Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

macobserver.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 134 posts

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#71

Post by repsilat »

zacinbusiness wrote: post #64

I think it would be awesome if Apple could somehow go "unpublic." Is there a word for that? Buy back all of their stock and dissolve it. A powerhouse of design and engineering like Apple would be a real force if it didn't have to blow their asshole investors each quarter or risk some kind of coup.

A company can't buy itself, at least in cash. The cash reserves of a company are (or should be) worth less than the company itself.

The company obviously can't raise capital to buy itself by issuing shares, so it would have to get the money loaned to it. At this point I think it needs to convince its creditor that its stock is undervalued, and at that point the creditor is better off just buying the undervalued shares themselves. If they bought enough then they could take the company private if they wanted.

Now, maybe if someone who owned a company outright decided to donate all of their shares to the company, then it could "own itself". I don't know how that might work legally, though.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#73

Post by zacinbusiness »

repsilat wrote: post #71
zacinbusiness wrote: post #64

I think it would be awesome if Apple could somehow go "unpublic." Is there a word for that? Buy back all of their stock and dissolve it. A powerhouse of design and engineering like Apple would be a real force if it didn't have to blow their asshole investors each quarter or risk some kind of coup.

A company can't buy itself, at least in cash. The cash reserves of a company are (or should be) worth less than the company itself. The company obviously can't raise capital to buy itself by issuing shares, so it would have to get the money loaned to it. At this point I think it needs to convince its creditor that its stock is undervalued, and at that point the creditor is better off just buying the undervalued share…

Could a company create a second business (I'd go with Apple ][) and then have the second company just buy the original company for like a dollar? I'm assuming there are legal reasons why that can't happen.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#74

Post by JDulin »

The climate change versus shareholder value debate aside, I would be angry that this representative was obviously trying to hijack the shareholding meeting discussion to make a political point or have me (Tim Cook) say something polarizing. They got the latter, but not in the form they hoped for.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#75

Post by jvvlimme »

chalst wrote: post #63
rjknight wrote: post #48

I understand and agree with the idea that companies should maximise shareholder value, but I've never understood the argument that shareholder value is exclusively determined by profit. As I see it, the stock market consists of various firms saying "buy our stock, and we will try to achieve X with your investment", where X might be maximum ROI, but I don't understand why it has to be. If I want to found a company whi…

The fiduciary duty of the directors of a company entails that they make no decisions that prejudice the general shareholders of a company. The classic case is making an issue of equity that benefits only a limited group who can buy it at the expense of diluting the value of the equity of other shareholders. The idea that (i) the entire value of a company is the NPV of future profits to the shareholders, and that (ii)…

It's actually a myth that a company has to maximize shareholdervalue. There is no corporate law even remotely suggesting it and it is generally a horrible idea.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-m...

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#77

Post by babesh »

chalst wrote: post #63
rjknight wrote: post #48

I understand and agree with the idea that companies should maximise shareholder value, but I've never understood the argument that shareholder value is exclusively determined by profit. As I see it, the stock market consists of various firms saying "buy our stock, and we will try to achieve X with your investment", where X might be maximum ROI, but I don't understand why it has to be. If I want to found a company whi…

The fiduciary duty of the directors of a company entails that they make no decisions that prejudice the general shareholders of a company. The classic case is making an issue of equity that benefits only a limited group who can buy it at the expense of diluting the value of the equity of other shareholders. The idea that (i) the entire value of a company is the NPV of future profits to the shareholders, and that (ii)…

That is the business version of the Nuremberg defense.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#78

Post by valleyer »

zacinbusiness wrote: post #73
repsilat wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A company can't buy itself, at least in cash. The cash reserves of a company are (or should be) worth less than the company itself. The company obviously can't raise capital to buy itself by issuing shares, so it would have to get the money loaned to it. At this point I think it needs to convince its creditor that its stock is undervalued, and at that point the creditor is better off just buying the undervalued share…

Could a company create a second business (I'd go with Apple ][) and then have the second company just buy the original company for like a dollar? I'm assuming there are legal reasons why that can't happen.

Like… the shareholders would not agree to that?

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#79

Post by MWil »

jvvlimme wrote: post #75
chalst wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fiduciary duty of the directors of a company entails that they make no decisions that prejudice the general shareholders of a company. The classic case is making an issue of equity that benefits only a limited group who can buy it at the expense of diluting the value of the equity of other shareholders. The idea that (i) the entire value of a company is the NPV of future profits to the shareholders, and that (ii)…

It's actually a myth that a company has to maximize shareholdervalue. There is no corporate law even remotely suggesting it and it is generally a horrible idea. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-m...

I'm sorry but that article neglects any mention of court opinions (many of which I have read, as has any law student) which interpret the law and say otherwise.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#80

Post by smsm42 »

I think Tim Cook is ready for a run for Congress. It's classic politician - "we're doing the right thing, and we're not going to disclose to you how much it costs you to do it, because it's the right thing, and if you don't like this just STFU and GTFO". Indeed, what the gall has the shareholder to ask the executive how much the policy costs him! One should soundly reject this novel and outrageous concept of executives reporting to shareholders the actual results of their pet policies. The less shareholders know, the better. Especially when it comes to the question if the decisions taken by the management rely on public subsidies - shareholders don't need to know if their wellbeing depends on taxpayer-funded handouts, that would only disturb them. Just trust the Supreme Leader, he's doing the right thing.
Post reply on HN