|
Post by jeffi on Feb 9, 2013 11:33:11 GMT -8
Typically, we have pro and con views regarding stock buybacks. Much of these contrasting views originate from the inconsistent results of share buybacks. I'd argue (yes, I like to argue), that both camps are correct. In other words, it depends. A stock buyback trades cash for a larger claim on future earnings. Therefore, if future earnings are to grow faster than the return on the cash, then all things being equal, the stock buyback should add to shareholder wealth. On the other hand, if future earnings are to decline, buy backs destroy shareholder wealth. Unfortunately, its not that simple. Of course all things are not equal. If the current valuation of said stock is overvalued (e.g., high PE), and it's valuation is coming down (PE compression) than even growing earnings will not prevent a stock buyback from destroying shareholder value. And conversely, if a stock is severely undervalued with declining earnings a buy back may still add value. Now that I've muddied the waters, I'll try to bring back some clarity. If Apple's stock is correctly valued or undervalued (defined as valuation will be the same or higher in the future, e.g., PE expansion) and if earnings per share will increase in the future, then a stock buy back will ultimately add to shareholder wealth. On the other hand, If Apple's stock is correctly valued or overvalued (defined as valuation will be the same or lower in the future) and if earnings per share will decrease in the future, then a stock buy back will ultimately destroy shareholder wealth. There is a simple flaw in your statement, and that regards valuation. Finding two people that agree on value at the same time is just a little more than difficult. Couple od examples: just look at the wide range of future values projected by WS analysts, or in every trade (buyer thinks its going higher/seller doesn't. Value is not an objective determination, it is completely subjective. So increasing/decreasing the number of outstanding shares has little impact, if any, on investors. Certainly not enough to make a difference A buyback would have to change the subjective reasoning behind an investor's estimate of value. It can't do that, for the very reason you gave above, some investors think earnings are going to grow, and others don't. Until this week I think more felt the future of Apple was dark. What has to change is Investor Sentiment. That's why I don't use the acronym of PE. It measures the right thing, but it use has been corrupted. The results of the calculation indicate Investor Sentiment, therefore in my view it should be called Investor Sentiment Multiplier (ISM). The ONLY thing that can change investor sentiment are results coupled with management's guidance. If it isn't there, nothing artificial (like a stock buy back) is going to change it. I think I lost you. Stock ownership gives you a claim/ interest on the assets and liabilities and the future earnings. If the value of the claim to the earnings are going to increase faster than the value of the claim to the cash, then logically one would be better off with a larger claim to the earnings than that of the cash. Regarding PE or sentiment... The stock price recently ran up on the possibility that Apple may be more aggressive in distributing their cash pile (buybacks, dividends, etc.). "Price" has indicated that this is positive to sentiment, counter to your point above. Respectfully...
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Feb 9, 2013 11:37:14 GMT -8
Apple's cash is one of the biggest topics of discussion everywhere. To even suggest that there is no link between cash management and investor sentiment shows serious ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by roni on Feb 9, 2013 11:38:18 GMT -8
Gregg - setting aside the debate on sentiment for the time being, what do you think they should be doing with the cash? Are you saying leave it alone and let it keep growing? A systematic reduction in the number of shares over an extended period of time will change EPS and the cost of dividends to those remaining shares. These programs are inputs into gregg's renamed P/E. It is mere arithmetic. I am in favor of a long-term systematic buyback program designed to lower the share count each year during the program.
|
|
|
Post by jeffi on Feb 9, 2013 12:20:38 GMT -8
Buybacks shrink share count. Whether it is good to use capital towards a buyback is dependent on 2 factors. 1. The price of the shares versus the value 2. The opportunity cost of the capital. If Apple can buy back share for 500 that is worth 750. Thats is value accretive. If Dell is buybacking share worth 15 for $25 then it is not. Share buybacks alone do not make a shit business good or vice versus. However, if Mr. Market wants to underprice Apples value and Apple is confident on it future prospects. Then, buybacks are value accretive. Remember Apple is the very definition of INSIDER. TC/PO/BOD knows what models can be launched and what their long term strategy is. They have asymmetry of information in this case can and should be used to Apple Shareholder advantage. Apple is on the record saying that they had excess capital since 1 last year with Apple less than 100$/sh. They now have 145 and growing about 40-45 $/yr. Returns on cash is ~1%. Returns on purchasing shares is 10% FCF yield. Apple has excess cash and can not allocate it properly. Therefore, it should return it to shareholders. 45B in 3 years is complete BS. If Apples stick to this plan it will have over $250 $/sh in cash at the end of the period. It is a misconception that a stock buyback says anything about the underlying product and business. Look at Visa, Mastercard, IBM to name a few. I have not heard investors complaining about the growth of Visa or Mastercard. Both are close to all time highs trading at high teen multiples. In sum, Buybacks are not the holy grail. They are tool that should be deployed the betterment of long term holders. Apple still needs to dominate it competition. A steady increase of dividends to attract dividend growth/value investors should be considered too. Why the strawman is set up as Apple has to choose is beyond me. Apple please use ALL the tools in your toolbelt. And consider other tools too. JD, IBM is a clear candidate where stock buybacks well as clear forward medium term guidance have enhanced returns. So has Visa and MA +6
|
|
|
Post by mbeauch on Feb 9, 2013 13:09:24 GMT -8
Gregg, that was ME at 585 and 475, run over by southbound trains. Hell, I bought back in at 585, the 200 dma, what was I thinking? Also had an idea at 510, that did not work out to well either. Everything below 505 makes absolutely no sense to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2013 13:19:14 GMT -8
Typically, we have pro and con views regarding stock buybacks. Much of these contrasting views originate from the inconsistent results of share buybacks. I'd argue (yes, I like to argue), that both camps are correct. In other words, it depends. A stock buyback trades cash for a larger claim on future earnings. Therefore, if future earnings are to grow faster than the return on the cash, then all things being equal, the stock buyback should add to shareholder wealth. On the other hand, if future earnings are to decline, buy backs destroy shareholder wealth. Unfortunately, its not that simple. Of course all things are not equal. If the current valuation of said stock is overvalued (e.g., high PE), and it's valuation is coming down (PE compression) than even growing earnings will not prevent a stock buyback from destroying shareholder value. And conversely, if a stock is severely undervalued with declining earnings a buy back may still add value. Now that I've muddied the waters, I'll try to bring back some clarity. If Apple's stock is correctly valued or undervalued (defined as valuation will be the same or higher in the future, e.g., PE expansion) and if earnings per share will increase in the future, then a stock buy back will ultimately add to shareholder wealth. On the other hand, If Apple's stock is correctly valued or overvalued (defined as valuation will be the same or lower in the future) and if earnings per share will decrease in the future, then a stock buy back will ultimately destroy shareholder wealth. There is a simple flaw in your statement, and that regards valuation. Finding two people that agree on value at the same time is just a little more than difficult. Couple od examples: just look at the wide range of future values projected by WS analysts, or in every trade (buyer thinks its going higher/seller doesn't. Value is not an objective determination, it is completely subjective. So increasing/decreasing the number of outstanding shares has little impact, if any, on investors. Certainly not enough to make a difference A buyback would have to change the subjective reasoning behind an investor's estimate of value. It can't do that, for the very reason you gave above, some investors think earnings are going to grow, and others don't. Until this week I think more felt the future of Apple was dark. What has to change is Investor Sentiment. That's why I don't use the acronym of PE. It measures the right thing, but it use has been corrupted. The results of the calculation indicate Investor Sentiment, therefore in my view it should be called Investor Sentiment Multiplier (ISM). The ONLY thing that can change investor sentiment are results coupled with management's guidance. If it isn't there, nothing artificial (like a stock buy back) is going to change it. We had a $35 increase in share price over the last two weeks without any change in earnings or management guidance. How big a change has to happen before its classified as investor sentiment change? $40? $50? $100?
|
|
|
Post by seabiscuit on Feb 9, 2013 13:39:10 GMT -8
I think that sentiment has changed slightly from bearish to cautiously optimistic. I also feel that in the absence of some positive news (very good news) increases in PPS will be held back by retail selling on spike for those folks who can get even at that price.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Feb 9, 2013 13:41:17 GMT -8
People can get back to even at 475?
|
|
|
Post by michelc on Feb 9, 2013 13:45:19 GMT -8
My ideal scenario would be TC stating at the shareholder meeting,.. Dear schareholders I am sorry we hogged your cash so much, Steve was a bit paranoid after almost being bankrupt .. Here is our plan.. 1) We feel like we need to have 50 billion in the bank ...we like it as a safety cushion.. therefore given that by the end of next quarter we will have around 150 Billion in the Bank , we will execute a 100 billion dollar buy back ( adjust of taxes ) 2) Going forward as long as we have 50 billion in the bank , we will pay out 100 % of all our earnings in a dividend to shareholders, 60 days after earnings are announced. If we make 13 dollars per share in the quarter the shareholders will get 13 dollars per share for that quarter, if we make 0 you get zip.. If we see the need to accumulate more cash for a specific acquisition we will communicate that to the shareholders and temporary suspend the dividend. 3) In order to make the stock more affordable for the smaller investor , we will split the stock 10 for 1 Y'all have a great day A slight modification: - Keep $100B on hand (commit $40B to an immediate buyback) - Make it clear that Apple will use their cash reserve to step in when it feels shares are undervalued (this is huge) - Regular dividend growth to match earnings growth - Pay out 60% of earnings (minus the regular dividend) as special dividend when stock is at relative highs or buyback when stock is at relative lows Result: - immediate boost to share price (probably...) - long term dividend growth and reduction of float - semi-regular special dividends to provide incentive to hold shares - solid floor in share price - perhaps reduced volatility - cash keeps growing but at a more moderate pace - everyone should be happy Another modification for those who are long. You hold stock for a year you get 100% 6 months 50% . Just to minimize fluctuation around earnings.
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on Feb 9, 2013 14:03:37 GMT -8
We had a $35 increase in share price over the last two weeks without any change in earnings or management guidance. How big a change has to happen before its classified as investor sentiment change? $40? $50? $100? One that isn't completely reversed soon thereafter, so it can be differentiated from 594 and 555. IMHO, the retrace, whenever it happens, should not give back more than 61.8% of reclaimed ground. (Picture the rope in tug-of-war.)
|
|
|
Post by nathanstevens on Feb 9, 2013 14:14:31 GMT -8
People can get back to even at 475? maybe some, but not me.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Feb 9, 2013 14:17:03 GMT -8
(I should have said: The ultra-savvy need not apply.)
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,181
|
Post by JDSoCal on Feb 9, 2013 14:30:28 GMT -8
Am I the only one who is annoyed with the direction the board has taken in the last one/two weeks? Just curious if it is a me problem. I can fix me problems. I do sense a tone shift the last one/two days.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2013 14:39:06 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by sponge on Feb 9, 2013 14:52:40 GMT -8
Typically, we have pro and con views regarding stock buybacks. Much of these contrasting views originate from the inconsistent results of share buybacks. I'd argue (yes, I like to argue), that both camps are correct. In other words, it depends. A stock buyback trades cash for a larger claim on future earnings. Therefore, if future earnings are to grow faster than the return on the cash, then all things being equal, the stock buyback should add to shareholder wealth. On the other hand, if future earnings are to decline, buy backs destroy shareholder wealth. Unfortunately, its not that simple. Of course all things are not equal. If the current valuation of said stock is overvalued (e.g., high PE), and it's valuation is coming down (PE compression) than even growing earnings will not prevent a stock buyback from destroying shareholder value. And conversely, if a stock is severely undervalued with declining earnings a buy back may still add value. Now that I've muddied the waters, I'll try to bring back some clarity. If Apple's stock is correctly valued or undervalued (defined as valuation will be the same or higher in the future, e.g., PE expansion) and if earnings per share will increase in the future, then a stock buy back will ultimately add to shareholder wealth. On the other hand, If Apple's stock is correctly valued or overvalued (defined as valuation will be the same or lower in the future) and if earnings per share will decrease in the future, then a stock buy back will ultimately destroy shareholder wealth. There is a simple flaw in your statement, and that regards valuation. Finding two people that agree on value at the same time is just a little more than difficult. Couple od examples: just look at the wide range of future values projected by WS analysts, or in every trade (buyer thinks its going higher/seller doesn't. Value is not an objective determination, it is completely subjective. So increasing/decreasing the number of outstanding shares has little impact, if any, on investors. Certainly not enough to make a difference A buyback would have to change the subjective reasoning behind an investor's estimate of value. It can't do that, for the very reason you gave above, some investors think earnings are going to grow, and others don't. Until this week I think more felt the future of Apple was dark. What has to change is Investor Sentiment. That's why I don't use the acronym of PE. It measures the right thing, but it use has been corrupted. The results of the calculation indicate Investor Sentiment, therefore in my view it should be called Investor Sentiment Multiplier (ISM). The ONLY thing that can change investor sentiment are results coupled with management's guidance. If it isn't there, nothing artificial (like a stock buy back) is going to change it. Well said Gregg
|
|
|
Post by sponge on Feb 9, 2013 14:54:25 GMT -8
There is a simple flaw in your statement, and that regards valuation. Finding two people that agree on value at the same time is just a little more than difficult. Couple od examples: just look at the wide range of future values projected by WS analysts, or in every trade (buyer thinks its going higher/seller doesn't. Value is not an objective determination, it is completely subjective. So increasing/decreasing the number of outstanding shares has little impact, if any, on investors. Certainly not enough to make a difference A buyback would have to change the subjective reasoning behind an investor's estimate of value. It can't do that, for the very reason you gave above, some investors think earnings are going to grow, and others don't. Until this week I think more felt the future of Apple was dark. What has to change is Investor Sentiment. That's why I don't use the acronym of PE. It measures the right thing, but it use has been corrupted. The results of the calculation indicate Investor Sentiment, therefore in my view it should be called Investor Sentiment Multiplier (ISM). The ONLY thing that can change investor sentiment are results coupled with management's guidance. If it isn't there, nothing artificial (like a stock buy back) is going to change it. We had a $35 increase in share price over the last two weeks without any change in earnings or management guidance. How big a change has to happen before its classified as investor sentiment change? $40? $50? $100? I think he was talking about new ATH.
|
|
|
Post by jeffi on Feb 9, 2013 15:07:59 GMT -8
Am I the only one who is annoyed with the direction the board has taken in the last one/two weeks? Just curious if it is a me problem. I can fix me problems. I do sense a tone shift the last one/two days. Yes. It appears that there is less denial and a greater acceptance of reality. Unfortunately, it can be depressing...
|
|
|
Post by rob_london on Feb 9, 2013 15:14:38 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2013 15:29:13 GMT -8
Am I the only one who is annoyed with the direction the board has taken in the last one/two weeks? Just curious if it is a me problem. I can fix me problems. I actually see a glimmer of the old glib banter today. The AAAA club reminded me of our IOTW flying pig award. Regarding lottery tickets, everyone knows they are just a tax on people who are bad at math. You mean the people our government doesn't want to pay taxes, but needs their monies anyway. So they call it something else to fool the fools.
|
|
|
Post by leonb on Feb 9, 2013 15:36:08 GMT -8
My take on the cash issue. If companies sit on cash they don't need (allowing for capex, working capital, and safety cushion), they are worth less than they would be to investors on average - this is because such companies are equivalently forcing all investors to keep cash in the bank despite their variable risk appetites and cash requirements. Make the company fit more buyers and more shares will bought, thus higher value.
Most commentators have failed to appreciate that the Einhorn proposal addresses precisely this, the inefficiencies inherent in a segmented market. It is not simply about releasing the cash for its own sake (otherwise the simpler dividend/buyback solutions would do). It is about carving out easily serviced and excess income for yield seekers with limited risk appetite. The fortunes of the common shareholders are tied to the company's ability to innovate, retain margins, etc - higher risk/reward. The pref holders are extremely well covered at $2b and more, so they get to sleep at night. Because markets are segmented and inefficient, the sum of the parts can be greater than the whole.
Of courses, the proposal is really an extension of the dividend/buyback options. Effectively and efficiently, Apple would be paying out a dividend or buying back shares and then issuing new preference shares to re-raise the same sum. So Einhorn's saying "get the cash out so investors can allocate for themselves, then (in case you need your war chest) borrow in a way that can't bring you down". By issuing prefs to existing shareholders for nothing Apple skips a step.
But I don't think Apple will (or needs to) adopt this proposal. Understanding why the proposal makes sense should wake the market up to Apple's untapped potential - and this on its own could be enough to unlock more value (beyond the recent rises off the back of this).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2013 15:41:09 GMT -8
I do sense a tone shift the last one/two days. Yes. It appears that there is less denial and a greater acceptance of reality. Unfortunately, it can be depressing... I think the most depressing thing I have seen this week is a chart of EU 5 mobile OS penetration, which had: - Symbian share plummeting (predictable) - Android share in a inverted-to-Symbian steep climb (surprising) to about 55% - iPhone share flat lining around 20%(disconcerting) The EU5 are the biggest 5 European economies - probably the most similar income demographic to the USA - why is the marketshare penetration so low is a relevant question at this time - these consumers are rapidly shifting to smartphones, but are overwhelmingly choosing android, when seemingly they could most likely afford an iPhone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2013 15:42:13 GMT -8
Maybe this amazing Investor Sentiment Multiplier (ISM) will expand once Apple is clear they are doing something useful with their cash (dividend increase, larger buyback, whatever). Crazy thought, isn't it? It's incredible how you see no link between investor sentiment and Apple's historical disregard of addressing shareholder value. Absolutely incredible. Also, a stock buyback is only as artificial as stock dilution is - in other words, it isn't artificial at all. You probably won't see this post since I am probably on your ignore list, so I guess you will just perpetuate your flawed reasoning. Anything and everything, reasonable, true or not, can impact Investor Sentiment. Most have impacts that are short in term, as we have seen here many, many times. I should have been clearer that meaningful, long term changes in sentiment require a singificant change in earnings (up or down) coupled with guidance that re-inforces the investor's point of view. We've had plenty of that since July earnings/conference call. Unfortunately it was all based on an interpretation (based on historical guidance to actual performance ratios) that no longer applied as before. I think the investment community has finally caught up to the change in guidance. So, should Apple exceed current expectations sentiment will get a healthy shot in the arm. This will be a long term shot in the arm and not a bandaid fix ala a buyback or increase in dividend. I have several on ignore, as I'm sure there are those that have me on ignore. I ignore ignorance, not a differing point of view.
|
|
|
Post by jeffi on Feb 9, 2013 15:43:46 GMT -8
My take on the cash issue. If companies sit on cash they don't need (allowing for capex, working capital, and safety cushion), they are worth less than they would be to investors on average - this is because such companies are equivalently forcing all investors to keep cash in the bank despite their variable risk appetites and cash requirements. Make the company fit more buyers and more shares will bought, thus higher value. Most commentators have failed to appreciate that the Einhorn proposal addresses precisely this, the inefficiencies inherent in a segmented market. It is not simply about releasing the cash for its own sake (otherwise the simpler dividend/buyback solutions would do). It is about carving out easily serviced and excess income for yield seekers with limited risk appetite. The fortunes of the common shareholders are tied to the company's ability to innovate, retain margins, etc - higher risk/reward. The pref holders are extremely well covered at $2b and more, so they get to sleep at night. Because markets are segmented and inefficient, the sum of the parts can be greater than the whole. Of courses, the proposal is really an extension of the dividend/buyback options. Effectively and efficiently, Apple would be paying out a dividend or buying back shares and then issuing new preference shares to re-raise the same sum. So Einhorn's saying "get the cash out so investors can allocate for themselves, then (in case you need your war chest) borrow in a way that can't bring you down". By issuing prefs to existing shareholders for nothing Apple skips a step. But I don't think Apple will (or needs to) adopt this proposal. Understanding why the proposal makes sense should wake the market up to Apple's untapped potential - and this on its own could be enough to unlock more value (beyond the recent rises off the back of this). +1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2013 15:44:08 GMT -8
What is apple doing with its cash this year?
Via Horace
@asymco: News from Japan: Apple will provide $9B capital investment in 2013 to - Toshiba Yokkaichi Memory - Japan Display LCD - Sharp LCD
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Feb 9, 2013 15:47:24 GMT -8
Europe is no growth frontier for Apple (up 11% YOY, though incidentally, it was a stronger sequential growth geography sequentially than the Amercias). Don't forget, the EU economies are...kind of spooked right now.
I'd be much more concerned with Apple not making headway in Greater China.
|
|
|
Post by jeffi on Feb 9, 2013 15:48:16 GMT -8
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Feb 9, 2013 15:51:23 GMT -8
What is apple doing with its cash this year? Via Horace @asymco: News from Japan: Apple will provide $9B capital investment in 2013 to - Toshiba Yokkaichi Memory - Japan Display LCD - Sharp LCD Pay the cash to build the factory with the sole purpose of producing the supply that Apple needs. The best kind of supply chain management, and a nice twist on "vertical integration". Bonus points, of course, for choosing friendlier suppliers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2013 15:55:10 GMT -8
Yes. It appears that there is less denial and a greater acceptance of reality. Unfortunately, it can be depressing... I think the most depressing thing I have seen this week is a chart of EU 5 mobile OS penetration, which had: - Symbian share plummeting (predictable) - Android share in a inverted-to-Symbian steep climb (surprising) to about 55% - iPhone share flat lining around 20%(disconcerting) The EU5 are the biggest 5 European economies - probably the most similar income demographic to the USA - why is the marketshare penetration so low is a relevant question at this time - these consumers are rapidly shifting to smartphones, but are overwhelmingly choosing android, when seemingly they could most likely afford an iPhone. Selling an ever increasing number of watermelons, at a loss, is not the path to success. As long as Android manufacturers continue to fight amongst each other, using price as their weapon of choice, Apple has nothing to fear. Dell started the price wars in his college dorm room. It worked just fine until component capacity caught up with, then exceeded demand. We've all seen the demise of a dozen or so PC manufacturers, Dell being the latest. Don't be fooled by the PR, when the dust settles from its out of view re-organization, Dell will be an enterprise supplier/service company half its current size. HP is headed the same way. When it comes to handsets you can already see the carnage among the "licensing" model manufacturers. Tons of share, no profits (corporate lifeblood). The only firm with a business model that can succeed alongside Apple is Blackberry. They are the only other manufacturer that controls their OS. Now if only they can create some traction in the market with what they are offering (unlikely at this point).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2013 16:17:25 GMT -8
Gregg - setting aside the debate on sentiment for the time being, what do you think they should be doing with the cash? Are you saying leave it alone and let it keep growing? Without knowing what management's options are for the use of the cash I haven't a clue. My preference is to have Apple accrue as much as is possible until the cost of the next big thing is known. Even then I think Apple should accrue twice the cost of the next thing, plus twice the safety net it is believed they need to weather the next down turn. A very smart man (was one of my directors) said "all plans, no matter how well researched, cost twice as much and take twice as long, to implement". I don't know what Apple's plans are for that cash, so I'm not going to presume to tell management what to do with it. Is it my business (even as a shareholder) to know what management's plans are? Yes and no. We hire Directors to oversee management's performance. Directors filter shareholder needs with the needs of the company. If we aren't satisfied we can change the board. It just takes a majority of shareholders to do so. I'll wager any amount that the Board is not changed at the next Shareholder meeting. That will put all the expanded buyback/dividend proponents in the minority of Shareholders on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by roni on Feb 9, 2013 16:24:11 GMT -8
I'll wager any amount that the Board is not changed at the next Shareholder meeting. That will put all the expanded buyback/dividend proponents in the minority of Shareholders on this issue. What is your evidence to support this statement?
|
|