3 ms·

Apple should disclose at least basic information about the scope of their investments. This is just common sense, and it's especially important at a time when i

Apple should disclose at least basic information about the scope of their investments. This is just common sense, and it's especially important at a time when investors are panicked about the future of the stock.

cgriswald 13y ago
Given that, among actual shareholders, only 2.95% voted for the proposal, I do not think they are especially panicked about the future of the stock.
- hawkharris 13y ago
  This proposal is only one manifestation of investors' concerns. It doesn't follow that because 3% voted for it, only 3% are concerned about the stock, which has been downgraded for the first time in 10 years.
  - cgriswald 13y ago
    Investors are not panicked. I argue that a panicked investor will either: I) Sell his stock immediately. or II) Demand any information available. Since (I) is not happening on a large scale (even when it dropped in January volume was a small portion of total shares), it follows that if investors are panicked about the stock, (II) must be occuring. However, (II) is not occuring because only 2.95% of shareholders voted for the proposal. This indicates that even if some portion of investors are panicked, it is at best only 2.95% of them. Thus it would be incorrect to say investors are panicked. Now you have changed the investors' dispositions from "panicked" to "concerned". Assume that 100% of shareholders are "concerned" about the stock. It still follows that, at best, only 2.95% of shareholders are "concerned" about this particular information.
    - hawkharris 13y ago
      "Apple's stock price has fallen by 40% over the past six months, vaporizing almost $300 billion of market value." Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/two-charts-show-why-apple-stock-dropped-2013-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/two-charts-show-why-apple-sto...
      - cgriswald 13y ago
        Apple's stock did not collapse as the article predicted. In fact it partially recovered a lot of that lost value. Even if the stock had collapsed, it would not support your original claims for all the reasons I have already given. So, I have to wonder if you have a point or if you are simply trolling.
      - parasubvert 13y ago
        That article was over a year ago. Apple's stock has appreciated about 25% since. I don't think you have much of a point here. Apple is priced on a presumption by Mr. Market that it will never have another major product line and associated high-growth revenue stream. The price has little to nothing to do with its sustainability investments, because they have no impact on its ability to create another breakthrough. (In other words, Apple's future success is clearly not due to capital constraints. Knowledge constraints are the limit.)
      - digisign 13y ago
        That's almost a year old.
enraged_camel 13y ago
>>it's especially important at a time when investors are panicked about the future of the stock. Correction: some investors are panicked about the future of the stock. This is my favorite cartoon that describes how those investors operate: http://imgur.com/vuDioSI http://imgur.com/vuDioSI
- hawkharris 13y ago
  I do appreciate that cartoon :), but I wouldn't be extremely confident about Apple stock in either direction, positive or negative. This is a period of great risk, uncertainty and — to be fair, opportunity — for the company. [0][1][2] (Disclosure: I don't have a position in Apple.) [0] http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/talking-numbers/why-apple-could-be-dead-money-for-the-next-decade-130630201.html http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/talking-numbers/why-apple-cou... [1] http://invezz.com/news/equities/9079-apple-share-price-barclays-analyst-downgrades-rating-for-first-time-in-10-years http://invezz.com/news/equities/9079-apple-share-price-barcl... [2] http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/247768001.html http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/247768001.html

cgriswald 13y ago

Given that, among actual shareholders, only 2.95% voted for the proposal, I do not think they are especially panicked about the future of the stock.

hawkharris 13y ago
This proposal is only one manifestation of investors' concerns. It doesn't follow that because 3% voted for it, only 3% are concerned about the stock, which has been downgraded for the first time in 10 years.
- cgriswald 13y ago
  Investors are not panicked. I argue that a panicked investor will either: I) Sell his stock immediately. or II) Demand any information available. Since (I) is not happening on a large scale (even when it dropped in January volume was a small portion of total shares), it follows that if investors are panicked about the stock, (II) must be occuring. However, (II) is not occuring because only 2.95% of shareholders voted for the proposal. This indicates that even if some portion of investors are panicked, it is at best only 2.95% of them. Thus it would be incorrect to say investors are panicked. Now you have changed the investors' dispositions from "panicked" to "concerned". Assume that 100% of shareholders are "concerned" about the stock. It still follows that, at best, only 2.95% of shareholders are "concerned" about this particular information.
  - hawkharris 13y ago
    "Apple's stock price has fallen by 40% over the past six months, vaporizing almost $300 billion of market value." Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/two-charts-show-why-apple-stock-dropped-2013-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/two-charts-show-why-apple-sto...
    - cgriswald 13y ago
      Apple's stock did not collapse as the article predicted. In fact it partially recovered a lot of that lost value. Even if the stock had collapsed, it would not support your original claims for all the reasons I have already given. So, I have to wonder if you have a point or if you are simply trolling.
    - parasubvert 13y ago
      That article was over a year ago. Apple's stock has appreciated about 25% since. I don't think you have much of a point here. Apple is priced on a presumption by Mr. Market that it will never have another major product line and associated high-growth revenue stream. The price has little to nothing to do with its sustainability investments, because they have no impact on its ability to create another breakthrough. (In other words, Apple's future success is clearly not due to capital constraints. Knowledge constraints are the limit.)
    - digisign 13y ago
      That's almost a year old.

enraged_camel 13y ago

>>it's especially important at a time when investors are panicked about the future of the stock. Correction: some investors are panicked about the future of the stock. This is my favorite cartoon that describes how those investors operate: http://imgur.com/vuDioSI http://imgur.com/vuDioSI

hawkharris 13y ago
I do appreciate that cartoon :), but I wouldn't be extremely confident about Apple stock in either direction, positive or negative. This is a period of great risk, uncertainty and — to be fair, opportunity — for the company. [0][1][2] (Disclosure: I don't have a position in Apple.) [0] http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/talking-numbers/why-apple-could-be-dead-money-for-the-next-decade-130630201.html http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/talking-numbers/why-apple-cou... [1] http://invezz.com/news/equities/9079-apple-share-price-barclays-analyst-downgrades-rating-for-first-time-in-10-years http://invezz.com/news/equities/9079-apple-share-price-barcl... [2] http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/247768001.html http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/247768001.html