Support NeoGAF

[1st Course]

Billionaire activist investor Carl Icahn says he had sold his entire stake in Apple Inc, citing the risk of China’s influence on the stock.

In an interview with US cable television network CNBC on Thursday, Icahn also said he was “still very cautious” on the US stock market and there would be a “day of reckoning” unless there was some sort of fiscal stimulus.

In an open letter to Apple chief executive Tim Cook in May 2015, Icahn had argued that shares of the iPhone maker were worth $240 (£164), about 90% more than they had been trading. At $240 a share, Apple’s market cap would be $1.4tn, Icahn asserted.

But Icahn, who owned 45.8m Apple shares at the end of last year, said China’s economic slowdown and worries about how China could become more prohibitive in doing business triggered his decision to exit his position entirely.

The Chinese government could “come in and make it very difficult for Apple to sell there ... you can do pretty much what you want there”, Icahn said. Earlier this month, China shut down Apple’s iTunes movies and iBooks stores within the country, following Beijing’s introduction of regulations in March imposing strict curbs on online publishing, particularly for foreign firms.

Asked when he might get back in, Icahn replied: “I don’t think it’s the price point. I think it’s my opinion about what is happening with China. I think the stock is very cheap on a multiple basis. China could be a shadow for it, and we have to look at that.”

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...vestor-carl-icahn-sells-entire-stake-in-apple

 

[antonz]

How China acts as far as restricting things could certainly do a lot of harm to Apple but I guess that is just the gamble you take to play in that market. Apparently Ichan wasn't liking the hand Apple was holding

That said Jesus. Cashing out he got 4.3 billion dollars

 

[ClayKavalier]

Hasn't he been trying unsuccessfully to get Apple to use some of their cash reserves to pay dividends to their stockholders? Not saying there's no merit to what he's saying but he may have just got tired of chasing their cash.

 

[Timbuktu]

The Chinese market is increasingly unpredictable and the hardline stance the government has on everything is a particular worry.

 

[Chichikov]

"Activist investor" my ass.
The man is one the most notorious corporate raiders and asset strippers in history, he wrote the book on a bunch of that stuff, he's a greedy motherfucker who made a ton of money by quite directly ruining companies and inflicting a ton of pain on actual productive people.

This is not super relevant to the situation of Apple (outside the fact that I don't trust him or anything he says), but it pisses me off that fuckers like him managed to re-brand their shitty behavior and that even decent publications like The Guardian are falling for that.

 

[Log4Girlz]

"Activist investor" my ass.
The man is one the most notorious corporate raiders and asset strippers in history, he wrote the book on a bunch of that stuff, he's a greedy motherfucker who made a ton of money by quite directly ruining companies and inflicting a ton of pain on actual productive people.

This is not super relevant to the situation of Apple (outside the fact that I don't trust him or anything he says), but it pisses me off that fuckers like him managed to re-brand their shitty behavior and that even decent publications like The Guardian are falling for that.

I've read just a bit about that sort of nonsense and its just bananas.

 

[Chichikov]

It's also worth noting that the main thing he tried to do with Apple was to get them to pay shareholders more by stock buybacks and larger dividends, and he largely failed.
He took a position in Apple for the same reason he took positions in most companies he invested in - because they had a ton of assets he hoped he can exploit, in this case their giant cash reserves.
When he couldn't get his greedy fingers on that pile of money he moved away from it.

Now I'm not saying that he's wrong about Apple, China or whatever, I honestly don't know, but we're talking about a person who invested heavily in Blockbuster in the aughts, I'm not sure I should take tech predictions from him.

 

[sc0la]

He may or may not be right to vacate his position. But they are better off without his "activist" investor antics (read: advocating positions that may not be in Apple's or other shareholders' long term interests, but are good for his short term).

 

[entremet]

Car Icahn is horrible man.

That is all.

 

[DiscoJer]

Corporate raider is a better description of him. Among other things, he destroyed TWA. (I'm a St. Louisan so I know people who worked there and lost their jobs because of him)

I really don't understand people like that. They've already made billions ruining the lives of other people. Isn't that enough? Do they have to keep being evil until they are dead? Apparently so.

 

[golem]

Icahn is a thug and now that his bluster didnt work hes taking his toys and going home. Good riddance

 

[Cipherr]

Hasn't he been trying unsuccessfully to get Apple to use some of their cash reserves to pay dividends to their stockholders? Not saying there's no merit to what he's saying but he may have just got tired of chasing their cash.

Chasing their cash sounds like an unfair assessment. It's not like he hasn't been making money hand over fist on their gains over time even without extra dividends.

Not much reason to sell unless you genuinely think some changes might quickly swing things.

 

[davepoobond]

He's getting ready for a cabinet position in the Trump presidency I'm sure

 

[WaterAstro]

I'd cash out and retire.

 

[old]

How does China get away with so much protectionism?

 

[Chichikov]

How does China get away with so much protectionism?

Same way that every other country who enacted protectionist policies (which is pretty much every developed country in the world by the way) "got away with it".
They're a sovereign country and they can do what they fucking want, I mean in theory you can go to war to force them to change those policies like British did during the Opium Wars and the US did all over Central America or try to orchestrate a coupe like the US and England did in Iran, but short of such measures (which are unrealistic, since let's face it, we ain't going to war over Apple's profits, unless we elect HUELEN10 as president of course) the most that you can do is decide to not trade with them, and that's not happening any time soon.

 

[antonz]

How does China get away with so much protectionism?

People long before most of us were born decided China would be the cheap labor production sector of the world. The entire world basically depends on China at this point which gives China most of the cards to play.

People like Trump can bluster about how China is fucking over the world and in some cases he is right but there really isn't much that can be done about it without devastating economic ripples across the entire planet.
The world is a plaything for the Global Elite and the rest of us are just along for the ride and benefit/suffer based on their whims.

 

[Indrid Cold1]

Icahn't even

 

[Mechazawa]

(which are unrealistic, since less face it, we ain't going to war over Apple's profits, unless we elect HUELEN10 as president of course)

jordanlaugh.gif

 

[Tecnniqe]

Icahn't even

Damn lol.

Yeah no fan of him

 

[danm999]

He's getting ready for a cabinet position in the Trump presidency I'm sure

Gotta get rid of them conflicts of interest when he's named Ambassador to China and Japan.

 

[GavinGT]

"Activist investor" my ass.
The man is one the most notorious corporate raiders and asset strippers in history, he wrote the book on a bunch of that stuff, he's a greedy motherfucker who made a ton of money by quite directly ruining companies and inflicting a ton of pain on actual productive people.

This is not super relevant to the situation of Apple (outside the fact that I don't trust him or anything he says), but it pisses me off that fuckers like him managed to re-brand their shitty behavior and that even decent publications like The Guardian are falling for that.

Yeah, ask my mom or basically any ex-TWA employee and they'll all tell you that he's the reason that company went under. And of course he made a fortune in the process.

 

[SMattera]

It's also worth noting that the main thing he tried to do with Apple was to get them to pay shareholders more by stock buybacks and larger dividends, and he largely failed.
He took a position in Apple for the same reason he took positions in most companies he invested in - because they had a ton of assets he hoped he can exploit, in this case their giant cash reserves.
When he couldn't get his greedy fingers on that pile of money he moved away from it.

Now I'm not saying that he's wrong about Apple, China or whatever, I honestly don't know, but we're talking about a person who invested heavily in Blockbuster in the aughts, I'm not sure I should take tech predictions from him.

He didn't really fail. They've increased their dividend and buyback programs significantly since he took a stake. There was no reason for them to sit on $200B and just let it collect pennies on the dollar in terms of interest. If they can't invest it in the business, there's no reason not to return it to shareholders. That's the prudent thing for management to do.

In general, activist shareholders are a good thing. At times they do destroy companies, but they also keep management honest. Often times you get caretaker CEOs with no real stake in the firm that just run the company ho-hum so they can collect their fat check.

There have been many examples of mediocre companies becoming more successful post-activism. Microsoft, Adobe, Forest Labs, Motorola, Canadian Pacific are all recent examples that come to mind. For a while it looked like Yahoo! might be added to that list but who knows at this point.

The other thing worth keeping in mind is that activists, by their nature, generally only target weak or struggling companies. If a company is succeeding and management is doing a good job, the activist doesn't bother. Bill Ackman was widely blamed for destroying JC Penney a few years ago, causing the company to lose a bunch of money in a failed turnaround strategy and firing thousands of people. It's true. But the company appeared basically doomed anyway.

 

[Chichikov]

He didn't really fail. They've increased their dividend and buyback programs significantly since he took a stake. There was no reason for them to sit on $200B and just let it collect pennies on the dollar in terms of interest. If they can't invest it in the business, there's no reason not to return it to shareholders. That's the prudent thing for management to do.

In general, activist shareholders are a good thing. At times they do destroy companies, but they also keep management honest. Often times you get caretaker CEOs with no real stake in the firm that just run the company ho-hum so they can collect their fat check.

There have been many examples of mediocre companies becoming more successful post-activism. Microsoft, Adobe, Forest Labs, Motorola, Canadian Pacific are all recent examples that come to mind. For a while it looked like Yahoo! might be added to that list but who knows at this point.

The other thing worth keeping in mind is that activists, by their nature, generally only target weak or struggling companies. If a company is succeeding and management is doing a good job, the activist doesn't bother. Bill Ackman was widely blamed for destroying JC Penney a few years ago, causing the company to lose a bunch of money in a failed turnaround strategy and firing thousands of people. It's true. But the company appeared basically doomed anyway.

He was very vocal about his displeasure with Apple even after their increased dividends.

And I don't see how you can spin Carl Icahn as being a positive force in anything.
They guy is a parasite, he literally took money from productive members of society.
Look at TWA, the company was profitable, he used a leverage buyout (i.e. used other people's money) to buy a controlling interest, made himself the chairman, loaded the company with debt and sold its assets to pay for those debts, finally running the company into the ground killing thousands of jobs and making a killing in the process.

And I'm not saying no investor can come up with decent ideas for the company or that all investors are bad people (though I think in general people who actually understand the business and have long term stake in its success as opposed to investors tend to generally run companies better) but the man was and still is a corporate raider, the term was invented to describe him and his ilk. The only reason why he is being called "activist investor" is because people like him (and a lot of sympathizers of his tactics in the business media) engage in a concentrate and conscious effort to try to rebrand his business shenanigans because they fear the public will get too angry at them.

 

[WoodWERD]

(which are unrealistic, since let's face it, we ain't going to war over Apple's profits, unless we elect HUELEN10 as president of course)

bahaha

 

[SMattera]

He was very vocal about his displeasure with Apple even after their increased dividends.

And I don't see how you can spin Carl Icahn as being a positive force in anything.
They guy is a parasite, he literally took money from productive members of society.
Look at TWA, the company was profitable, he used a leverage buyout (i.e. used other people's money) to buy a controlling interest, made himself the chairman, loaded the company with debt and sold its assets to pay for those debts, finally running the company into the ground killing thousands of jobs and making a killing in the process.

And I'm not saying no investor can come up with decent ideas for the company or that all investors are bad people (though I think in general people who actually understand the business and have long term stake in its success as opposed to investors tend to generally run companies better) but the man was and still is a corporate raider, the term was invented to describe him and his ilk. The only reason why he is being called "activist investor" is because people like him (and a lot of sympathizers of his tactics in the business media) engage in a concentrate and conscious effort to try to rebrand his business shenanigans because they fear the public will get too angry at them.

The junk bond fueled hostile takeovers of the 80s were quite different from modern corporate activism.

 

[Chichikov]

The junk bond fueled hostile takeovers of the 80s were quite different from modern corporate activism.

The only reason why this fucker isn't doing that shit is because we passed some laws, changed some regulations and probably most importantly coompanies changed their charter to make such things harder.
He never showed any remorse and he keep trying to do that crap, he's a corporate raider and an asset stripper through and through.

p.s.
I'm talking about a specific person with a specific history, not sure why you keep making these broad statements. It's fine to disagree with my assessment of that parasite and his negative contribution to society, but maybe address what I'm saying here, not defend investors against an imagined attack I didn't really make.

 

[Hyun Sai]

"- You think I'm a parasite, but apparently society values me very much".

"- You're an incredibly big pile of shit"