or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Marvin

Choosing who to work with plays an important role as well as what to do. If you manage a stock fund for a billionaire, you can make more commission from a 1% gain than you could on a 10% gain for a fund with hundreds of low-level investors. You would be rewarded more for doing less simply by doing less with someone wealthy. Meg Whitman isn't rated as a very good CEO:http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst//most-underachieving-ceosbut she became a billionaire...
I don't think they purposely added having no tax jurisdiction as an incentive. An incentive is offering a low tax rate and one that would be available to multiple companies (including Irish companies). Apple employs a lot of people in Ireland theses days:http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/25pc-of-apples-european-workforce-based-in-cork-30487720.htmlbut this wouldn't have been the case when the business was setup.Just because something is legal at one point in time,...
That's not when the buyout would be done though, it could never be an overnight deal, it would take years. That's just to gain a majority shareholding. With majority control, external investors could implement some of the things I mentioned before to reduce income levels and make it appear to be a lower value investment. Then minority shareholders lose confidence, sell up their shares and they all get bought out to take it private. This could only begin to happen if iPhone...
Unless the new shareholders happened to be more in alignment with Apple's best interests but it's unlikely that people with that many assets would be.Apple wouldn't have to be in bad shape. Apple's valuation seems to be mostly based on future earnings and they aren't burning their cash quickly enough. If the iPhone started slipping in numbers like the iPad and the media piled on like what happened a while ago and the stock price fell to half, Apple could end up with assets...
When stock is bought back and not retired, it becomes treasury stock and doesn't have voting rights so the approval still lies with the shareholders:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasury_stockApple is retiring the stock so they have nothing after buying it back. They are paying out equity to existing shareholders, increasing EPS and making remaining shares worth more relative to the company, although depleting cash means remaining shareholders will own a larger portion of...
His last article was around the end of March but his dad passed away recently. His twitter says he decided to go touring Apple Watch stores in Europe until the end of April:https://twitter.com/danieleranMaybe he'll post some articles about his travels. If the following is his own picture, it looks like he's still in Paris:https://instagram.com/p/2QaTymTOxF/
With the 12" fanless Macbook internals, they'd be able to make a tablet Mac that ran all the desktop software. The MB is a bit heavier than the iPad 1 so it would need trimmed down but this would just need a UI reworking. Microsoft is trying to do this with Windows 10 so that it behaves like a responsive website where the UI just scales to different screen sizes. It's not so easy to do with complex software but it's worth considering because generations of people are being...
People shouldn't have to be smart to own complex devices. Apple made a decision to try and dissuade people using the watch for too long because your arm would get tired and software configuration will come into this. However, it means having to juggle a lot between the phone and the watch. You have to see what a Glance is showing to know it's going to be useful so you have to take out the phone, enable the Glance, let the watch update, check out the Glance on the Watch and...
That would be the route to go first: 50% plus 1 share to get a majority shareholding and then you control the company. They can still be sued by minority shareholders if they do something to mess up the company stock price on purpose but they can deliberately pay their full tax rates to drop income levels and the shareholders couldn't do anything about that. They could squeeze margins to grow unit volume at the expense of profits and they couldn't do anything about that...
The headphones make some money. It's not clear exactly how much. Last year the iPod + accessory line made $1.88b without Beats and iPod sales were falling ~50% YoY. If they did the same drop, iPods would be ~$230m lower. This year the iPod + accessory line made $1.689b so $191m lower. So the Beats addition hasn't countered that revenue drop much but the margins are likely a lot higher. From that revenue, it doesn't look like the headphone side would pay off the $3b anytime...
New Posts  All Forums: