Actually a leveraged buy out is not a bad idea. Going private can be very good for a company. I work at such a company that went private a few years ago. It really help management take the focus off of the quarterly demands of Wall Street greed mongers. Wall Street isn't all bad the way that many seem to think, but if too much of your stock ends up being held by the wrong people it can have a very negative impact on long term management planning.
Now the question you have to ask would be going private be good for Apple long term. That is extremely difficult to say really. It certainly wouldn't hurt today when they have plenty of cash but in the future when they need investor support it could be.
I do wonder why you seem to imply that going private is so bad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978
When the company is earning as much money as Apple is, they have to issue big dividends. If they don't, then the cash pile will grow so large that you are basically buying a money market fund instead of a technology company when you buy Apple stock. Apple will never use that much money on acquisitions.
Also, the larger the cash pile grows, the greater the chance that somebody will use it to fund a leveraged buyout and take Apple private like Dell is doing.
Not at all. In fact I'd be willing to bet that any new product coming from Apple actually has far more people working on it as supplier and contractors are part of the process.
Consider for instance the rumored iWatch. Such a watch would have the Apple employees of course but any such development would also have a number of specialized suppliers working on the device, with each supplier having its own team. So you would have a team for the screen, a team for the battery, a team for the "case" and so on.
Looking back look at the efforts that Corning put into making Gorilla Glass. That was literally a resurrection of technology from the sixties redeveloped for use in portable electronics. Now I can't say for sure what sort of team that Corning put together for that project but i'd have to bet that more than ten people where involved in the initial start up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WonkoTheSane
Is a 100 People Team a lot for developing a new product?
The iPod was years in development before it was released. Me-too products followed quickly (read that, "knock-offs"). The iPhone was years in development, followed quickly by everyone else. iPad... same story.
All just rumors and quiet before they changed everything. Why should their product development be any different today?
I do wonder why you seem to imply that going private is so bad?
I was speaking as a shareholder, not an employee or customer. As shareholders, we are not getting full value - the company is currently trading at a huge discount to likely future cash flows even if you don't count the cash horde as being worth anything.
A leveraged buyout under these circumstances would not give us full value for our shares - much better to pay big dividends to pull in demand from buyers and make the stock go up a lot instead.
Please explain. I'm looking for to hearing your explanation of this.
His sale to Al Jazeera is what I was referring too, as well as "his invention of the Internet". Do you think this is indicative of the values professed to be embraced by Tim Cook and Apple? I don't!
His sale to Al Jazeera is what I was referring too, as well as "his invention of the Internet". Do you think this is indicative of the values professed to be embraced by Tim Cook and Apple? I don't!
Read about Al Jazeera and you will see for yourself. I don't remember Al Gore inventing the Internet. Do you?
I actually read Al Jazeera itself, I don't need to read about it. They're a reputable news organization. Why don't you just come out and say what you mean?
The Gore/Internet thing was a joke, an old one at that, and Cook was being funny. You apparently don't get the context, so here's some background for you:
I actually read Al Jazeera itself, I don't need to read about it. They're a reputable news organization. Why don't you just come out and say what you mean?
The Gore/Internet thing was a joke, an old one at that, and Cook was being funny. You apparently don't get the context, so here's some background for you: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
I actually read Al Jazeera itself, I don't need to read about it. They're a reputable news organization. Why don't you just come out and say what you mean?
The Gore/Internet thing was a joke, an old one at that, and Cook was being funny. You apparently don't get the context, so here's some background for you:
Thanks for your fabulous insight! LOL! Now, go back fast asleep.
I liked the first version of this post better: "Thanks for your insight, loser!"
I'm still curious as to what you're trying to say about Al Jazeera. If my insight is so lousy, why don't you enlighten me? I have a feeling I know what you're going to say, but I want to don't want to make any assumptions.
I liked the first version of this post better: "<span style="color:rgb(69,68,52);font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;">Thanks for your insight, loser!"</span>
I'm still curious as to what you're trying to say about Al Jazeera. If my insight is so lousy, why don't you enlighten me? I have a feeling I know what you're going to say, but I want to don't want to make any assumptions.
Based on a review of your many comments on this site, I think trying to enlighten you would be futile.
You are correct; the stockholders elect the Board, but Management purposes the slate of proposed Board Members, and in 99% of the time, the stockholders go along with the purposed slate. By the way, how many jobs does TC need---CEO, COO, Board Member? He needs to replace the person he hired and then fired to head retail! Can you imagine, Apple still doesn't have someone in charge of retail!
You are correct; the stockholders elect the Board, but Management purposes the slate of proposed Board Members, and in 99% of the time, the stockholders go along with the purposed slate. By the way, how many jobs does TC need---CEO, COO, Board Member? He needs to replace the person he hired and then fired to head retail! Can you imagine, Apple still doesn't have someone in charge of retail!
Board members may meet once a month. Lots of CEOs are also members if their own board. There isn't a COO currently. The duties are probably split between Cook and the VP of Ops. While there is no head of retail, it isn't a leaderless division.
Not exactly ideal; however, for a company once touted as the best in the world. I think Apple can do better, don't you? I sure hope you can at least agree with this comment.
Comments
Actually a leveraged buy out is not a bad idea. Going private can be very good for a company. I work at such a company that went private a few years ago. It really help management take the focus off of the quarterly demands of Wall Street greed mongers. Wall Street isn't all bad the way that many seem to think, but if too much of your stock ends up being held by the wrong people it can have a very negative impact on long term management planning.
Now the question you have to ask would be going private be good for Apple long term. That is extremely difficult to say really. It certainly wouldn't hurt today when they have plenty of cash but in the future when they need investor support it could be.
I do wonder why you seem to imply that going private is so bad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978
When the company is earning as much money as Apple is, they have to issue big dividends. If they don't, then the cash pile will grow so large that you are basically buying a money market fund instead of a technology company when you buy Apple stock. Apple will never use that much money on acquisitions.
Also, the larger the cash pile grows, the greater the chance that somebody will use it to fund a leveraged buyout and take Apple private like Dell is doing.
Not at all. In fact I'd be willing to bet that any new product coming from Apple actually has far more people working on it as supplier and contractors are part of the process.
Consider for instance the rumored iWatch. Such a watch would have the Apple employees of course but any such development would also have a number of specialized suppliers working on the device, with each supplier having its own team. So you would have a team for the screen, a team for the battery, a team for the "case" and so on.
Looking back look at the efforts that Corning put into making Gorilla Glass. That was literally a resurrection of technology from the sixties redeveloped for use in portable electronics. Now I can't say for sure what sort of team that Corning put together for that project but i'd have to bet that more than ten people where involved in the initial start up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WonkoTheSane
Is a 100 People Team a lot for developing a new product?
All just rumors and quiet before they changed everything. Why should their product development be any different today?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I do wonder why you seem to imply that going private is so bad?
I was speaking as a shareholder, not an employee or customer. As shareholders, we are not getting full value - the company is currently trading at a huge discount to likely future cash flows even if you don't count the cash horde as being worth anything.
A leveraged buyout under these circumstances would not give us full value for our shares - much better to pay big dividends to pull in demand from buyers and make the stock go up a lot instead.
His sale to Al Jazeera is what I was referring too, as well as "his invention of the Internet". Do you think this is indicative of the values professed to be embraced by Tim Cook and Apple? I don't!
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgr111
His sale to Al Jazeera is what I was referring too, as well as "his invention of the Internet". Do you think this is indicative of the values professed to be embraced by Tim Cook and Apple? I don't!
What's wrong with Al Jazeera?
Stockholders elect the BoD. They've reelected him year after year. Get over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgr111
Read about Al Jazeera and you will see for yourself. I don't remember Al Gore inventing the Internet. Do you?
I actually read Al Jazeera itself, I don't need to read about it. They're a reputable news organization. Why don't you just come out and say what you mean?
The Gore/Internet thing was a joke, an old one at that, and Cook was being funny. You apparently don't get the context, so here's some background for you:
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastasleep
I actually read Al Jazeera itself, I don't need to read about it. They're a reputable news organization. Why don't you just come out and say what you mean?
The Gore/Internet thing was a joke, an old one at that, and Cook was being funny. You apparently don't get the context, so here's some background for you:
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
I never knew where that meme originated. Thanks. It's puzzling that people still reference it today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgr111
Thanks for your fabulous insight! LOL! Now, go back fast asleep.
I liked the first version of this post better: "Thanks for your insight, loser!"
I'm still curious as to what you're trying to say about Al Jazeera. If my insight is so lousy, why don't you enlighten me? I have a feeling I know what you're going to say, but I want to don't want to make any assumptions.
Based on a review of your many comments on this site, I think trying to enlighten you would be futile.
Board members may meet once a month. Lots of CEOs are also members if their own board. There isn't a COO currently. The duties are probably split between Cook and the VP of Ops. While there is no head of retail, it isn't a leaderless division.