robin, read the last few lines of the story. They did, but only got pennies on the dollar for the second go round. In a word, no it did not work out. When someone offers you stupid money to do the best you can possibly do, then take it and give it your all. The results win or lose will be that will know whether you can do it and you will already have enough money to do it yourself. This is why people are paid salaries. Salaries don't give you enough money to start to compete with the company on your own.
Steve Jobs was so powerful that his offer were irresistable to anyone. Hell, who will say no when Apple is giving you 8 times more than the competition.
Well, Dropbox was able to resist him. More recently, Waze turned down Apple. And if Jobs was so powerful, why did he have to outbid the competition by so much?
I have no doubt that Jobs's charisma and business acumen had few equals. But stories such as these fortify the legend while skimming on details and facts.
The focus of this story (and the folks herein) is all wrong. The important moral here is not the little piece of paper passed from Jobs to Nguyen (so Hollywood-esque), or the fact that the transaction was seemingly effortless. Furthermore, this story, accurate or not, is not representative of how Jobs and Apple conducted other acquisitions. Instead, I think this shows how, at watershed moments, Nokia and its ilk reacted much more slowly than Apple.
It was in stocks - they probably wouldn't have expected it to go up so much in value and who knows how long they'd have had to wait for it to vest. If they had an option to take 25% or so after a year, that would explain the departure timing and they'd still have made a good profit:
"Apple's stock price at the time of the Lala deal was $196.48.
But not all of Lala's employees stuck around to vest all of their stock. In March 2011, Apple traded at around $350, which would spell a nice profit. Who would have expected Apple, already hugely valuable, to double from there?
By their actions, it seems that some ex-Lala employees were willing to bet that Nguyen could do even better for them than Steve Jobs.
Any stock awards issued in December 2009 would have more than tripled in value when Apple hit a peak above $700 last summer. That $80 million, in aggregate, swelled to a notional $300 million. Even today, it's around $200 million.
The winners in this deal seem to be the Lala employees who stayed at Apple: They continued to vest millions of dollars in Apple stock, they skipped Color's startup drama, and they retained steady jobs at the world's most successful company."
Well you definitely can't assume they would have predicted a peak of $700 with all of their shares being sold at the perfect time. I think it went up considerably last year around February and March. I don't invest in it, so I don't follow it that closely. Call it amusement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
Some people would criticize SJ for paying far more than other companies offered, but if you consider the extensive resources that senior execs dedicate to negotiating acquisitions and performing due diligence and all the focus it requires, it was actually a brilliant move to spend the extra money and get it done quickly, especially since $80 million is almost pocket change for Apple.
Apple is currently projected to have about $156 billion in cash. Let's say it was $125 billion at the time of this negotiation. At 3% per year return, that's $10.2 million a day in return. So for eight days of interest on cash, they get this whole company.
I'd actually like to see Apple doing more deals like this (but only if they can probably integrate the technology and not ignore the company once they buy it).
I think you have it wrong here. He would have needed board approval to make such a large purchase, and you shouldn't compare it to rejected offers. If he knew the value it represented to Apple and made a board approved offer within that scope, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. This alleviates any problems with others bidding on it and any real uncertainty. I think these recollections are presented in a way that leaves too room for imagination.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
.... -- i.e., the rankings were not organic.
Interesting formulation. But how could they be, since the whole business plan is to make money out of their manipulation ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by maclancer
Steve Jobs was so powerful that his offer were irresistable to anyone. Hell, who will say no when Apple is giving you 8 times more than the competition.
Well, Dropbox was able to resist him. More recently, Waze turned down Apple. And if Jobs was so powerful, why did he have to outbid the competition by so much?
I have no doubt that Jobs's charisma and business acumen had few equals. But stories such as these fortify the legend while skimming on details and facts.
The focus of this story (and the folks herein) is all wrong. The important moral here is not the little piece of paper passed from Jobs to Nguyen (so Hollywood-esque), or the fact that the transaction was seemingly effortless. Furthermore, this story, accurate or not, is not representative of how Jobs and Apple conducted other acquisitions. Instead, I think this shows how, at watershed moments, Nokia and its ilk reacted much more slowly than Apple.
Originally Posted by stelligent
…why did he have to outbid…
Did he have to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It was in stocks - they probably wouldn't have expected it to go up so much in value and who knows how long they'd have had to wait for it to vest. If they had an option to take 25% or so after a year, that would explain the departure timing and they'd still have made a good profit:
"Apple's stock price at the time of the Lala deal was $196.48.
But not all of Lala's employees stuck around to vest all of their stock. In March 2011, Apple traded at around $350, which would spell a nice profit. Who would have expected Apple, already hugely valuable, to double from there?
By their actions, it seems that some ex-Lala employees were willing to bet that Nguyen could do even better for them than Steve Jobs.
Any stock awards issued in December 2009 would have more than tripled in value when Apple hit a peak above $700 last summer. That $80 million, in aggregate, swelled to a notional $300 million. Even today, it's around $200 million.
The winners in this deal seem to be the Lala employees who stayed at Apple: They continued to vest millions of dollars in Apple stock, they skipped Color's startup drama, and they retained steady jobs at the world's most successful company."
http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/The-Price-Of-Loyalty-Color-Employees-Missed-Out-4206546.php
Well you definitely can't assume they would have predicted a peak of $700 with all of their shares being sold at the perfect time. I think it went up considerably last year around February and March. I don't invest in it, so I don't follow it that closely. Call it amusement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
Some people would criticize SJ for paying far more than other companies offered, but if you consider the extensive resources that senior execs dedicate to negotiating acquisitions and performing due diligence and all the focus it requires, it was actually a brilliant move to spend the extra money and get it done quickly, especially since $80 million is almost pocket change for Apple.
Apple is currently projected to have about $156 billion in cash. Let's say it was $125 billion at the time of this negotiation. At 3% per year return, that's $10.2 million a day in return. So for eight days of interest on cash, they get this whole company.
I'd actually like to see Apple doing more deals like this (but only if they can probably integrate the technology and not ignore the company once they buy it).
I think you have it wrong here. He would have needed board approval to make such a large purchase, and you shouldn't compare it to rejected offers. If he knew the value it represented to Apple and made a board approved offer within that scope, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. This alleviates any problems with others bidding on it and any real uncertainty. I think these recollections are presented in a way that leaves too room for imagination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Did he have to?
Arguing semantics?
Well, if he didn't have to outbid but did so anyway, then he should be remembered differently.