Al Gore Sells $29.5 Million In Apple Stock (appleinsider.com)

That's a lot . . . by PeeAitchPee · 2017-02-25 01:04 · Score: 4, Funny

. . . of carbon credits!

Re: That's a lot . . . by dougdonovan · 2017-02-25 02:20 · Score: 1

ya gotta eat right al.

Being on a board of directors is good work by Cytotoxic · 2017-02-25 01:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

That's good work if you can get it. A couple of hours per quarter, and the company usually flies you in and puts you up in swanky digs and takes you out for expensive dinners.

And for the effort he managed to pull in some $60+ million in bonus incentives. Nice.

Although, given his history as a politician who complained of many things of "the rich", including CEOs making exorbitant salaries and bonuses..... Doesn't that make this..... I dunno, ironic seems inadequate.

Still, if you are looking for someone to sit on your board, I'll be happy to do it at half that rate!

Re:Being on a board of directors is good work by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-25 02:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

given his history as a politician who complained of many things of "the rich", including CEOs making exorbitant salaries and bonuses
They're called Limousine Liberals for a reason.
Re:Being on a board of directors is good work by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2017-02-25 03:20 · Score: 3, Funny

Still, if you are looking for someone to sit on your board, I'll be happy to do it at half that rate!
And I will do it for half your rate.
And I have 34 slashdot achievements, 5 more than the competitor's who is quoting double my price.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Re:Being on a board of directors is good work by TheFakeTimCook · 2017-02-25 03:34 · Score: 1

That's good work if you can get it. A couple of hours per quarter, and the company usually flies you in and puts you up in swanky digs and takes you out for expensive dinners.
And for the effort he managed to pull in some $60+ million in bonus incentives. Nice.
Although, given his history as a politician who complained of many things of "the rich", including CEOs making exorbitant salaries and bonuses..... Doesn't that make this..... I dunno, ironic seems inadequate.
Still, if you are looking for someone to sit on your board, I'll be happy to do it at half that rate!
Exactly. Which of us reading these words would pass on the opportunity?
Re:Being on a board of directors is good work by CanadianMacFan · 2017-02-25 04:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'd have to pass on the opportunity. There's no way I could sit on the board and quietly agree with the rest of them that Tim Cook is doing a great job. There are a number of problems that need addressing and I couldn't keep quiet about them, no matter how good the money was.
Re:Being on a board of directors is good work by Cytotoxic · 2017-02-25 05:00 · Score: 1

Didn't GM pay Ross Perot a couple of billion dollars to go away when he was on the board after they bought his company? Apparently there is "speaking your mind" and then there is "being $2 billion worth of annoying".
Also, good work if you can get it.
Re:Being on a board of directors is good work by Gavagai80 · 2017-02-25 07:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

Who could be better qualified to complain about the rich than one of them? If a poor person complains about the rich, they're just jealous.

--
This space intentionally left blank
Re:Being on a board of directors is good work by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-25 08:21 · Score: 1

Your story is one of those nice nuggets of half-truth, so easy to copy and paste until it becomes true.
Your conclusion is also garbage, as you're doing the damaging.
Re:Being on a board of directors is good work by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-25 10:52 · Score: 1

What you posted is not axiomatic, so it's pretty silly to ask *him* to google to validate *your* assertions in the fashion that you did. For the record, I'm not disagreeing, since with the exception of the A/C bit, I've heard about the rest through various outlets for me to consider it reliable. But what you just did is the same nonsense the Alex Jones/Infowars retards do. If it takes 5 minutes for him to google, it takes 6 minutes for you to quickly cite.
Re:Being on a board of directors is good work by Imrik · 2017-02-25 11:35 · Score: 1

You don't have to quietly agree with them, just make sure there's a clause that pays out when they get rid of you.
Re:Being on a board of directors is good work by lucm · 2017-02-25 11:54 · Score: 1

For the record, I'm not disagreeing, since with the exception of the A/C bit, I've heard about the rest through various outlets for me to consider it reliable.
that A/C thing was even caught on video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

--
lucm, indeed.
Re: Being on a board of directors is good work by Coren22 · 2017-02-28 09:58 · Score: 1

Watch the Al Gore and Hillary Clinton sex tape
I don't think they make enough eye wash for that.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:Being on a board of directors is good work by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2017-02-28 12:28 · Score: 1

, given his history as a politician who complained of many things of "the rich", including CEOs making exorbitant salaries and bonuses..... Doesn't that make this..... I dunno, ironic seems inadequate.
I don't get how it's hypocritical to favor economic policies that you consider moral/for-the-greater-good, even if they hurt you. Hell, the average libertarian would do worse in a libertarian state (why does it seem like libertarians I know are always the ones on unemployment?)

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!

Unjust by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-25 01:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

Director stock options are another unjust method of the one percent to take from everyone else while adding no value.

Re:Unjust by darthsilun · 2017-02-25 03:58 · Score: 4, Informative

Board Members are not employees.
Re:Unjust by JaredOfEuropa · 2017-02-25 05:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

In some cases it amounts to the appointed caretakers robbing the owners (shareholders). Sometimes the major shareholders are pension funds and large institutional investors and the like, being run by the same type of guys who do not mind awarding their pals such sums; it comes out of their clients' pockets so who cares. Sometimes they even sit on each other's Renumeration Boards (committees tasked with setting "fair" wages for C-levels and non-executive officers). I;ve seen one of those in action and it really amounted to one hand washing the other, to the point where even institutional investors put "overly generous exec renumeration" in their analysis of the company.

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Re:Unjust by lucm · 2017-02-25 08:12 · Score: 1

It only takes $500,000/year per household to be a one-percenter; this means that a couple of Silicon Valley engineers or Boston lawyers are in that bucket, and those are not people who typically have a seat on Fortune 500 boards or spend their weekends snorting coke lines on the bare ass of teenage prostitutes while shopping for Faberge eggs on eBay.
Maybe it's time for a more granular classification of the rich.

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:Unjust by Enigma2175 · 2017-02-25 11:07 · Score: 1

Yes, if you are looking at the 1% by income. However, the biggest issue isn't income inequality, it's wealth inequality. To be in the top 1% in wealth you need around $8 million in assets. Very few Silicon Valley engineers or Boston lawyers have that kind of kitty.
The issue with wealth inequality is that money makes even more money and so the bulk of money made tends to flow to the people who already have the money and so they end up with more and more of it while there are fewer and fewer dollars available to labor. This has been a bug in capitalism from the start but so far we have largely worked around it with progressive income taxes and inheritance taxes. However, as automation and AI make labor less relevant to production, more production ends up going to capital and less to labor. When it gets to the point that automation completely obviates the need for human labor, those that have capital and up to now have been accruing most of the gains will now own everything and those that only provide labor to the economic system will have nothing and have no means of making any money. Unless something fundamentally changes about the economic systems in the west this is going to be the endgame for most countries, a small number of people will own all the means of production and have all the power.
People like to think when it comes to this point the poor and disenfranchised will just rise up and do away with the rich like in the French revolution, but in an automated society this might not be possible. In the past, the armies that protect the rich were hard to manage because during a revolution they are more likely to identify with the poor people and the army might quickly turn on their paymasters. If production is fully automated you better believe the people who own it all will have vast killbot armies to protect their investment. It's one thing for the mob to go against an army that they might sway to their side, it's another to fight against a horde of machines. If any uprising were attempted a lot of people from the mob would die but nobody from the rich would die, just their robots - whose replacements are continually rolling off the assembly line.
We're approaching a tipping point past which the ultra-rich will control enough capital and have enough influence on the government that this scenario is almost guaranteed. We might already be past this point, the top 1% already have 40% of the wealth in the US and have tremendous influence over the government.

--
Enigma
Re:Unjust by ChrisMaple · 2017-02-25 11:40 · Score: 1

"Renumeration Boards" ... chuckle.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:Unjust by ChrisMaple · 2017-02-25 11:49 · Score: 1

In matters of exchange, justice is paying for what you get and getting what you pay for. Al Gore has beyond any possible doubt not provided any technical, organizational, business, or marketing expertise of any value to Apple. If legitimate guidance is what Gore is being paid for as a board member, it's not just.
So what is Gore's value as an Apple board member? Gore is politically connected, and his presence on the Apple board is a threat to Apple's competitors, an implicit promise that competitors of Apple can expect trouble from the government.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:Unjust by lucm · 2017-02-25 12:07 · Score: 1

The problem is not capitalism. The problem if the Federal Reserve giving money for free to big banks so those banks have no incentives to pay interests to people who want to have savings. The direct consequence is that investment banks are rewarded for taking risks, and institutional investors such as pension funds make riskier and riskier bets to merely beat the inflation and meet their annual benchmarks; they also pressure CEOs to focus on short-term profit, driving away the incentive for innovation and proper business strategy. Meanwhile, small investors are getting poorer and poorer, leaving less and less money to the next generation.
Look at what is happening in Japan: the demand for home safes is skyrocketing, as negative interest rates mean that people must pay to put money in the bank. How can normal people expect to build wealth over time if they can't have savings.

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:Unjust by darthsilun · 2017-02-25 13:02 · Score: 1

True, I should have written usually not employees. Al Gore is not an Apple employee.
Re:Unjust by darthsilun · 2017-02-25 13:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

s/Al Gore is not.../I think it's safe to say Al Gore is not.../
And as an Apple shareholder – indirectly through mutual funds in my 401k – I do object to sweetheart deals for selected individuals that rob me and other shareholders of the profits from our investments in the companies that do this..
Re: Unjust by david_thornley · 2017-02-27 06:39 · Score: 1

The problem is that shareholders can't exercise effective control. Mutual funds, for example, will almost certainly vote their holdings as the board recommends. The result is that the boards are largely independent entities exercising control. If shareholder votes actually mattered for things like compensation, I'd feel a lot happier about it.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Unjust by TheFakeTimCook · 2017-02-27 08:09 · Score: 1

Board Members are not employees.
Well, I must admit I mulled that over when I was writing that line, but just decided that they might actually be considered employees for purposes of taxing, etc.
Re:Unjust by TheFakeTimCook · 2017-02-27 08:27 · Score: 1

It's "remuneration", not "renumeration".

I know. Dyslexia sucks.
Re:Unjust by TheFakeTimCook · 2017-02-27 08:30 · Score: 1

Al Gore has beyond any possible doubt not provided any technical, organizational, business, or marketing expertise of any value to Apple.
And you know that how, exactly?

I'm not AlGore fan; but as far as he is out from politics these days, there must be another reason he's still on the board.
Re: Unjust by Plumpaquatsch · 2017-02-27 22:12 · Score: 1

TL;DR: Go fuck yourself.
Classy. Thanks. Can't argue with reasoning like that.
Since Apple is one of the most widely held stocks in 401(k) portfolios, ) , where does this voting you're talking about take place exactly?
Today, 28th of February, 9:00 AM PST, at 1 Infinite Loop in Cupertino, Town Hall (Building 4). The meeting, which is open to all shareholders of record on a first-come basis. Why do you ask?

--
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.

Stupid question by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-25 01:38 · Score: 1

How do your politicians, both left and right, so filthy rich? Is there even a single poor or middle class politician in the US?

Just wondering, since the rest of the story is not surprising. Of course, it's a good time to sell Apple stock now.

Re:Stupid question by reboot246 · 2017-02-25 03:10 · Score: 1

There are no poor politicians. The ones with less money than the millionaires are just getting started in their careers. Give them time and they'll be rich, too.
Re:Stupid question by jandrese · 2017-02-25 07:08 · Score: 1

While it's true that most politicians are millionaires, not all of them are.

--

I read the internet for the articles.
Re:Stupid question by Gavagai80 · 2017-02-25 07:32 · Score: 1

There are middle class politicans, like Bernie Sanders:.. and some politicians are in considerable debt, though it's fair to say you have to be rich to be in extreme debt: http://www.politifact.com/trut...

--
This space intentionally left blank
Re:Stupid question by Imrik · 2017-02-25 11:47 · Score: 1

I find the list suspicious as the "poorest" member of the senate has an estimated net worth of -$720k. The fact that he is able to borrow that much money makes me think that he is not actually that poor, which casts doubt on the rest of the list. My best guess is that the list is including mortgages without including the value of the property.
Re:Stupid question by ChrisMaple · 2017-02-25 12:12 · Score: 1

Getting rich in elective office requires that your office have enough power to sway laws in economically effective ways. That limits them to President, US Senators, US Representatives, many governors, some state senators and state representatives (or equivalent offices) and mayors of cities in proportion to their size. By influencing laws and the enforcement of regulations they either gain through scams like Gore's carbon credits or bribery. They are also open to bribes in making appointments.
Bribes can take the direct form of money, sex, property, or other gifts, or the indirect form of promises of do-nothing jobs after they leave office, or offering do-nothing jobs to family members (like Chelsea Clinton at NBC or Michelle Obama at a hospital in Illinois).

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:Stupid question by jandrese · 2017-02-27 10:13 · Score: 1

The article goes into some discussion about the limitations of the methodology involved, but a huge negative net worth isn't impossible. You could easily have a guy who used to have some money but then made some catastrophic bets on the stock or housing market and is now seriously under water. Or a family member may have gotten really sick and now he has typical medical debts to deal with.

--

I read the internet for the articles.

What does Apple get? by rmdingler · 2017-02-25 01:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

Since this is in no way a rare instance of a powerful man cashing in public clout for some private wealth, ask yourself what the corporations get in return.

A few hundred million in under priced stock options and bonus money for what? You may or may not like Apple, but they're not a stupid company. The value of a few meetings, a couple of favorable trade exceptions, and some lucrative government contract work probably more than covers this expense.

The really civilized thing is, we do almost all of our bribery above board these days.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

Ernest Hemingway

Re:What does Apple get? by tomhath · 2017-02-25 02:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

The really civilized thing is, we do almost all of our bribery above board these days.
Sometimes the money isn't a good investment. The Clinton Foundation went from collecting millions in donations from foreign nationals to layoffs in just a few weeks last fall.
Re:What does Apple get? by blind+biker · 2017-02-25 07:19 · Score: 1

This is what Apple gets:
President Obama and his administration today issued a veto on an International Trade Commission patent ruling that would have banned the import of some older models of the iPhone and iPad, dealing a blow to Samsung in its ongoing patent disputes with Apple.

--
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Re:What does Apple get? by guruevi · 2017-02-25 07:54 · Score: 1

Those foundations are just legal money laundering establishments. There never was any money in the foundation nor did it spend it on charity. The layoffs happen in response to a political need to save face but I you can be assured by the time Chelsey runs for office it will be twice the size to handle the "donations".

--
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Re:What does Apple get? by pipingguy · 2017-02-25 09:10 · Score: 1

Some might say that's an unpresidented result.

Sold at 1/5th original value? ummm... by fygment · 2017-02-25 01:51 · Score: 1

So when he acquired them they were worth ~ $500 ... and sold for ~$136. Must have read that wrong, yeah?

--
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.

Re:Sold at 1/5th original value? ummm... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-25 02:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

You missed that it said pre-split. In 2014 Apple stock had a 7:1 split so $502.68 was equivalent to buying at $71.81. What blow my mind is they let him buy director options for $7.48/share when they were worth $71.81. Must be nice being able to spend $441,000 to buy stock worth $4.2 million.
Re:Sold at 1/5th original value? ummm... by Plumpaquatsch · 2017-02-25 02:19 · Score: 3, Funny

So when he acquired them they were worth ~ $500 ... and sold for ~$136. Must have read that wrong, yeah?
Pst. I'll let you in on a secret Wallstreet doesn't want you to know about: It's called a 7:1 stock split.

--
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Re:Sold at 1/5th original value? ummm... by Megane · 2017-02-25 13:00 · Score: 1

Yeah, I wonder how that happened...

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }

And? by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · 2017-02-25 01:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

What's in there for us, mere mortals? The guy got lucky and earned 6800% on his investment, great. Now where are the stories of people losing money by investing in a bad stock?

Also, where would most people get $400K to invest in stock options when they have no spare money at all or even owe lots of money until they hit their late 50s?

Or is it a story about a super successful company which is known to have a cult status, which allows it to sell the same product year after year with minimal changes, yet earn billions? I don't understand.

Re:And? by damacus · 2017-02-25 03:47 · Score: 1

Technically, you don't *need* $400K to exercise the stock options. You can do an immediate exercise -> sell and just take the profits of the difference between the strike price and current price of the instrument. However, doing that means instant capital gains tax hit, and also if you think the stock will continue to do alright and/or you want to collect dividends, you've lost the opportunity to hold the stock - which *would* require the $400K outlay.
Re:And? by gnasher719 · 2017-02-25 04:56 · Score: 1

Technically, you don't *need* $400K to exercise the stock options.

What you usually do is you exercise your options, but you sell the exact amount that you need so that the sale covers the exercise cost and capital gains tax. You won't have to pay capital gains tax for the shares that you exercised but didn't sell.
Re:And? by MMC+Monster · 2017-02-25 05:18 · Score: 1

Someone who makes $26k a year starting out (with 3% cost of living raises) can retire with well over $1,000,000 if they do it properly.
Source: http://wisdomsreward.com/2014/...
tl;dr: Invest a little of each paycheck in a low expense ration total stock market index fund. Compounding interest over decades with get you back much more than you would expect.

--
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Re:And? by MMC+Monster · 2017-02-25 05:21 · Score: 1

That's Low Expense Ratio, not Ration.

--
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Re:And? by radl33t · 2017-02-25 05:37 · Score: 1

you can of course "invest" in options by buying them on the open market...
Re:And? by damacus · 2017-02-25 06:08 · Score: 1

Thanks for this response. I'm familiar with exchange-traded options but not employer-granted options. And, as I never exercise options, I hadn't fully considered strategies involving exercising them. Appreciate it.
Re:And? by Imrik · 2017-02-25 11:50 · Score: 1

Well, he exercised his option to buy, then held on to them for a few years as an investment.
Re:And? by ChrisMaple · 2017-02-25 12:25 · Score: 1

If you're married, that's two incomes for slightly increased expenses if you can refrain from knocking up your wife for a few years.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

Poor Guy. Guess He Needs the Money... by RobotRunAmok · 2017-02-25 01:52 · Score: 1, Troll

The Global Warming Carbon Credit Kickback Scam is not progressing as he thought it would...

Re:Poor Guy. Guess He Needs the Money... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-25 02:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

The Global Warming Carbon Credit Kickback Scam is not progressing as he thought it would...
Call it what you will, but it's a compromise because no one wants to do anything about global warming if it comes out of their own pockets.
But one way or another, we will pay for it. And as time goes on while very little is done, the costs will be grow and become ever more expensive.
Even with the Free Markets making changes (green energy, EVs, etc...) there will be pain for the average folks as the climate gets worse. It's already happening.
In other words, any criticisms or "skepticism" by folks who are completely unqualified to be skeptics; resistance; pointing of fingers are developing countries who mistakenly insist that they have to use fossil fuels to develop; and other distraction nonsense in this issue is completely and utterly irrelevant.
You and your opinion are irrelevant.
Things are happening and it's just a question of where one wants to be when the shit hits the fan.
Re:Poor Guy. Guess He Needs the Money... by RobotRunAmok · 2017-02-25 02:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sure, but when you are racking up $30K utility bills at your Tennessee estate you can blow through your millions pretty quickly...
Re: Poor Guy. Guess He Needs the Money... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-25 03:05 · Score: 1

You just mailed the problem with American science education on the head. Most Republicans never made it to 5th grade, apparently.
Re: Poor Guy. Guess He Needs the Money... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-25 03:23 · Score: 2, Funny

Are those the same fifth graders who write Trumps' speeches?
Re: Poor Guy. Guess He Needs the Money... by Joce640k · 2017-02-25 03:48 · Score: 1

ISIS is taking your jobs!!!

--
No sig today...
Re:Poor Guy. Guess He Needs the Money... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-25 04:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

It also requires a 5" main to his house, which is why 80% of
rural Tennessee does not enjoy natural gas to their homes.
CAP === 'confers'
Re:Poor Guy. Guess He Needs the Money... by knightghost · 2017-02-25 04:16 · Score: 1

we will pay for it
How much and what are the options? Measure it.
One example of little cost but a lot of benefit is the Fed raising flood insurance rates 5% + inflation every year until they are out of the business.
Another is to quit bailing out states for storms. I was in NJ when Sandy hit and 99% of the damage was self induced - they refused to cut trees away from power lines. Guess what happened? Thousands of down lines and power out for weeks. Something they've finally been intelligent enough to restart is putting barriers between ocean and houses.
Re:Poor Guy. Guess He Needs the Money... by Hognoxious · 2017-02-25 09:47 · Score: 1

Meteorological predictions become more accurate the further out, or less?

What's meteorology got to do with climate?

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Poor Guy. Guess He Needs the Money... by ChrisMaple · 2017-02-25 11:00 · Score: 1

I'm certainly not going to pay for this alleged global warming. Every Fahrenheit degree warmer saves me about $30 per year in heating bills.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re: Poor Guy. Guess He Needs the Money... by tehcyder · 2017-02-26 21:47 · Score: 2

what do you mean qualified. any 5th grade science student can tell you global warming is a hoax
I'm rather more interested in the opinion of actual adult scientists.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re: Poor Guy. Guess He Needs the Money... by Coren22 · 2017-02-28 09:43 · Score: 1

Personally, I would rather that they not put their opinions in their work, that isn't how science works.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Re:He should sell the remainder... by Plumpaquatsch · 2017-02-25 02:03 · Score: 1

If he's smart, since Apple's revenues have been losing momentum. The last quarter's numbers were pretty disappointing, after adjusting for the extra week.

Compared to what exactly?

--
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.

Re:He should sell the remainder... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-25 02:07 · Score: 1

Bank stock prices were pretty high in october 2007, but that didn't reflect reality. Perhaps you're a believer in rational market theory and similar religions?

Pres run by mattdunelm · 2017-02-25 02:15 · Score: 1

And now he's got the funding for Gore 2020. Yay!

Re:Pres run by ChrisMaple · 2017-02-25 12:32 · Score: 1

Al Gore will be 76 in 8 years. That's pushing it, even compared to Reagan and Trump at age 70 upon taking office.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

Gotta pay for those private jets some how. by Edweirdo · 2017-02-25 02:28 · Score: 1

I'm sure it is all to help save the polar bears.

--
Life is too short and too important to { take seriously | use windows }.

News for Nerds ? by Crashmarik · 2017-02-25 02:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

This isn't even front page material for Yahoo Finance.

Re:News for Nerds ? by RobotRunAmok · 2017-02-25 02:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's a clumsy and back-handed attempt to gin up an Alarmist vs. Denier thread, which is the only reliable source for pageviews slashdot has these days. C'mon, play along...!

Re:What does Apple get? - Stability, sanity, by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-25 02:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

What Apple gets is simple. Stability, sanity and some level of honesty in the face of huge temptation and fear.

You only have to look at Nokia to see what can happen if the wrong people get onto the board of a company. Somehow or other, the Nokia board managed to convince its self that a company which had managed to survive multiple revolutions in mobile communications was best led by a man who had failed repeatedly to build mobile success at Microsoft. The results are well known (image from this article).

Why the did this I have no idea. Panic? Bribes? Stupidity? There has been no clear criminal investigation when there should have been but it seems they were just taken in by fear and a smooth talking failure in Elop. Still, the point is that now Apple may be in a similar situation. They have various long term technologies which won't pay off immediately. Nokia was doing Meego, it's own independent touch screen OS; Apple is doing it's own smart phone chips. They will now be under pressure from Chinese rivals and will go both down as well as up. If you keep working on these technologies you will survive and profit but you are very likely to suffer some relative decline even so. If your board panics and changes everything to try to force growth in a market where there is no more space, you may lose everything that you already have.

No idea if Gore is the right guy, however I know how much could be lost if he's the wrong one. Apple's profits, around $40Billion yearly, are more than ten times Nokia's. Imagine those disappeared in two years because Apple became involved in someone like Microsoft and brought in someone like Elop.

Re:He should sell the remainder... by v1 · 2017-02-25 02:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

regardless of whether or not this was the optimal time to sell, you can't buy groceries with stocks. Gotta cash out at some point. He's just decided he's ready to quit growing his money and start spending it.

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.

Funny how conservatives hate success by hyades1 · 2017-02-25 02:55 · Score: 1

I read through some of the comments on this story, and I couldn't help but notice there were quite a few that related Gore's politics and finance. None gave him any credit at all for financial acumen.

Yet not only did Gore make a lot of money by accepting (at the time cheap) stock for sitting on Apple's board, he made 'way more when he and another guy started up Current TV. Gore built it up and wound up selling it for major bucks.

So basically, Gore showed real financial chops. But because he's an unapologetic liberal and environmentalist, there's all kinds of sniping about private jets and save the whales by the same people who venerate Donald Trump. Yet Trump's main claim to fame is the number of times he's declared bankruptcy in ways allowing him to screw contractors over without losing any of his own money.

--
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.

Re:Funny how conservatives hate success by ooloorie · 2017-02-25 03:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

I read through some of the comments on this story, and I couldn't help but notice there were quite a few that related Gore's politics and finance. None gave him any credit at all for financial acumen.
Financial acumen? Gore got rich the same way Clinton did: by translating his political power, political advocacy, and connections into money.
If you get rich legally before you enter politics, that shows that you can succeed by producing stuff people want. If you get rich after you leave high government office, it strongly suggests that you are a corrupt fraud. Gore clearly did the latter.
Re:Funny how conservatives hate success by cheesybagel · 2017-02-25 03:15 · Score: 1

You're assuming that said person wasn't born into the connections like Trump was. Or Gore for that matter, his father was in politics too.
Re:Funny how conservatives hate success by hyades1 · 2017-02-25 04:40 · Score: 1, Insightful

Wrong. Gore made all the right moves, especially with Current, and conservatives hate him for walking the walk. Meanwhile Trump, their anointed god, made a fortune by ripping off hard-working small businessmen in a series of planned bankruptcies made possible through laws enacted by crooked politicians bought and paid for by people like Trump.

--
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Re:Funny how conservatives hate success by Notabadguy · 2017-02-25 04:42 · Score: 1

I read through some of the comments on this story, and I couldn't help but notice there were quite a few that related Gore's politics and finance. None gave him any credit at all for financial acumen.
Yet not only did Gore make a lot of money by accepting (at the time cheap) stock for sitting on Apple's board, he made 'way more when he and another guy started up Current TV. Gore built it up and wound up selling it for major bucks.
So basically, Gore showed real financial chops. But because he's an unapologetic hypocrite, there's all kinds of sniping about private jets and save the whales by the same people who venerate Donald Trump. Yet Trump's main claim to fame is the number of times he's declared bankruptcy in ways allowing him to screw contractors over without losing any of his own money.
Fixed that for you.
Re:Funny how conservatives hate success by Notabadguy · 2017-02-25 04:46 · Score: 1

I should add that FWIW, my stance on environmentalism is such that I wish (for example) that police would fingerprint or DNA litter, then fine the owners. Or that if I saw someone throwing a cigarette butt out of their window, it was legal for me to get out of my car, retrieve their cigarette butt, and put it out in their eyeballs.
That doesn't make me see Al Gore as any less of a douche than he is.
If everyone would stop speculating what they think OTHER people with opposing views would think as a means to build a strawman argument about how smart they are and how stupid people with opposing political views are....this conversation wouldn't be so hard to read.
Re:Funny how conservatives hate success by Notabadguy · 2017-02-25 10:18 · Score: 1

What makes you think the majority of litter is assholes throwing shit out their window? Most of the litter I've seen on my 50 mile commute has been waste management vehicles with improperly secured gates or tops, or just degraded tops to the point where there are huge holes. These vehicles leave miles-long "comet tails" of debris in their wake that are very annoying to drive through and hazardous to paint and windshields.
Not to mention the possibility of high winds at the landfill before a particular segment gets covered again.
My stance on environmentalism is that I would like its advocates to live by their advice. For instance, if they advocate that I should eschew plane travel to reduce carbon footprint, they should not do it from conferences that they reached by traveling by plane, especially not by private jet. Otherwise, my suspicion is that they want me to suffer to preserve their playground.
Fine fine. You can have the point on the "majority" of litter, as long as I can still pick up the smoldering butts that people throw out their window and extinguish them in their eyeballs.
Re:Funny how conservatives hate success by Imrik · 2017-02-25 11:53 · Score: 1

Gore just cut out the middleman and passed the laws himself.
Re:Funny how conservatives hate success by sysrammer · 2017-02-25 11:57 · Score: 1

Or inherited a hell of a good chunk.
I don't have any real issues with someone getting rich after they leave govt office, as you stated. As someone else mentioned once, it just means they're smart, right?

--
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Re:Funny how conservatives hate success by ooloorie · 2017-02-25 14:51 · Score: 1

I don't have any real issues with someone getting rich after they leave govt office, as you stated. As someone else mentioned once, it just means they're smart, right?
Al Capone was smart. Joseph Stalin was smart. Hitler and Goebbels were smart. Getting money and power through being smart is not intrinsically a good thing.
Getting money and power through voluntary exchanges is a good thing; often the people who do that happen to be smart, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient.
Re:Funny how conservatives hate success by ooloorie · 2017-02-25 14:57 · Score: 1

Wrong. Gore made all the right moves, especially with Current, and conservatives hate him for walking the walk.
Current TV was a commercial failure. Gore bet on his government connections, his name recognition, and a big influx of money from foreign dictators.

made possible through laws enacted by crooked politicians
Yes, indeed. Crooked politicians like Gore for example.
Re:Funny how conservatives hate success by hyades1 · 2017-02-26 03:54 · Score: 1

Wrong again. Current made a lot of money, and Gore sold it at a huge profit.
Conservatives really do hate people who succeed without cheating! I guess it makes them feel like they can't keep up when the playing field is level.

--
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Re:Funny how conservatives hate success by ooloorie · 2017-02-26 04:01 · Score: 1

Wrong again. Current made a lot of money, and Gore sold it at a huge profit.
Current TV was a financial failure, and Gore made his money by selling it to a Qatari prince. His Apple stock, incidentally, came from him being put on their boards of directors, also because of his name recognition.

Conservatives really do hate people who succeed without cheating! I guess it makes them feel like they can't keep up when the playing field is level.
Al Gore was born with a silver spoon in his mouth; he made his fame and fortune as a politician; and afterwards, he translated his political power into financial success.
Your idea that this is "succeeding without cheating" just shows how morally bankrupt, economically ignorant, and hypocritical you are.
Re:Funny how conservatives hate success by tehcyder · 2017-02-26 23:59 · Score: 1

Yes, but people still use the "he must be clever/good because he's rich" argument about Trump. As you say, it proves nothing. Someone who is rich has money, there is nothing more to it than that.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Funny how conservatives hate success by ooloorie · 2017-02-27 01:45 · Score: 1

Yes, but people still use the "he must be clever/good because he's rich" argument about Trump. As you say, it proves nothing.
I said no such thing. What I said was: "Getting money and power through voluntary exchanges is a good thing"
That is, Trump got rich in the market (good), while Gore and Clinton got rich through being politicians (bad).

Re:He should sell the remainder... by TheFakeTimCook · 2017-02-25 03:21 · Score: 1

If he's smart, since Apple's revenues have been losing momentum. The last quarter's numbers were pretty disappointing, after adjusting for the extra week.

Apple: Proudly going out of business for nearly a half century!

Re:He should sell the remainder... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-25 03:37 · Score: 2, Informative

God damnit it's AAPL not APPL!

What idiot wrote this article? by gnasher719 · 2017-02-25 03:41 · Score: 2

So al Gore sold lots of Apple shares. Someone wanted to appear smart and wrote "sold 215,437 shares of Apple stock (APPL)"

Apparently that idiot isn't aware that APPL is a long defunct oil company that hasn't traded for many years. Apple's stock symbol is AAPL.

Obligatory by Nidi62 · 2017-02-25 03:43 · Score: 1

$29.5 million? Think how many Manbearpig hunting expeditions that could fund!

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil

Re:He should sell the remainder... by MisterSquid · 2017-02-25 03:48 · Score: 1

If he's smart, since Apple's revenues have been losing momentum. The last quarter's numbers were pretty disappointing, after adjusting for the extra week.

Compared to what exactly?

As compared to the same period in the previous year. (via)

--
blog

Record highs by hackwrench · 2017-02-25 04:28 · Score: 1

In Indiana, they've had a record number of days in the 60s in February: https://www.bing.com/search?q=...

Re:Record highs by lucm · 2017-02-25 07:54 · Score: 1

Anyone who mentions this kind of micro-trend is adding noise to the discussion instead of helping people understand the real issues with global warming.

--
lucm, indeed.
Re: Record highs by lucm · 2017-02-25 09:39 · Score: 1

Higher number of warmer days means global warming is real.
Wrong. Here's how weather works: there's always going to be places/times where temperature will be higher or lower than average for a while, even months or years, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't prove or disprove global warming.
The science at this point indicates a near-certainty that there's actually a global warming situation, and that it's more likely than not to be caused by man (yes, those are different issues with a different level of certainty). While this has an almost certain impact on the planet (such as water level rising), it's not an increase in temperature that people can directly experience; we're talking about 0.85 Celsius, so it's not something that can explain a colder or warmer season.
But here's another thing about weather: because we're talking about extremely long periods of times in any given indicator, there's no certainty about actual patterns because there hasn't been enough instances of those indicators. For instance, based on past trends, we should already have been experiencing a new ice age more than a century ago (before man could actually do enough harm to impact weather). And yet, we're not covered by miles of ice, so trends can only help us to a point.
What we need as a species is people who think long term and find ways to slowly evolve our technology and lifestyle in a way that favors survival; what we don't need is idiots who confuse everyone with their ill-informed opinions that a mild winter in Cleveland is proof of global warming or that a cool summer in Atlanta proves that there's no such thing. So if you're not willing to educate yourself, the best you can do is remove yourself from the conversation because you're just giving ammo to the other side when you make ridiculous claims, whichever side you are.

--
lucm, indeed.
Re: Record highs by david_thornley · 2017-02-27 06:33 · Score: 1

Yeah, and a record number of warm days in India in one month means approximately nothing. Years of breaking high-temperature records worldwide is significant.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Because he forced us to pay him millions by raymorris · 2017-02-25 04:45 · Score: 1, Insightful

> How do your politicians, both left and right, so filthy rich?

In Gore's case, he wasn't filthy rich when he started. As a Senator, he sponsored a law forcing companies to buy something called "carbon credits" (pieces of paper) from another company called an "exchange". Guess who owned the exchange? Before that, he had hundreds of thousands of dollars, his carbon exchange made hundreds of millions by legally forcing people to buy his product.

You might ask how he got away with that. The key is, the whole time he whined about "big business" and polar bears. As long as a politician whines about big bad business people, they're allowed to do whatever they want.

More seriously, we pick a team & don't pay att by raymorris · 2017-02-25 04:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

I joked that politicians can do anything they want as long as they complain about big business while they do it.

The more serious explanation, I think, is that most Americans just pick a party or politician as their "team", then move on to other things. Most don't spend a lot of time, or have the inclination, to carefully watch what "their" politicians do after they are elected. Their attention span is just long enough to root for their favorite team/player, not enough to actually see what the politician is doing. So whoever originally decided they like Hillary, or Trump, or Gore, is unlikely to later hold them accountable for their actions. Once a majority of Americans "like" you, once they are rooting for you, you can do whatever you want with little consequences.

This is how Corruption works! by chewie2010 · 2017-02-25 05:29 · Score: 1

Why is no one mentioning this is how our corrupt power structure works? If a prime minister in Russia or South America becomes rich we all raise our eyebrows. Not with Al Gore! The nobler the cause the bigger the corruption.

Go Gore! by Highdude702 · 2017-02-25 05:43 · Score: 1

GORE 2020! O.o

Good job by ch-chuck · 2017-02-25 06:31 · Score: 1

Payoff for work well done - guess the Apple programmers really dig his Al Gore Rhythm.

--
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }

Re:He should sell the remainder... by Plumpaquatsch · 2017-02-25 06:31 · Score: 1

If he's smart, since Apple's revenues have been losing momentum. The last quarter's numbers were pretty disappointing, after adjusting for the extra week.

Compared to what exactly?

As compared to the same period in the previous year. (via)

Ahh, so not compared to the lame quarters of the competition.

--
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.

Re: He should sell the remainder... by coastwalker · 2017-02-25 06:33 · Score: 1

And therein lies precisely the problem, they make a lot of money out of cell phones and if you ask Apple or Motorola if that is the market to be in you will find the answer is no. So Apple have no new products and are about to go over the cliff. No wonder he sold his stocks.

--
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.

Re:What does Apple get? - Stability, sanity, by Goldsmith · 2017-02-25 07:03 · Score: 1

This is a nice textbook version of what a board should do, but this is not nearly all of what boards do. It's also a very simplified version of what went wrong at Nokia, which started well before Elop (he historically terrible anyway).

Yes, you need the board to give advice and help steer a company, but there are a LOT of other ways you can get that advice. You have a limited number of board seats to fill, so each seat necessarily does more than just give advice. The strategy of how to approach these various technical and business challenges is being developed and vetted by different people than the board.

Each board member is there to also do something else such as provide voting support for management or certain investors, provide important connections, provide credibility that would otherwise be lacking, etc. Selecting the CEO of the company is going to fall to a small subset of the board with experience in that area (not Gore's strength). It is normal to see politicians on boards, particularly when company strategy depends significantly on government actions.

From one point of view, it is... disappointing that politicians are so highly compensated to represent companies. That's probably due to the mythology we have built around our greatest politicians.

From another point of view, there are a very limited set of people who can provide the kind of insight into the way government works, and the kind of credibility in interactions with the government that Al Gore can provide. There is real value in those skills, and it seems there are not many people who compete at Gore's level. Logically, we should want our companies and our government to work well together and understand each other.

Re:He should sell the remainder... by lucm · 2017-02-25 07:56 · Score: 1

God damnit it's AAPL not APPL!

Chill out or you'll have to throw away another pair of underwear.

--
lucm, indeed.

Re: He should sell the remainder... by lucm · 2017-02-25 08:01 · Score: 1

The gadgets only work because of the development tools that allow developers to make compelling software for those gadgets. And those tools run on Apple's computers.

Mac isn't going anywhere, any time soon. As long as the Mac business is anywhere close to break-even, Apple keeps it around due to the absurd profits generated by iOS. And Mac makes a profit.

That's not how it works. The only reason a well-managed company keeps a break-even product line is if it helps another product line by allowing them some kind of economy of scale in deals with vendors. For instance, that's why Dell is still selling laptops and desktops: so they can get lower prices for their server components.

The day Apple can no longer use their computer sales to get better prices for their iPhone components, they'll drop the line. That's obvious when you see how stale their hardware and software design has been on Macs for a long time now, they're just milking it.

--
lucm, indeed.

Re:More seriously, we pick a team & don't pay by pipingguy · 2017-02-25 09:09 · Score: 1

"Most don't spend a lot of time, or have the inclination, to carefully watch what "their" politicians do after they are elected."

I know! That's why all elected officials should be wearing body cams with audio 24/7 with the feed live-uploaded where anyone can tune in at any time! Can I have my billion dollar consulting check now?

Ex: Holding "Hillary" sign, can't name anything by raymorris · 2017-02-25 09:45 · Score: 1

I'm going to mention one clear example of what I'm talking about. This isn't at all limited to one party, I'm just going to use Hillary's name as an example:

Many of us have probably seen video clips where someone goes to a political rally or whatever and asks people who are holding signs with a politician's name, or wearing a "Hillary" shirt, a question something like this:

"Hillary is very experienced, she's been involved in politics for 30 years; what's something she's done that you like?"

Of course the answer, from someone holding a "Hillary for President" sign, is something like this:

Person holding sign: 30 years?
Interviewer: Yes. What do you like that she's done?
Person holding sign: Oh uhm ... She supports women!
Interviewer: Yeah, okay. What's something she's done to support women?
Person holding sign: Um
Interviewer: Like when she supported Paula Jones, that was good, right?
Person holding sign: Yeah, she supported Paul and Joan.

That's typical, it seems. Not just Clinton supporters, but Trump supporters too, a majority of the country can't even name the vice president.

Re:He should sell the remainder... by Hognoxious · 2017-02-25 09:52 · Score: 1

I heard he's a big fan of headphone sockets.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Re:He should sell the remainder... by Imrik · 2017-02-25 11:33 · Score: 1

Generally you will sell off only a small portion of your stocks for income unless you either need the money for something large or think the stock will underperform.

Re:He should sell the remainder... by amiga3D · 2017-02-25 11:39 · Score: 1

Given that he's on the board I take this as a sign that if you have a lot of Apple stock it might be time to start selling it off. People like Al get the word way ahead of everyone else.

Re:Bet he's glad he invented the internet! by CaptainDork · 2017-02-25 14:23 · Score: 1

I get this all the time.

When I do, I hit mother fuckers like you with eight links from other fact-checking sites that support the same position as snopes.

So fuck you.

--
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.

Re: He should sell the remainder... by thebullshitpatrol · 2017-02-25 16:33 · Score: 1

So the entire industry is transitioning towards tablets and cell phones that can host a full desktop environment, and you're suggesting that they will just cash out and continue selling regular smartphones?

Apple has patents that predate Windows 8 and Ubuntu Mobile (unity 8 as a concept too?) for a universal touchscreen + desktop UI, that would mark the unification of OSX and iOS. The only reason they aren't making a move is because they know iOS is their golden boy, and making the move now would be self-cannibalism. Steve Jobs apparently pushed for the iPad to be a small mac rather than a large iphone, which makes absolute sense.

Someone needs to light a fire under their ass though, the most recent product cycle was mediocre. Hackintosh is the only option for anyone that actually wants an upgrade.

You'll find me first in line to buy such a device. Phones and tablets just don't fucking do anything.

I doubt he needs the money by Trogre · 2017-02-25 21:08 · Score: 1

I hear Google are investing a lot in AI these days.

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife

Re:Very nice rules the right has set up. by quenda · 2017-02-26 02:26 · Score: 1

Next time click "options" and try the the "code" comment mode, so it does not eat your whitespace indents. <quote><tt> if (you make money){</tt><tt> if (you agree with the far right {</tt><tt> you are the smartest latest and greatest person;</tt><tt> Everyone must worship you.</tt><tt> } else {</tt><tt> you are a limousine liberal and a complete hypocrite</tt><tt> }</tt><tt> }else{</tt><tt> if (you agree with far right){</tt><tt> you are to be admired for believing in American dream etc etc</tt><tt> } else {</tt><tt> you must be dumb, because you didn't make money. </tt><tt> Probably consumed by envy and fomenting class warfare</tt><tt> You Enemy number 1 of America.</tt><tt> }</tt><tt> }</tt></quote>

Re: Bet he's glad he invented the internet! by Plumpaquatsch · 2017-02-27 21:02 · Score: 1

https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/07/31/bye-bye-snopes-youre-dead-to-me-now/

Plenty of evidence that they produce lots of partisan garbage.

You know you are in trouble when you have to quote a site by a self-proclaimed ethicist (who just happens to be a lawyer). Especially when that ethicist has to use selective quotes to come to his conclusion.

--
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.

Slashdot Mirror

Al Gore Sells $29.5 Million In Apple Stock (appleinsider.com)

120 of 198 comments (clear)