davidw

About

Username
davidw
Joined
Visits
187
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
4,775
Badges
1
Posts
2,205

Reactions

2.4KLike49Dislike470Informative

  • Google CEO 'Lord Farquaad' lambasted for giant pay raise after 12,000 layoffs

    davidwdavidw
    mike eggleston said:
    I think the most damning part of the article is right here:

    Large companies have complex financial systems, so it isn't going to be clear how the money saved from laying off those employees will be used. However, it is damning when a $70 billion stock buyback program was announced in one week, then SEC filings show the CEO got a raise in the next.

    This is the smoking gun right here. A CEO knows that if they do layoffs, stock prices usually rise because the P/E ratio rises; then on top of that, a stock buyback means that Google (read: Sundar) knows that the price per share for that stock will skyrocket because there are fewer shares in the wild. As a result, the number of shares he gets (usually a fixed number of shares, depending on how well their stock is doing) will be worth substantially more.

    In summary, I think the SEC should investigate his ass and see if insider trading laws can be applied to him.


    NO, insider trading laws do not apply here. Not even close. Insider trading involves either buying or selling shares based on information that is not available to the public.

    First, here the CEO did not buy any of his shares, they were awarded to him as part of his pay package. And most likely these RSU were awarded to him at least a year ago and maybe 2 or 3 years ago, depending on his contract. Way before any buybacks and layoffs were announced.

    Second, this CEO can not sell any of his RSU until its vested. Once these RSU became vested, the public already knows about the buyback program and the layoffs. So no trades were made with these shares using info that was not available to the public.

    That said, even with shares that a CEO have, there are company rules that restrict when they can buy more shares or sell their shares. Rules like they must set a date to buy or sell shares weeks ahead of time. They can not make any trades weeks before earnings or any other announcements that might have a big affect on share price. And with the SEC rules, even family, close relatives or friends of company's executives that might have access to trading info not available to the public, are bound by the same restrictions as the executive.
    Alex1Nravnorodomwatto_cobra

  • Apple asks UK tribunal to throw out 'baseless' iPhone batterygate lawsuit

    davidwdavidw
    flydog said:
    JP234 said:
    If you look up "frivolous lawsuit" in your legal dictionary, this is the one it references. At least in the private sector.
    Apple spent half a billion dollars replacing batteries, which is far more than it would have cost to get "frivolous lawsuits" dismissed. 

    The limited time discount Apple offered to replace batteries on all existing iPhones at the time (except for newer iPhones still under warranty) had nothing to do with any settlement due to the lawsuits concerning their throttling software. The battery replacement program was a form of an apology from Apple, not some sort of admission that they installed batteries in their iPhones that were "defective", as you seem to be thinking.

    And just how do you know Apple "spent" half a billion dollars on this program? For sure Apple didn't make nearly as much profit from charging $29 (instead of $59) to replace qualifying iPhones batteries, with no questions ask. But they still could have been making $1 or two per battery replacement. After all, third party repair stores can replace iPhone batteries for $30 and makes a profit. For sure you're not going to get an Apple OEM battery but Apple could be paying not much more for their OEM batteries (with their volume discount) than third party repair stores pays for their China knock off batteries. And as for labor, Apple is already paying the employees for the labor, whether they replacing batteries or working on other repairs. It's not as though Apple had to hire more employees, just to do the battery replacement. If anything, maybe more overtime cost.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra

  • Apple's diversity efforts are 'selfish & practical' says head of developer relations

    davidwdavidw
    chutzpah said:
    Kierkegaarden said:
    “Prescott explained that the company's dedication to inclusivity and diversity is motivated by a "selfish and practical" perspective. She believes that to create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a diverse team of individuals, according to a report from The Independent.”

    I don’t agree.  To create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a competent team with diverse skills and perspectives.  Why are they so focused on the gender and race of a developer? 
    Because gender and race diversity brings different perspectives.  You're so close!
    But why does "diversity" only pertain to gender and race? I'll wager that there is more "diversity" between an Asian born and educated in the US and an Asian born and educated in China or an Asian born and educated in Japan or an Asian born and educated in India, than there is between him and a White person born and educated in the US. The same goes for White. There's "diversity" among Whites from the US and those from the UK or Australia or Sweden or France, etc. Why is "diversity" only pertaining to gender and race? There can be as much or more "diversity" among people of the same race than there is among people of different races.

    As for "........ diversity brings different perspectives", this might matter when designing a GUI or working in HR or working in promotion and ads or customers relations, or designing a virtual assistance, etc. but "diversity" should have no bearing when it comes to designing chips, writing search algorithm or debugging software and many other jobs where "a different perspective" doesn't matter.  

    A company shouldn't hire a female that is good at debugging software because she might bring a different perspective into debugging software. A company should hire a female that is good at debugging software because she good at debugging software. However, if a female speciality is in designing virtual assistance and your company team in charge of designing a virtual assistance is all male, then adding a female to the team might just make the design better because of the different perspective she adds to the design.     
    docno42

  • California wants a bigger piece of Cupertino's tax earnings from Apple

    davidwdavidw
    JP234 said:
    I kind of doubt that Apple HQ is where they keep their stock of online products and they are shipped from there. If the purchase is shipped from the nearest Apple Store or Apple warehouse that have it in stock, then the sale tax should be base on the location of that Apple Store or warehouse and credited to those local districts. 

    The last 2 iphones I've purchased from apple.com have shipped to me direct from China.
    Your understanding of how sales tax is levied is incorrect. Sales tax is charged at the rate of the destination (and paid to the taxing body there), not the point of sale. If you live in Chicago, you can't go to Oregon or Alaska and get a car with no sales tax. Same thing with Amazon or any online seller. Your shipping address dictates how much tax you pay.

    Actually, one can travel to a State with no sales tax, make a purchase and pay no sales tax. Shoppers do it all the time. There are tour buses just for this purpose. But they are suppose to pay the use tax on those purchases when filing their State tax return. (in CA,  there's a "Use Tax" for taxes owe on purchases made out of State or online, where the sales tax paid was less than that of the CA sales tax.). Nearly all States with a sales tax, have a use tax.



    Now with a car, the problem arises when it comes to registering that car in your home State. In CA, you will have to pay CA sales tax on that new car, before CA will register it. If you paid 4% State sales tax in another State, you owe CA another 3.25% in State sales tax. If you paid 0%, you owe CA 7.25% State sales tax. The only way around it is if you were a resident of the State with no sales tax, register the car under your name there and then move to CA and re-register the car. Even if you bought a used car from a private party, you owe CA sales tax on the purchase price, when registering that used car. Just because the private party is not responsible for collecting the sales tax and remitting it to the State, it doesn't mean the State will not make every effort to collect that sales tax from you. One of the reason why CA is the fifth largest economy in the World is because of how much money they make taxing its own citizens.

    williamh

  • California wants a bigger piece of Cupertino's tax earnings from Apple

    davidwdavidw
    RickDawg said:
    More likely, California wants to distribute sales tax to the home tax district of the buyer. If Apple aggregates all sales to Californians in the Cupertino tax district, they are cutting the other tax districts in the state out of that one percent city, and local district taxes as well.
    Not of the "buyer", but the local tax district of where the online transaction took place. In CA, sales tax on online sales made inside the State is taxed at the rate of where the transaction took place and not of the buyer home location. It's no different than if a person living in SF drove down to the Apple Store in Cupertino and made a purchase. The sales tax on that purchase is based on Cupertino local sales tax, not the SF sale tax of the buyer's home district. Out of State online purchases are handle differently.

    So the question is, are all CA online purchases handled inside Apple HQ or in Cupertino at all? Most likely not. Apple probably handle online sale transactions on sites outside of their HQ and Cupertino, but credited Cupertino with the sale. When in reality, the tax credit should be where Apple actually handled the transaction. It might be a warehouse in San Jose or Sacramento (Apple main CA distribution center is in Elk Grove).  I kind of doubt that Apple HQ is where they keep their stock of online products and they are shipped from there. If the purchase is shipped from the nearest Apple Store or Apple warehouse that have it in stock, then the sale tax should be base on the location of that Apple Store or warehouse and credited to those local districts. 

    https://biz.crast.net/apples-local-tax-arrangement-with-hometown-comes-under-fire-2/

    >At issue is the company’s treatment of online sales. Under California law, a local portion of the sales tax goes to the location where the transaction occurs, not the customer’s location.<

    https://www.warehouseautomation.ca/news-notes-1/2020/10/9/apple-to-use-retail-stores-as-distribution-centers-for-faster-deliveries-8tj2z


    gregoriusmwatto_cobra