[Macworld]

Post your comments for The Apple stock suit: What it all means here

[BethWorthy]

It is some share issues of the Apple's investor. I don't think it will be much threatening factor for Apple as those investors are not really big one and losing them will hamper Apple but not very much. But that will be the stuff when Apple won't get the things organized and matter gets into the court. For now we all are looking forward for settling down the case, outside the court.

[lkrupp]

Looks like the end is near. Once the bean counters take control the motive becomes profit and enrichment only. If it meant more money they would shut it down and sell the parts, no matter what Tim Cook says about making great products. Add to that the pressure from analysts to become bottom feeders in an effort to increase market share and you've got a formula for failure. More than one once great company has been gutted by shareholder greed and pressure.

[bettercitizens]

Quote

Looks like the end is near. Once the bean counters take control the motive becomes profit and enrichment only. If it meant more money they would shut it down and sell the parts, no matter what Tim Cook says about making great products. Add to that the pressure from analysts to become bottom feeders in an effort to increase market share and you've got a formula for failure. More than one once great company has been gutted by shareholder greed and pressure.

How are the " bean counters" taking over Apple, Inc. when this article is about making some changes to corporate governance?

[rob53]

Quote

Looks like the end is near. Once the bean counters take control the motive becomes profit and enrichment only. If it meant more money they would shut it down and sell the parts, no matter what Tim Cook says about making great products. Add to that the pressure from analysts to become bottom feeders in an effort to increase market share and you've got a formula for failure. More than one once great company has been gutted by shareholder greed and pressure.

How are the " bean counters" taking over Apple, Inc. when this article is about making some changes to corporate governance?

The bean counters are crooks like Greenlight who only care about making money for themselves and their customers. They could care less about Apple products. Analysts are the same way, they feed the hunger of the funds, especially hedge funds, who aren't investing in the actual success of the company only on the money they make. Look at Bain Capital, they do the same thing. Come into a company under stress and piece it out to make as much money as possible. They don't care about the company, only about making themselves money. That's Greenlight's only goal, to make as much money as possible before it leaves for greener pastures (and hopefully they will step in a bunch of **** when they do). AAPL has never been a company that give a lot of money back to its investors except when you sell. Greenlight wants to change that. They feel for some reason they have been responsible for Apple's great fortune so they should reap the benefits. They haven't and they shouldn't any more than any other investor.

Hopefully, the large voting investors, like CalPers, will slap Greenlight upside their head and make them go away. Just because Greenlight has some shares doesn't mean selling them will hurt AAPL. I'd love to see them go away, leaving AAPL for real investors who care about the success of Apple.

[Hologram]

Quote

Looks like the end is near. Once the bean counters take control the motive becomes profit and enrichment only. If it meant more money they would shut it down and sell the parts, no matter what Tim Cook says about making great products. Add to that the pressure from analysts to become bottom feeders in an effort to increase market share and you've got a formula for failure. More than one once great company has been gutted by shareholder greed and pressure.

Apple stock price is being beaten down by the bean counters as punishment for Apple not caving in to their demands and reacting to what they see as market pressures.

Tim Cook must maintain his focus and not be distracted by these "silly sideshows" even if it means share prices are negatively affected in the short term.

[joebot]

Nice work Marco, thanks for the explanation. I've heard of Einhorn before, and as far as I'm concerned he is the poster child of everything that is wrong with corporate governance today. He would gut Apple to maximize short term profits and line his pockets, then bail and leave other to deal with his wreckage.

Apple's management strategy is just fine and garontee I will be adding my ten cents to the shareholder vote. If Einhorn gets his way, I'm selling.

[trichardlin]

> Analysts are the same way, they feed the hunger of the funds, especially hedge funds, who aren't investing in the actual success of the company only on the money they make.

Well, the actual success of the company is defined by the money they make. I agree with you that many companies are poisoned by investors' pressure for only short term return. Greenlight's approach is questionable, and yes, they are going after the money. It has nothing to do with Apple's business.

Apple's problem is that they sit on so much cash without giving any hint what they are going to do with it. Their position is akin to throwing they hands up in the air and say "OK, I don't know what to do with this pile of money, so let's just dig a big hole and bury it underground." The problem is, this money problem is not going away, it's only getting bigger, by about a billion dollars PER WEEK. In business, you really can't do that, unless you are a bank.

[BrianFromBoston]

"Apple's problem is that they sit on so much cash without giving any hint what they are going to do with it."
If they gave "a hint" the price of whatever they wanted to buy would triple.
None of us like the secrecy but it is a necessary part of business.

[ericole]

None of this happened until they started paying dividends. Can they stop that?

But this is VERY Interesting, in the section called "The bundling conundrum":

"The Securities Exchange Act, which regulates all stock markets in the United States, mandates that each matter put up for a shareholder vote be kept clearly separate from the others in an attempt to ensure that each issue is given the appropriate consideration, and to make it harder to bundle several proposals in a single vote in an attempt to bury an unpopular provision inside a package of more acceptable ones. "


Seems they need to do the same thing in Congress. If it's good for business, it should be VERY good for government.

[trichardlin]

> If they gave "a hint" the price of whatever they wanted to buy would triple.

No, they wouldn't give that kind of hint. By hint, I meant a general plan, something like: we will keep $40B for a rainy day fund, and use $20B in the next two years to acquire new technology, $10B in building new manufacturing capability in the US (don't we wish), etc, etc.

Once you say that, it's very easy to see how much money you will have left over and you should give that money back to the investors, because you clearly don't need the money for anything. Don't forget, they will add another $50B or so to the stock pile this year. It's funny to say this, but that [censored] load of money is their problem, and their problem is getting bigger and bigger, fast.

[joebot]

Okay, how about "$130 billion as a rainy day fund and whatever the **** else we decide to do with it." That was hard, and if Einhorn thinks it's too much then he can go ask Nokia how much cash they thought they needed six years ago. Fortunes change fast around here, and I'm glad to see Apple thinking ahead.

[Swift2]

There are some people who think the stock market is a wonderful, organic thing, where new value is created, where sloppy capitalists are corrected by the inner elites who "know." Nothing can be further from the truth. Follow the money. Savage attacks on the stock price, made by tarnishing the reputation. People who have no interest in the company whatsoever, just the amount of capital they can extract. This isn't "capitalism," this is a bunch of wealthy people trying to capture as much cash as possible. What would Apple do with ITS cash? Put up a new factory. Develop a new iThing. Sell more stuff. This is what is enabled by the mountains of capital that Apple has accumulated. Do they need to be public at all? Well, they couldn't afford to take themselves private. Cost them several trillions in debt to buy themselves. The money people, who do no useful work whatsoever, small investors' money is at risk only from predators like Greenlight, who scarcely know what Apple is about. It's just, "they're sitting on a lot of cash, with which they intend to resist the "corporate governance" mafia among others. If they want a new factory in Duluth, boom, they have it. If they want to move the whole thing to Toronto, they could do it. No, mustn't have that. If you don't give us highwaymen some money, we'll cripple your stock value -- which is nothing but a reputation game, we'll ruin your reputation -- or you'll give over your strongbox. I believe that it was to placate this type of "corporate governors" that ended Steve Jobs out on his ass in 1985.

[trichardlin]

> how about "$130 billion as a rainy day fund and whatever the **** else we decide to do with it."

That's essentially what Apple is saying, but obviously investors don't like the tone of it. Not only that, Apple is saying 'we need way more than that, so we are going to add another $40B to that stock pile from 2013 earnings.'

Now just for fun, and if my calculation is half right, they can buy Intel today and still have tons of cash left over. Actually, about 30 thousand tons of cash (a dollar bill weighs about 1 gram).