Investor Carl Icahn to Have Dinner With Tim Cook, 'Magnitude' of Share Buyback to Be Discussed

[Dwalls90]

Too bad any limitations won't matter.

If the SEC did their job Madoff would never have run a 50 billion dollar ponzi scheme, for over a decade, after being warned repeatedly about it.

The SEC is a joke on wall-street.

As an accountant, I will tell you that the SEC versus investors is like cops versus robbers. We spend the better half of our time predicting and determining the loop holes that people use to exploit the public's interest, but at the end of the day, it's impossible to have a perfect track record in preventing all unfortunate outcomes.

That analysis is comparable to stating "If the government did their job, 9/11 never would have occurred".

 

[Rocketman]

Some math for you folks today. If you had 1000 shares of Apple stock and sold them somewhere around the market top of $700 and bought the maximum shares back around $400 where it hovered long enough for even slow people to act, you would have $700,000/$400 = 1,750 shares. You would have had to pay 15% or $105,000 in capital gains taxes. So you could have bought 263 of your replacement shares on margin. At around $520 these days it would now be worth $910,000.

 

[CoolSpot]

Does anyone else think that the picture of Carl Icahn gives him a sort of retarded look? I look at it and all I see is Ben Stiller in Simple Jack.

 

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

True, but you should Apple decide the amount of buyback shares, not go have a dinner with the CEO to place an amount to suit your needs. After all, the Board is also compromised of Investors other than Icahn.

Yes, and the powerful ones speak with Apple's management. Apple is a public company. Its purpose is to enrich its shareholders.

Etc etc. You all get the point.

Stock and market manipulation at it's finest.

Stop repeating this. He bought shares. This purchase requires disclosure in a 13F filing (it would have come out regardless). Other people know Icahn is a successful investor who has a history of increasing shareholder value (he owns common shares which is what most other people own as well) so they bid up the price as they agree with his thesis that the company is undervalued.

This is standard stuff and you keep trying to twist this into a narrative that jives with your thinly-veiled populism. You simply don't understand the mechanics of the market so please stop with the uninformed commentary.

 

[donutbagel]

I cannot fathom wanting to do these things over dinner. Why eat at these things. That always bugs me.

They're trying to get each other drunk!
Just kidding. Number one rule of investing, don't be drunk. I facepalmed when I watched those guys on Shark Tank open beers when looking over an "invention".

----------

Yes, and the powerful ones speak with Apple's management. Apple is a public company. Its purpose is to enrich its shareholders.

Not necessarily. I don't know about Tim Cook, but I don't think Steve Jobs was aiming for profit exactly.

 

[IJ Reilly]

When people buy shares, the share price goes up. When a company buys its own shares, same thing, the share price goes up.

Not really. For every stock buyer, there is one stock seller. Always. Except for dilution and buybacks (which tend to cancel out), the number of shares is a constant. The stock markets are an auction for those shares. Investors bid the price up at the auction when they think earnings are going to increase and down when they think the other thing is going to happen. The number of shares outstanding is not a factor in any of this. The only time the float really comes into play is quarterly, when the earnings are divided up on a per-share basis (EPS). Fewer shares outstanding means more EPS for the remaining shares.

 

[donutbagel]

What? Investors buy on hopes and sell on fears. That's the way the markets function, fundamentally. If you're going to get your knickers all twisted up over that, then you should stay far, far away from the stock markets.

It's fine to buy on hopes and sell on fears but not fine to buy on controlled factors and sell on controlled factors. Icahn had better not be buying AAPL then trying to get the company to buy back shares just so he can sell right after. Nobody knows for sure what he's doing. The Microsoft thing is just a suspicion, and it's also possible that a lot of investors were simply stupid and realized it at some point.

Anyway, I've been playing AAPL since it was at $200, buying and selling, and I plan to play it safe and get rid of it before Icahn has the chance to, just in case he does it.

 

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

Not necessarily. I don't know about Tim Cook, but I don't think Steve Jobs was aiming for profit exactly.

If he wasn't then he would have slashed prices and paid all his employees above their market value. Just because he cared about the products doesn't mean he wasn't in it for the profit. The shareholders own the company; management is there to serve them. Period.

Nobody knows for sure what he's doing.

You see, I happen to know exactly what he's doing. He's trying to campaign for a change in how Apple handles their cash that he believes will result in a higher share price (to the benefit of all shareholders). Now, if you'd like to debate whether share buybacks will necessarily result in a better share price then we can have that conversation. But as it stands now? Most people here are opining on issues they simply do not understand.

 

[donutbagel]

Not really. For every stock buyer, there is one stock seller.

And when there are more buyers, the sellers can sell at a higher price. Simply put, if more people want it, it's worth more.

 

[IJ Reilly]

It's fine to buy on hopes and sell on fears but not fine to buy on controlled factors and sell on controlled factors. Icahn had better not be buying AAPL then trying to get the company to buy back shares just so he can sell right after. Nobody knows for sure what he's doing. The Microsoft thing is just a suspicion, and it's also possible that a lot of investors were simply stupid and realized it at some point.

Anyway, I've been playing AAPL since it was at $200, buying and selling, and I plan to play it safe and get rid of it before Icahn has the chance to, just in case he does it.

Is it also fine that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west? It better be, since that's the only way it's ever going to happen.

I don't play with AAPL, I invest in it. Not getting in and out based on the slightest breeze has served me very well.

----------

And when there are more buyers, the sellers can sell at a higher price. Simply put, if more people want it, it's worth more, and Apple buying back shares means that it wants shares.

No. Not even remotely. And you are investing in the stock market?

 

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

And when there are more buyers, the sellers can sell at a higher price. Simply put, if more people want it, it's worth more.

Yeah, this isn't true. At all.

 

[donutbagel]

If he wasn't then he would have slashed prices and paid all his employees above their market value. Just because he cared about the products doesn't mean he wasn't in it for the profit. The shareholders own the company; management is there to serve them. Period.

I'm not saying he wasn't in it for profit at all, but I don't think it was his one goal. Forgetting Apple and Steve Jobs, there could theoretically be a corporation whose chairman or someone else with control has some goal besides making money but makes the corporation public to help it along.

 

[rdowns]

It's because you haven't looked. Example A: Dell shareholders.



I'd say he's quite a friend to Apple shareholders. Apple is not utilizing its cash - it should be given to its owners (the shareholders) or used for the business. The fact is that they have too much to use and have had more than they can use for years.

Apple has been giving it back through buybacks and increasing dividends. Sure, some want more back and others don't want Apple taking on more debt nor repatriating foreign cash which would be subject to taxes. Icahn is a friend of no one except his bottom line.

 

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

I'm not saying he wasn't in it for profit at all, but I don't think it was his one goal. Forgetting Apple and Steve Jobs, there could theoretically be a corporation whose chairman or someone else with control has some goal besides making money but makes the corporation public to help it along.

That's called a charity.

Apple has been giving it back through buybacks and increasing dividends. Sure, some want more back and others don't want Apple taking on more debt nor repatriating foreign cash which would be subject to taxes. Icahn is a friend of no one except his bottom line.

And where do you think his bottom line is going to come from? Oh wait, it's the increase in value of common shares, you know, the same common shares nearly everyone else owns.

 

[the8thark]

Once again, the gall of this man, or anyone, trying to profit from an investment!!!

And in your opinion, is 0.2% huge?

Making a profit is not the issue. How he is doing this is in question And the ethics of it all. Asking the CEO of a company for what is basically insider information is not really the right thing to do.

 

[donutbagel]

That's called a charity.

Yeah it is, but a charity doesn't have to be registered as a charity.

----------

Yeah, this isn't true. At all.

Since you're the second guy to say this, I doubted myself for a moment and did a Google search. I hope those sites I came up with aren't all wrong because they all agree.

 

[olowott]

This looks really bad, can we just make the money, give him back and continue with our Apple

 

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

Making a profit is not the issue. How he is doing this is in question And the ethics of it all. Asking the CEO of a company for what is basically insider information is not really the right thing to do.

You know, it's unfortunate how people are willfully ignorant. This whole issue, in multiple threads, has been broken down for you and you continue to repeat the same trite phrases.

 

[rdowns]

And where do you think his bottom line is going to come from? Oh wait, it's the increase in value of common shares, you know, the same common shares nearly everyone else owns.

A short term bump in share price is likely not worth the damage he and his ilk leave behind.

 

[mdelvecchio]

Insider trading

yes, he's such an insider that he's posting it all on Twitter! the fool!!

or, he's not.

 

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

A short term bump in share price is likely not worth the damage he and his ilk leave behind.

And what damage would that be? The shares are up because other investors seem to agree with his position.

 

[giantfan1224]

Making a profit is not the issue. How he is doing this is in question And the ethics of it all. Asking the CEO of a company for what is basically insider information is not really the right thing to do.

For what insider information is he asking Tim Cook? Proof?

 

[GuitarDTO]

Wow. Some people need to chill. Carl Icahn is not going to have any effect on Apple as a company or AAPL as a long term investment. Maybe some blips in short term trading, but not in the long term. I don't think people grasp just how much cash Apple is sitting on. They have more than enough to support whatever R&D their hearts desire, and buy back more shares, increase dividends and/or return value to investors at the same time.

The bigger question is whether Apple as a company has enough vision to tap into future markets and/or changing existing markets. Steve had that vision. Tim Cook may not, but I have to believe SOME people at Apple do, and that Tim provides them the resources necessary to make their visions reality. When those visions become realities (Apple TV, iWatches, Car systems, ____INSERT___), Apple will continue to be a good investment as a growth company.

 

[xnu]

Maybe Mr. Icahn can also ask Mr. Cook the price for the new Mac Pro.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Since you're the second guy to say this, I doubted myself for a moment and did a Google search. I hope those sites I came up with aren't all wrong because they all agree.

Since you didn't share your great Google discoveries, we can only guess at what they are.