With more than $70B in cash, Apple could buy Nokia, RIM, HTC & Motorola

1910111315

Comments

  • Reply 241 of 290
    jasenj1jasenj1 Posts: 923member
    Oh, what the heck, this looks like a fun thread to jump in to late.



    The shareholders own Apple. If Apple has a huge pile of money, that money belongs to the shareholders. At some point the shareholders will get frustrated that the Apple BoD has a huge amount of their (the shareholders') money locked up in cash equivalents and demand a) a special dividend to cut down the huge pile of money or b) an ongoing dividend to slow the growth of the huge pile of money.



    As long as Apple's stock price grows at a rate higher than the prevailing market and what the shareholders believe they can get from investing that huge pile of money themselves, they will be happy to let Apple hold onto it for them. Steve Jobs has also mentioned that Apple's management likes having a huge pile of money so they can buy things that will generate profit - other companies, negotiate prices on components, etc. Apple's pile of money gives it great leverage when dealing with other business entities. That's a nice place to be.



    Apple can afford to take on projects with huge start-up costs that others would not be able to. Need to license music & movies from all the studios? Stroke a check. Need to send up your own satellite network? Stroke a check. Need to establish a moon base? Stroke a check.



    Also, Apple is in markets that are extremely fickle. For all its technical prowess, the iPhone is subject to the whims of fashion and the masses. Nokia or Samsung or anyone else could come out with a product that dethrones the iOS devices at any time. Yes, Apple has sold a zillion devices, but that sales rate could dry up very suddenly. Apple/Steve likes having a cushion to keep the company going developing new products should that sales popularity ever dry up suddenly.



    Someone also posted that Apple could be holding onto the cash as some sort of insurance for when Steve dies. That's interesting. I expect the stock will tank when Steve passes. Unless he can pull a Bill Gates and fade into the background, but that doesn't seem his style. When that happens, the pile of cash could/should cushion that fall - could AAPL fall to less than their cash value? Many other companies trade there if the outlook for future sales is dim. I don't see much value in a buy back, though.



    Other than for their patent portfolios, I don't see any value in Apple buying any of their competitors. I'm sure they can license any patents they require for far less than taking on the burden of a whole company - and why would they want to?



    As a shareholder, I've been happy with my AAPL returns. So they can hold onto my money for now. I may even give them some more of it.



    - Jasen.
  • Reply 242 of 290
    jasenj1jasenj1 Posts: 923member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by REC View Post


    Ok where to start...



    [big snip]



    There's a bunch of these sorts of things we could do in the US that can't be outsourced that could put people to work physically making things for decades to come. But there's no way Obama (as much as he might want to) could get this sort of initiative through congress as long as the deficit-obsessed obstructionist Republicans are in charge. The choice is actually very simple for people, do they want to solve the jobs problem or do they want to solve the debt and deficit? It's not possible to do both right now, one will come at the cost of the other. I say solve the jobs issue now and worry about the debt later, but I realize this probably won't happen as it's politically unpopular.



    The US happens to have two - maybe three, if you count Libya - vey expensive wars going on. Bring that money home and put shovels in people's hands instead of guns. There have been lots of stories about the USA's failing bridges & roads. Let the feds pour dollars into those sorts of projects rather than shooting expensive missiles, etc. But my cynical opinion is that the military-industrial complex holds way too much power to let that happen.



    - Jasen.
  • Reply 243 of 290
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jasenj1 View Post


    Need to establish a moon base?



    They already have one - that's where they found the iPhone.



  • Reply 244 of 290
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Here again...I suggest a little more study for you in this area.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    A bit of advice: Avoid trying to pontificate on subjects you obviously know nothing about. It make you look foolish. Like now.



    Lol. I demolished your arguments with reason and links to the facts about how American workers are doing no better than 30 years ago, along with a demolition of your gold standard nonsense, an economic doctrine for cranks.



    All that's left for you is ad hominmens and insults.
  • Reply 245 of 290
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    To the guy who suggested a "humanitarian" reason for capitalists to invest in China - there is none. Capital is merely following labour. To those who point out that electronics would be more expensive, the answer is that in labour intensive industries high labour costs are reduced by capital investment - that is productivity increases per employee - but owners only invest in machinery if labour is expensive.



    The facts are that in a less globalised Market the US worker nearly double his purchasing power in the 30 years between 1940 and 1970 but stayed the same since then. Electronics would be more expensive if the West made it but we would all be earning more.
  • Reply 246 of 290
    mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


    Lol. I demolished your arguments with reason and links to the facts about how American workers are doing no better than 30 years ago, along with a demolition of your gold standard nonsense, an economic doctrine for cranks.



    Riiight. You cherry picked some statistics that you think prove your point but didn't, apparently, note anything unique about the time frames you chose...and then you casually dismissed valuable economic theory and understanding.
  • Reply 247 of 290
    boeyc15boeyc15 Posts: 986member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Riiight. You cherry picked some statistics that you think prove your point but didn't, apparently, note anything unique about the time frames you chose...and then you casually dismissed valuable economic theory and understanding.



    Right back at ya.

    Just curious... What mythical country operates the way you deem fit? Yemen?
  • Reply 248 of 290
    mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post


    Right back at ya.



    I'm not the one cherry picking statistics or time frames or rejecting the vast body of economic theory.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post


    Just curious... What mythical country operates the way you deem fit? Yemen?



    This is always the priceless response. Usually it is Somalia. You must have missed the memo.
  • Reply 249 of 290
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post


    This boat sailed away LONG AGO.



    The loss of profits is the least of Apple's concerns in moving jobs back.



    The lack of infrastructure, the impossibility of scaling to the extent companies like Foxconn have in less than a decade, and the absolute lack of any institutional knowledge on how to manufacture products like these at the scale the Chinese do is an absolute killer.



    What the Chinese firms have is not just cheap labor (initially that was indeed the case) but rather 30+ years of investment in infrastructure (both in terms of the manufacturing facilities themselves, as well as government provided infrastructure, like easy access to plentiful and stable power and water) and over 30 years of experience and knowledge in building products at this scale.



    The only way Apple could pull this off is if they created a new product which they KNOW will not sell in the millions (kinda like the iPod Boombox), which they built in the US, and then spent the next 10-15 years trying to expand those facilities (and even then, reaching Foxconn like scales will be close to impossible).



    Finally, over those 10-15 years, the Asian markets combined will probably be a much larger market for Apple, merely because of the large number of people there and the growing middle classes in China and India.



    That boat has sailed folks. It is literally impossible for Apple to move production back to the US, even if they were willing to lose 10's of billions of dollars on it.



    really ???





    apple should buy

    E.A.









    9
  • Reply 250 of 290
    joseph ljoseph l Posts: 197member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    with absolutely no manufacturing capability here in the states in order to defend ourselves.



    "Here in the states" we have somewhat more than "absolutely no manufacturing capability". In fact, we have the largest manufacturing economy in the whole entire world. Bigger than China. Bigger than Japan and Germany put together.
  • Reply 251 of 290
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joseph L View Post


    "Here in the states" we have somewhat more than "absolutely no manufacturing capability". In fact, we have the largest manufacturing economy in the whole entire world. Bigger than China. Bigger than Japan and Germany put together.



    If measured in dollars and using official exchange rates perhaps, but not at PPP - which is how most 'real economy' comparisons are done. Then China would be bigger as industry is 46% of their 10 trillion dollar economy, versus around 22% of america's 14 trillion. Still more than Germany+Japan though, so as you say definitely a lot more than 'absolutely nothing'.
  • Reply 252 of 290
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    If measured in dollars and using official exchange rates perhaps, but not at PPP - which is how most 'real economy' comparisons are done. Then China would be bigger as industry is 46% of their 10 trillion dollar economy, versus around 22% of america's 14 trillion. Still more than Germany+Japan though, so as you say definitely a lot more than 'absolutely nothing'.



    Is China that close in GDP? That means sometime this decade China surpasses the US.
  • Reply 253 of 290
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Riiight. You cherry picked some statistics that you think prove your point but didn't, apparently, note anything unique about the time frames you chose...and then you casually dismissed valuable economic theory and understanding.



    There was nothing cherry picked. They were the latest statistics I found and were linked to a wikipedia article which linked to the sources. If you think that there had been a significant increase in living standards since 2004 show those stats.



    As for economic theory it shouldn't br mistaken for right wing nut jobbery. The gold standard had been rubbished for decades, the libertarian obsession with the Fed role in printing money is talk show fodder. If Krugman appeared on here you would probably suggest "going back to" economic theory, as if it is all right wing nut jobbery. It isn't and plenty if left leaning economists have Nobel prizes to prove it.





    Now give me some time and I'll do what you can't and work out the difference in real wages between 2004 and 2011
  • Reply 254 of 290
    joseph ljoseph l Posts: 197member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    If measured in dollars and using official exchange rates perhaps, but not at PPP - which is how most 'real economy' comparisons are done. Then China would be bigger as industry is 46% of their 10 trillion dollar economy, versus around 22% of america's 14 trillion. Still more than Germany+Japan though, so as you say definitely a lot more than 'absolutely nothing'.







    Wow. That is a new concept for me. Thanks.



    PPP seems like a much more reasonable basis of comparison. But tell me, is PPP analysis universally accepted as a tool, or is it controversial?
  • Reply 255 of 290
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


    All that money yet, they cant build a freaking US production plant to provide jobs to AMERICAN workers.



    Shame.



    And the new Apple data center in North Carolina isn't creating higher paying jobs here? They could have opened a data center in Bangalore for a shitload less.
  • Reply 256 of 290
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    They already have one - that's where they found the iPhone.







    WINNING POST.
  • Reply 257 of 290
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


    And the new Apple data center in North Carolina isn't creating higher paying jobs here? They could have opened a data center in Bangalore for a shitload less.



    Erm, not really no. Datacentres need to be near to their target markets, Apple will need to have some in the US, some in Europe, some in Asia. Same reason why Google has them spread all over the world.
  • Reply 258 of 290
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    Erm, not really no. Datacentres need to be near to their target markets, Apple will need to have some in the US, some in Europe, some in Asia. Same reason why Google has them spread all over the world.



    And why is that?
  • Reply 259 of 290
    nicolbolasnicolbolas Posts: 254member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    I'm not the one cherry picking statistics or time frames or rejecting the vast body of economic theory.



    if trickle down economics haven't worked for the past 50 years (and before) why will they work now?
  • Reply 260 of 290
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


    And why is that?



    Bunch of reasons. Latency goes up with number of hops, transcontinental bandwidth is still relatively expensive compared to domestic/regional and tends to go over a smaller number of heavily used links - so there's a greater chance of a sudden loss. So you site your datacenters close to large traffic areas - and spread around so that you have contingency. They'll have datacenters on both coasts, and I know that iTunes in Europe hits different servers from the US though I'm not sure whether they own a center here in the UK or have something rented.



    http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/a...ta-center-faq/



    This is true for any firm that runs data-centers. Blizzard cover all their European WoW subscribers with servers in Paris for example.
Sign In or Register to comment.