December 22, 2024

Apple’s Cook Calls Hedge Fund Manager’s Lawsuit a ‘Sideshow’

Waving aside Einhorn’s assertion that Apple is clinging to a “Depression-era” mentality, Cook said on Tuesday the company’s board is in “very active discussions” on how to dole out more of its $137 billion hoard of cash and marketable securities.

Einhorn and his Greenlight Capital are suing Apple as part of a wider effort to get the iPhone maker to share more of its cash pile, one of the largest among technology companies. They are challenging “Proposal 2” in Apple’s proxy statement, which would abolish a system for issuing preferred stock at its discretion.

Einhorn wants Apple to issue perpetual preferred shares that pay dividends to existing shareholders, which he argued would be superior to dividends or buybacks.

Cook gave Einhorn credit for a novel idea, but the usually unflappable chief executive turned slightly impatient when discussing the lawsuit. He was also dismissive of Einhorn’s media and legal blitz – which included the lawsuit as well as multiple television and media interviews.

Einhorn seeks an injunction to block a February 27 shareholders’ vote on Proposal 2, in what amounts to the biggest challenge to Apple from an activist investor in years.

“This is a waste of shareholder money and a distraction, and not a seminal issue for Apple. That said, I support Prop 2. I am personally going to vote for it,” Cook told a packed hall at Goldman Sachs’ annual technology industry conference in San Francisco.

The conflict over Prop 2 “is a silly sideshow,” added Cook, who on Tuesday traded in his usual casual jeans attire for slacks and a dark suit jacket, in a nod to Wall Street. Cook said he thought it “bizarre that we would find ourselves being sued for doing something good for shareholders.”

Einhorn’s clash with Apple centers on a proposed change to its charter that would eliminate the company’s ability to issue “blank check” preferred stock at its discretion. Apple, which said the change would not preclude future issuance of preferred shares, is recommending shareholders vote in favor at its annual meeting on February 27.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. district court in Manhattan, objects to the bundling of the charter change with two other corporate governance-related proposals in “Proposal 2.”

The hedge fund manager, a well-known short-seller and Apple gadget fan, counters that striking the preferred-share mechanism from the charter would make it more difficult to issue such securities down the road.

“If Apple thinks the lawsuit is a waste of resources, it could simply end the matter by complying with existing law and filing a new proxy that unbundles the proposed changes to the charter, so that shareholders can express their views on each matter separately,” a Greenlight Capital spokesman said in an emailed statement, responding to Cook’s comments.

On Tuesday, influential advisory firm Glass Lewis recommended shareholders vote in favor of Proposal 2, joining ISS and the California Public Employees Retirement System – the top U.S. pension fund – in voicing support for the measure.

Apple and Greenlight appear for oral arguments in U.S. district court in Manhattan on February 19.

DIMINISHING CLOUT

Investors however were disappointed that Cook – who rarely makes lengthy public-speaking engagements – did not provide a “more substantial” view on returning cash.

Apple’s share price has tumbled in recent months from a high of just over $700 last September. They finished 2.5 percent lower at $467.90 on Tuesday.

“The only thing that would substantially move the stock would be him saying they were returning cash to shareholders or hinting at a new product,” said a manager from a mid-size Dallas hedge fund that owns Apple shares.

“There was a small chance of that happening.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2013/02/12/business/12reuters-apple-cook.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Economix Blog: Risks, Rescues and Remorse

Warren Buffett rode to the rescue of Bank of America today, as he did for Goldman Sachs in the dark days of September 2008.

FLOYD NORRIS

FLOYD NORRIS

Notions on high and low finance.

B of A will pay less to be saved, but that can be explained by the fact there is less panic to contend with this time. This time the rumors were that the bank needed to raise capital; back then, the rumors were that Goldman was the next Lehman Brothers.

The terms of the two deals are similar. Berkshire Hathaway, Mr. Buffett’s company, invests $5 billion in straight preferred stock, and gets a warrant allowing him to invest another $5 billion in common stock at a set price. The preferred stock is perpetual, but the company can buy it back at a premium whenever it wishes to do so.

At Goldman he got a 10 percent coupon on the preferred, and it would cost Goldman a 10 percent penalty to buy it back. At B of A, he gets 6 percent coupon and a 5 percent premium for a buyback.

The warrants are different, and reflect that B of A was in a better position. B of A stock closed on Wednesday at $6.99. The warrants are at $7.142857. So at least B of A gets a little premium to market price at the time of the deal if the warrants are exercised.

Goldman shares were at $125.05 when the deal with Mr. Buffett was announced. His warrant was at $115 per share. He got a discount exercise price.

How has Mr. Buffett done at Goldman? Fine on the preferred. Not so fine on the warrant. Goldman bought the preferred back in April. Add in the interest and the repurchase premium, and Berkshire made $1.75 billion over two and a half years. Anything it collects on the warrants will be gravy, but at the moment there is none available. Goldman shares trade around $110.

The warrants had five-year terms, so Berkshire has until October 2013 to exercise them.

Mr. Buffett did do a little better on one term of the warrants at B of A. They are 10-year warrants, twice as long as at Goldman. So he has a lot longer time for the share price to work out.

When Mr. Buffett made his first Wall Street rescue, of Salomon Brothers amid a scandal two decades ago, he was reported to have called his investment a Treasury bill with a lottery ticket attached. He would get a solid return if the company merely survived, and a great one if it prospered.

Seen that way, this is not nearly as risky as a bet as a purchase of B of A stock would be. That may be the essential point that led the early euphoria to fade. B of A stock leaped to $8.80 soon after the opening this morning, but was under $8 by 11 a.m.

It is a sign of both the prestige of Mr. Buffett and of the fragility of markets that either of these deals were available to him.

Of course, there are risks in being a rescuer. A rescuer needs to use cash it can afford to lose, and it needs to have the judgment and courage to refuse to throw good money after bad if things do not go according to plan.

In August 2007, Countrywide Financial, a major home lender, was bailed out by B of A, which invested $2 billion in convertible preferred stock. It was convertible at a discount to current market value. B of A stock rose on the news.

A few months later, with Countrywide in deeper trouble, B of A agreed to take over the whole company for stock then worth $4 billion. The deal closed July 1, 2008. By then B of A was trading for about half what it was worth when it first invested in Countrywide. It had a lot further to fall.

It was one of the worst mergers ever. B of A has yet to reach the bottom of the sinkhole of legal liability created by Countrywide’s reckless lending policies.

But for that rescue by Bank of America, this one — of Bank of America — would not be necessary.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=a44c0dceca1979679e02d2e25fbd62d0