him in Guantanamo!!!
A shareholder has asked the company to take actions that increase shareholder value!
Get the tar and feathers!!!
Throw him in Guantanamo!!!
I don't think so. I believe it was one of my business professors that told me that one should only ever give money back to the shareholder (dividends, stock buybacks, etc) when one has no idea how to use the money - in other words, if there's nothing at all that you can do with it. That's why monopoly and near-monopoly utilities give back so much of their money. I own telecoms that give back nearly 10%. Most publicly traded electrical utilities that I can think of trade with a 5% dividend. These are companies that don't have any growth potential and minimal desire to upgrade their infrastructure as people have to buy from them anyway. Apple, on the other hand, is NOT in that situation.
Off the top of my head, there are many, many specific things that Apple could spend money on.
Technology:
- Bringing TSMC's next node to production as fast as possible. I forget if it's 22mm or 20mm, but smaller nodes are (at the moment) the single biggest factor in reducing power consumption. And getting TSMC there ahead of Samsung would give Apple a competitive advantage.
- Spending money on Sharp's R&D arm to get IGZO and other technologies up to spec. Potentially making parallax 3D work - I see so much potential on the Nintendo 3DS screen - retina resolution and 4x the refresh rate might make it usable for something like 3D video chat.
- Along the same vein, a 3D gesture based interaction paradigm for devices
- Updating iOS with something more than window dressing
- Use TouchID and NFC to build a working mobile payments system. Google screwed it up with their NFC implementation, Apple should show them how it should be done.
- Do more with Siri. Sure, she's last year's big new thing, but true AI and voice recognition that works (instead of just being a gimmicky bullet point) would be phenomenal.
Partnerships/Acquisitions:
- Buying a large stake in Netflix and Hulu to ensure that their content gets delivered on the current AppleTV box
- Working with content creators and distributors to get content on board for the next Apple TV (the actual TV set).
- Bring in more exclusives to the iOS/Apple app store
- You want gaming credibility? Take a minority stake in Valve (or some other major gaming studio)
- Buy Yahoo - they have a large stake in a Chinese search engine.
- Spend more on Maps
Products:
- Perhaps a quad camera (two front, two back) 6" iPhone 3D?
- People want hybrid convergence devices? Design one that isn't a hack job like all the other ones on the market. Between their own SOCs, industrial engineering prowess, and strong iOS/OSX integration, Apple has the pieces to do something like this.
- Why does the iPad have a higher res than the 27" Thunderbolt display?
- R&D into new materials and fabrication technology. Carbon fiber, magnesium, plastic that doesn't crack
- Buy up the whole world's supply of SSDs for Macs, just like they bought up the whole world's supply of NAND for the original iPod Nano or all of the 1.8" drives for the original iPod - nobody else could get significant quantities of NAND or small hard drives for their products for months after those products came out.
Advertising:
- Samsung outspent Apple in phone advertising last year.
- I haven't seen a Mac ad in months
Apple went from being laser focused five years ago to being complacent and reactionary in the past couple of years. They have the money to always be one step ahead of Google, two steps ahead of Samsung, and lightyears ahead of everyone else, they need to use it that way.
Tim is very aware of Icahn's history, I'm sure. But Tim's heart also seems to flutter at the thought of Wall Street. Tim was quoted recently as saying he was "very concerned" about Apple's stock price being recently down. Steve Jobs didn't give a **** about stock price. Only building great products. That's what drives up the stock price, and what builds value in the company. I don't think Jobs would suffer leeches like Icahn or waste his time having dinner with him.
I don't know what Tim's doing, but as a stockholder as well I don't like it, either. He needs to grow a pair.
OK, that's a reasonable question, so let me respectfully answer it. Apple is sitting on cash precisely because they can't identify enough good investments with which to use it. It's a tautology. Sure, Apple could be buying some random company, for example, but if it's not synergistic, then Apple is just going to be worse off by the distraction, and lose money. If you read Job's bio, you know Steve was obsessed with focus-- and he was right. By returning some of the money to the stockholders, the stockholders can go off, and say, invest that money in an electric car company, run by people who know something about electric cars-- and make themselves richer and the world a better place (we would hope
).A buyback is, of course, only going to have a one time impact on the share price. It's up to the company to find avenues for growth that will have a longer term impact. But one can assume that Apple management has already made every effort to fund productive future investments BEFORE they chose the buyback route.