If you were in the business of private equity or hedge funds you would likely be very familiar with blocker corporations, as a means to protect investments from taxation.
The information you seek is easy to locate. There have only been a handful of traditional IRA accounts that have been reported to have assets in excess of $50 M. They all share the same basic qualities. Simple investment appreciation cannot account for the values of those accounts, but lhe use of specific strategies involving steps unavailable to most people can lead to such values.
Somehow, people that say that "this will be my last comment" come back for more.
Let's see if you can stay true to your word.
I did not say that a buyback was ill-advised. I'm not venturing a guess as to whether the buyback will result in higher share values or not.
The fact the money managers are scrambling to get shares is as sad a metric as I can imagine. I suppose that window dressing purchases should also then be a metric that we all use to gauge our own investments and direction?
If you recall, the same scrambling to get Apple into managed portfolios occurred at the first and third quarters of 2012.
Sadly, reading comprehension is not a criteria for commenting.
Romney's use of tax loopholes was widely criticized, even by members of his own party. Even after the primaries were done.
The point is that although they were legal, most agreed that what was done was wrong.
What Apple has done is legal, my contention is that it was wrong.
I agree and did say that we can never know what Steve Jobs would have done, but we did know his history and did have his 2010 comments, specifically on that topic, at a time that Apple had over $50 B in cash. To say that "Apple did not have the cash in 2010 that it does now" minimizes the fact that it had a substantial amount back then. True, not as much, but the same could be said for yesterday versus today.
I suppose that you are right in that I do receive some payment for the article, but if I were short Apple or had some misfortune, that's the sort of thing I would disclose.
No, I've been a happy investor for many years, having had some shares assigned last Friday and looking forward to picking up more if the price dips to the $410-420 level.
But again, you would have known that ha dthe reading comprehension part kicked in.
Of all of the various tax deferred accounts I've had, the SEP-IRA was my favorite, precisely for the higher contribution limits, as well as the almost unlimited investment options.
But no, according to reports, just a plain vanilla IRA, that he was able to fill with the kind of assets that most people could not and whose value was grossly understated, allowing him to simply pack more and more.
But as I mentioned in another comment, that even when using higher annual contributions and compounding the return for 30 years, you have to achieve an incredible rate of return to come close to $100 M. In the case of an annual $50,000 contribution for 30 years, you would have to achieve 29% a year.
The precise reason that Citizens United fought and subsequently won their case against the Federal Election Commission was specifically to lift campaign finance limits off corporations.
Why do you think corporations wanted that to be the case? That's right, so that they could easily manipulate, as you put it, "low information voters" The funny thing is that you believe liberals want to keep corporations dehumanized in order to do so and corporations want to be humanized to do so.
Quite a quandary?
Your theory on currency and inflation and how APple views their role in combatting is quite unique, too.
Well, they just pilled off the world's largest bond offering. That was notable.
I certainly didn't say that the strategy wasn't smart. I congratulated them for the manner in which they have done a bypass of the US Treasury.
No doubt, the government has the power to close loopholes. The will, however, is very different, especially made more difficult by the ability of corporations to have disproportionate impact on campaign financing.
It's amazing how in a congressional race a "donation" of as little as $10,000 (or less) can buy you an open door and ear for a full term in office. Once you get used to that money and are ready for re-election, you really do want to make certain your votes haven't done anything to displease your patrons, who just as quickly will give it to the next guy and tip the next election.
Society decides. We all have the capability and right to judge.
Two people may see things very differently even if beginning without subjectivity. However, when you ask your rhetorical question, you miss the entire concept.
Tim Cooks judgment may be influenced by his subjective experiences and personal ongoing interests. However, that doesn't necessarily make his judgment less or greater than my own on the specific issues being discussed.
The Federal Register can give you an idea of the various issues that come up that were never foreseen, seem to go counter to the intent of a given law, yet are not unlawful.
It is also part of the basis upon which the Supreme Court makes their decisions
Shame On You, Apple [View article]
The information you seek is easy to locate. There have only been a handful of traditional IRA accounts that have been reported to have assets in excess of $50 M. They all share the same basic qualities. Simple investment appreciation cannot account for the values of those accounts, but lhe use of specific strategies involving steps unavailable to most people can lead to such values.
Shame On You, Apple [View article]
Let's see if you can stay true to your word.
I did not say that a buyback was ill-advised. I'm not venturing a guess as to whether the buyback will result in higher share values or not.
The fact the money managers are scrambling to get shares is as sad a metric as I can imagine. I suppose that window dressing purchases should also then be a metric that we all use to gauge our own investments and direction?
If you recall, the same scrambling to get Apple into managed portfolios occurred at the first and third quarters of 2012.
How did that work out?
Shame On You, Apple [View article]
Romney's use of tax loopholes was widely criticized, even by members of his own party. Even after the primaries were done.
The point is that although they were legal, most agreed that what was done was wrong.
What Apple has done is legal, my contention is that it was wrong.
I agree and did say that we can never know what Steve Jobs would have done, but we did know his history and did have his 2010 comments, specifically on that topic, at a time that Apple had over $50 B in cash. To say that "Apple did not have the cash in 2010 that it does now" minimizes the fact that it had a substantial amount back then. True, not as much, but the same could be said for yesterday versus today.
I suppose that you are right in that I do receive some payment for the article, but if I were short Apple or had some misfortune, that's the sort of thing I would disclose.
No, I've been a happy investor for many years, having had some shares assigned last Friday and looking forward to picking up more if the price dips to the $410-420 level.
But again, you would have known that ha dthe reading comprehension part kicked in.
Shame On You, Apple [View article]
But no, according to reports, just a plain vanilla IRA, that he was able to fill with the kind of assets that most people could not and whose value was grossly understated, allowing him to simply pack more and more.
But as I mentioned in another comment, that even when using higher annual contributions and compounding the return for 30 years, you have to achieve an incredible rate of return to come close to $100 M. In the case of an annual $50,000 contribution for 30 years, you would have to achieve 29% a year.
Shame On You, Apple [View article]
Shame On You, Apple [View article]
The precise reason that Citizens United fought and subsequently won their case against the Federal Election Commission was specifically to lift campaign finance limits off corporations.
Why do you think corporations wanted that to be the case? That's right, so that they could easily manipulate, as you put it, "low information voters" The funny thing is that you believe liberals want to keep corporations dehumanized in order to do so and corporations want to be humanized to do so.
Quite a quandary?
Your theory on currency and inflation and how APple views their role in combatting is quite unique, too.
Shame On You, Apple [View article]
The only thing that amazes me is how often specific "sharks" come out. They must be very passionate.
Shame On You, Apple [View article]
Shame On You, Apple [View article]
I certainly didn't say that the strategy wasn't smart. I congratulated them for the manner in which they have done a bypass of the US Treasury.
No doubt, the government has the power to close loopholes. The will, however, is very different, especially made more difficult by the ability of corporations to have disproportionate impact on campaign financing.
It's amazing how in a congressional race a "donation" of as little as $10,000 (or less) can buy you an open door and ear for a full term in office. Once you get used to that money and are ready for re-election, you really do want to make certain your votes haven't done anything to displease your patrons, who just as quickly will give it to the next guy and tip the next election.
Shame On You, Apple [View article]
Thanks.
Shame On You, Apple [View article]
Actually, I don't believe unions should be able to have disproportionate impact on the electoral process through out-sized political contributions.
Shame On You, Apple [View article]
The use of various steps to minimize tax responsibilities, thereby increasing profits for example, simply shifts the burden.
When I make a profit selling stocks, I pay taxes according to the existing tax code. It's not a shade of gray, it's not fuzzy. It's black and white.
Shame On You, Apple [View article]
Two people may see things very differently even if beginning without subjectivity. However, when you ask your rhetorical question, you miss the entire concept.
Tim Cooks judgment may be influenced by his subjective experiences and personal ongoing interests. However, that doesn't necessarily make his judgment less or greater than my own on the specific issues being discussed.
Shame On You, Apple [View article]
Shame On You, Apple [View article]
The Federal Register can give you an idea of the various issues that come up that were never foreseen, seem to go counter to the intent of a given law, yet are not unlawful.
It is also part of the basis upon which the Supreme Court makes their decisions