Ralph Nader once again assails Apple’s stock buybacks

Multiple U.S. presidential campaign failure Ralph Nader “in a new interview, says Apple could have spent its cash pile on hiring, on pensions, or on stepped-up recycling programs, rather than on stock buybacks,” Stephen Silver reports for AppleInsider. “”

“Nader began by criticizing Apple for executing its $100 billion stock buyback in May without asking shareholders their opinion beforehand,” Silver reports. “‘It could have been used to increase employees,’ Nader said. “It could have been used to shore up the pension fund. It could have been used — two percent of it to double the income of the serf laborers, 1.3 million Chinese laborers in the contractor that builds the iPhones.”

Silver reports, “Nader continued. “‘It could have been put in productive investment, it could have been put in research and development. It could have been sent to cash dividends, back to the shareholders. But no.'”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: It could’ve been used to bottle unicorn farts which could’ve then been used to launch pies into skies all around the planet. But no.

SEE ALSO:
Ralph Nader’s open letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook demands suspension of $100 billion buyback plan; instead wants Apple to pay full year’s pay bonus to Foxconn workers, rec centers across the U.S., and more – May 12, 2018
Ralph Nader to Apple CEO Tim Cook: Pay other companies’ workers double and cut their hours in half – October 24, 2014

27 Comments

    1. I like what you have in your backyard and I want some. In fact, I think I’d like to take some. No, I plan to take some.

      Another version of the Bernie Buffett mindset.

      1. Of course he didn’t. He prefers his act instead. It’s a pretty lame act designed to play to the audience he thinks he has. It also reflects what little respect he has for any of you, including those who identify with his act.

      2. He can’t tend to his own business. Not only has he determined to know Apple’s biz better than Apple, he’s determind that Apple’s pie would be better “distributed” as he describes.

        Like referenced, he’s got his mind in someone else’s back yard, and he wants to serve up someone else’s bbq.

        The fact you don’t see the relationship increases the likelihood that you’re (whatever) liberally minded.

    2. If you are an investor, Cook is spending your money. Nader proposed that you, the investor, should have a greater say in the decision for a company to blow billions on stock games..er, buybacks, which have proved to be a very inefficient way to reward anyone. Neither investors nor employees nor consumers have truly benefited from Cook’s Wll Street fellation. Brokers just want Apple to pump up stock sale volume so they can cash in on the trades.

      Imagine how much Apple could have innovated by using the money to create new products, vertically integrate its direct competitors out of the value chain, or lower prices, or increase wages and dividends. That would drive a real supercyle.

      Instead, Nader wisely points out that Cook’s cycle is coasting into irrelevance. Cook doesn’t care, he knows he has more cash than he could ever use in a lifetime. Is that what you want, modern feudalism? Set up Lord Cook for life and allow no one else a say in anything?

      1. Very poor comment. Completely unsupported by facts or by the behavior of Apple’s shareholders/owners and the rational behavior of capital markets.

        Articulate bullshit is the best and most accurate way to describe your little rant.

      2. “Neither investors nor employees nor consumers have truly benefited from Cook’s Wll Street fellation. Brokers just want Apple to pump up stock sale volume so they can cash in on the trades.”

        If the stock goes up for the brokers, it goes up for all the people you deemed as idiots (investors, employees, consumers (consumers benefit from Apple’s profitability in other ways; increased R&D bring better/higher tech products, added employment via Apple direct and indirect expansion, etc).

        Your second para “imagine how”… Apple is doing all you mentioned. Have you read about the monstrous increase in R&D spending?

        Last para: you are throwing fake bombs into the audience. I’ll take Jobs any day, but Cook is building and successfully driving a mega business organism never yet seen before. One of the popular and respected financial pundits (relative, I know) used “growth” in combination of “value” when describing Apple. That’s more than uncommon and surely rare. Warren is a little smarter than me and he’s been heard saying he like to have all of his money invested in Apple.

        Warren is fallible, but do you think he’d want to put all of his $$ in the hands of someone who “doesn’t care.”

        I have a gut feeling it pisses you off when someone has made more $$ than you think “right.” One of our recent presidents thought the same way and he was a liberal too. He now owns a number of mansions and is rolling in $$ from book deals and has changed his mind about what’s “right.” “Win the lottery” and your mind will likely change too.

    3. Mr. Nader is economically ignorant.

      Firstly, buying back shares IS returning the money to the investors. . . All of an investor’s money is being redeemed when the stock is being repurchased. . . and then some.

      Secondly, the workers in China ARE NOT APPLE’S EMPLOYEES! It is not Apple’s place to give them wage increases, disrupting their employer’s contracts with its employees, or its employees that make products for over 500 other brands of consumer electronics.

      Apple could certainly make a gift of funds to its employees, but those funds are not Apple’s to gift to its employees. They would open the management to investor lawsuits for misuse of company funds that actually belong to the various share holders. . . and would raise the ire OF those shareholders for such misuse, and rightly so. The employees have already provided services for which they have been compensated and would be unlikely to provide any more services in exchange for the gift.

    1. All caps? Desperate for attention?

      A waste? A lot less so than the energy you consumed coming up with your baseless remark.

      If you knew anything about capital markets and the return of capital to owners, you might possess so thoughts worth considering, but you don’t and it’s obvious. I’m sure you can’t read a balance sheet or understand Apple’s capital foundation.

  1. Typical , liberal/left freeloading attitude..

    I dont have what you have … but im ‘ENTITLED’ to it… give me … subsidies me.

    ENTITLED being the F-ed up key word….

    Sympathy, compassion, are voluntary and nobel traits indeed and i encourage everyone to have an awarness of them and extend a hand… … … but when they becomes forced and get looked upon as ENTITLEMENT… ….. the only thing that i get urge to extend is my middle finger !

  2. A key meaning of Capitalism is that the corporation pays workers less than their labor is worth, so Nader’s thinking is egalitarian, hence correct.

    1. Is it your brlief that all people are equaly ambitious, productive, educated , knowledgeable talented, hardworking , conscientious, moral etc .. etc…

      If so ? you are living in this obliviouse zone called the Lala land …!?

      Goes along with the same idiotic notion that “making money with money is unethical.. “lol..a
      Quote from one of your previous out to lunch posts..

      1. I don’t think it’s necessarily a matter of expertise. Dingler is like a growing group in the US that likes, needs and wants the safety net, or the removal of challenges that socialism has long attempted to accomplish (they attempt the impossible, while using other’s resources).
        The greener grass seen in the Nordic countries and some in Europe is revered and many yearn for adoption here
        .
        It’s a critical point in history as Bernie et al, excite the taste buds for the never-ending, have-all-buffet. Free edu, health-care/medi-care, guaranteed job, mandated wages and or, universal basic income, is the hype of Cortez and her political father, Bernie. I hope they continue to be the visible spokes-people for the buffet.

    2. Capitalism pays the worker so they are “pleased” and the company is profitable. If the worker is displeased with the pay, they can get a job elsewhere. If the new place of employment, with better pay is sustainable, more employees will migrate from the other company and they will be forced to “pay-up” or falter and close. If the new companies’ pay level isn’t sustainable, the company folds, or lowers wage to “market levels.”

      If a company is seen as greedy, few will want to work there unless the return is something other than financial. If all one sees is greedy companies, don’t work for “the man”. Distinguish yourself with a good idea and, or service and make your own economic pay scale.

      Egalitarian economics is often based on an ideal that’s unrelated to the market-at-large. When the ideal and market aren’t aligned, have fun maintaining the ideal. It sounds nice, considerate and humane, but life isn’t and money rarely obeys anything but rules related to money. Btw, that statement has nothing to do with greed…for all those that think capitalism is so mean and selfish.

      Egalitarianism, by it’s nature operates from a centeralised point…someone is stating what’s a fair wage. 1st, who determines that number…an employer, employee, or politician? Those that favor egalitarianism wouldn’t chose the employer b/c they’re prone to be selfish and the employee has little clue…(that’s why they’re the employee). That leaves the politician, who thinks they know, but their decision isn’t based on a growing economy…just making the citizenry happy and pacified.

      Summary: You, Mr. Dingler, you might consider moving because you fancy centralized/statist living.

  3. Nader continues to show is complete lack of understanding of – well – just about everything.

    I invested in Apple stock – a MAJOR RISK mind you – in the hopes my already taxed, hard-earned money would see a payoff for my retirement in the far distant figure, or help pay off our house, or pay for some college for my kids.

    I take the risk, I want Apple to provide reward. I do NOT want Apple to give money away to some surf in China who is only going to help Red China become more powerful – the last thing I want to see!

    I want Apple to NOT bloat it’s company with useless employees. Proof Nader loves Government and bloat and is clueless to efficiencies.

    Rather, I want Apple to utilize it’s position to enhance the stock price, so my MASSIVE RISK I took in investing for future, my family, will pay off.

    What an idiot!

  4. ITS EASY
    Ralphy can EASILY PROVE his statements without needing pontificate from a soapbox and waste his precious breath

    He can just SHOW people how it can be done!

    Nader is a multimillionaire, he can just convince some like minded rich friends and START a FACTORY!
    he can apply all his principles, pay all the workers high wages (like 100k to the janitor or whatever) , f*ck the shareholders in his company (like those rich investor friends that help him start it) and so on and when that business becomes a booming success he would’ve proven he was right and thousands of other companies will follow him !

    see? EASY, why doesn’t he, like the sports ads say “JUST DO IT” ?
    i will await with bated breath….

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.