|
I find it pretty interested that Leap's Cricket Wireless was offered to merge with MetroPCs for 5.3 billion in 2007 but now AT&T is merging with them (or is making them a subsidiary somehow different then a merger) for 1.2 billion. They seem to be making pretty good money, having made $3.1B USD in both 2011 and 2012. Edit: Having reread that, AT&T bought Cricket, a subsidiary of LeapWireless for 1.2 billion while MetroPCS wanted to merge with all of LeapWireless which I guess consists of more then just Cricket. Which I also flubbed on revenue , their gross profit is about a bit less than half of their revenue. Nf3 fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Jul 14, 2013 |
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 15:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
DNova posted:I've been thinking about this. The budget iphone is almost certainly real. But AAPL investors are used to profits from high-margin premium products. Won't they see moving into the budget category along with the lower margins that exist in that space as a threat to AAPL's model? Yeah but at the same time it opens up new lower-income markets, including overseas in the third world, where Android devices are crushing Apple in marketshare because they're practically giving the phones away to customers who have never been able to afford a cell phone before. The same thing applies to children here in America: If your twelve year old is going to have a cell phone, it's in your best interest for it to be cheap to replace. It's not the most lucrative market, but there's money to be made there for sure, and it's a long-term play. People who grow up using something tend to keep using it, unless something shakes them out of it. This is also why companies like Microsoft and Adobe give students huge discounts on their very expensive software packages, because when that graphic designer grows up and gets a job, they'll want to use Photoshop and Illustrator. Someone who's invested a lot of time using Visual Studio will put that on their resume and often find a job in a shop that uses it. Getting your brand into the hands of young people is a smart move, as long as you don't gently caress everything up. I've never been one to buy into the "Apple image" though. Their recent commercial made my stomach turn with how self indulgent it is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr1s_B0zqX0
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
Inverse Icarus posted:It's not the most lucrative market, but there's money to be made there for sure, and it's a long-term play. People who grow up using something tend to keep using it, unless something shakes them out of it. This is also why companies like Microsoft and Adobe give students huge discounts on their very expensive software packages, because when that graphic designer grows up and gets a job, they'll want to use Photoshop and Illustrator. Someone who's invested a lot of time using Visual Studio will put that on their resume and often find a job in a shop that uses it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
jawbroken posted:Lower price doesn't mean low margin. A “budget” iPhone would target upfront phone purchases rather than contract subsidies, so it wouldn't hit the margins that the iPhone currently enjoys, but there's no reason it couldn't fall in line with the ~30% gross margins of iPods, iPads and Macs. I think it would cannibalize sales of high-margin products. More importantly, I think it would really hurt Apple's brand image, their strongest asset. It is like Rolex coming out with a cheaper version of their watches, it makes people looking for the cultural status symbol less likely to buy your high margin product.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:I think it would cannibalize sales of high-margin products. More importantly, I think it would really hurt Apple's brand image, their strongest asset. It is like Rolex coming out with a cheaper version of their watches, it makes people looking for the cultural status symbol less likely to buy your high margin product. I don't think it needs to be any different in a status symbol sense than them having a line of iPods from the touch down to the shuffle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
jawbroken posted:Lower price doesn't mean low margin. A “budget” iPhone would target upfront phone purchases rather than contract subsidies, so it wouldn't hit the margins that the iPhone currently enjoys, but there's no reason it couldn't fall in line with the ~30% gross margins of iPods, iPads and Macs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:I don't think it needs to be any different in a status symbol sense than them having a line of iPods from the touch down to the shuffle. I wouldn't have called the shuffle a "cheaper iPod" though. It was more a specialized micro-music player for runners, etc. I also don't think the iPod was so successful because it was a status symbol, but rather because nobody else had any product that came near to it in design. The iPhone was also similar when it first came out, but evolved into a status symbol.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
You also have to consider that the iPhone platform is a stable product with someone in charge that is supposed to be a supply chain and operations wizard. They've shifted some of their supply chain, so they could, arguably, be in a position to build and sell a cheaper iphone at current margins.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:I wouldn't have called the shuffle a "cheaper iPod" though. It was more a specialized micro-music player for runners, etc. I also don't think the iPod was so successful because it was a status symbol, but rather because nobody else had any product that came near to it in design. The iPhone was also similar when it first came out, but evolved into a status symbol. This is a value judgement, but I don't happen to agree that the iPhone's success lies in its [diminishing] role as a status symbol. It's practically the only game in town underpinned by a solid and secure mobile application platform. Not surprisingly, it seems to be replacing the blackberry in a lot of corporations (GE is switching over to iOS, for instance).
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
pr0k posted:You also have to consider that the iPhone platform is a stable product with someone in charge that is supposed to be a supply chain and operations wizard. And that their platform gets them 30% of all app sales, no matter how expensive your phone was.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:I think it would cannibalize sales of high-margin products. More importantly, I think it would really hurt Apple's brand image, their strongest asset. It is like Rolex coming out with a cheaper version of their watches, it makes people looking for the cultural status symbol less likely to buy your high margin product. I'm sure the cannibalisation issue is why they haven't released such a product up to this point, as there's obviously no technical reason. There's a complex calculation involving part costs, their ability to sign new carriers, cannibalisation rate, etc that they've likely been tracking to find the right time to expand the iPhone portfolio, and it's up to you to decide if they're competent at making those decisions with the information they have. Note that keeping older iPhones around has had no obvious effect on ASP thus far, so there's no sign of cannibalisation there, and I'm not sure why a budget iPhone would be significantly different. Psychological reasons? People and carriers moving away from phone contracts entirely? Your brand image or status symbol theory?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 09:34
|
|
|
Well, that was quite the leap. http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=...urce=undefined; AT&T announced they were buying Leap this weekend , right, so of course it opens at 17 on yahoo finance.But how does this happen exactly? Do people keep buying up the price over the weekend in access channels that increase the price of the stock up to 17 or what? After hours trading, why does it even exist?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
Well, it doesn't have to move incrementally, penny at a time until it gets to $17. If AT&T says they're buying LEAP at $17, then the stock is "worth" $17 now. Anyone who has LEAP to sell isn't going to give AT&T a free discount.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
Yeah, that makes sense. I honestly hadn't considered that it was AT&T buying up the shares. Is that the norm for when a company buys another company? By buying up the shares? Is it not possible to merge or buy a publicly traded company without buying shares?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
Nf3 posted:Yeah, that makes sense. I honestly hadn't considered that it was AT&T buying up the shares. Is that the norm for when a company buys another company? By buying up the shares? Is it not possible to merge or buy a publicly traded company without buying shares? Shares are quite literally the fractions of ownership of a company. Owning a company is synonymous with owning all its shares.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
Purchases are usually in cash, or stock, or both, or other things that have monetary value (haha I'm not trying to sound like a douche, but idk there's bonds and debt and assets that I'm not entirely as sure about as far as company purchasing). quote:Financing a takeover
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
So what shares in particular did AT&T buy to take over the company. Any shares publicly traded they could get their hands on? Shares from the current majority holders + a bunch of other publicly traded shares ? Do they intend to buy enough shares to be majority share holder or the largest share holder?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
Nf3 posted:So what shares in particular did AT&T buy to take over the company. Any shares publicly traded they could get their hands on? Shares from the current majority holders + a bunch of other publicly traded shares ? Do they intend to buy enough shares to be majority share holder or the largest share holder? Someone else should correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the board of directors of the acquired company (whose job it is to act on behalf of all shareholders) accepts the acquirer's deal if they deem it sufficiently good for the shareholders they represent. So the sale of all shares is in effect forced - but individual shareholders generally don't complain due to the acquisition premium that is usually gained.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Someone else should correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the board of directors of the acquired company (whose job it is to act on behalf of all shareholders) accepts the acquirer's deal if they deem it sufficiently good for the shareholders they represent. So the sale of all shares is in effect forced - but individual shareholders generally don't complain due to the acquisition premium that is usually gained. It's funny you should post this just now because I read an article today about a law company investigating LEAP for "breaching their fiduciary duties by failing to adequately shop the Company and maximize shareholder value. " http://www.crn.com/news/networking/240158284/at-t-to-buy-prepaid-wireless-provider-leap-wireless.htm
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
Nf3 posted:It's funny you should post this just now because I read an article today about a law company investigating LEAP for "breaching their fiduciary duties by failing to adequately shop the Company and maximize shareholder value. " Ha, yeah, the use of the word "generally" above was very intentional 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Someone else should correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the board of directors of the acquired company (whose job it is to act on behalf of all shareholders) accepts the acquirer's deal if they deem it sufficiently good for the shareholders they represent. So the sale of all shares is in effect forced - but individual shareholders generally don't complain due to the acquisition premium that is usually gained. Wait, so if I had shares of Leap and wasn't taking any action personally, would I get a message from my broker saying "sorry bud, we sold your shares of Leap cause we had to, but good news is you got $17 for it  "
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
Nf3 posted:Yeah, that makes sense. I honestly hadn't considered that it was AT&T buying up the shares. Is that the norm for when a company buys another company? By buying up the shares? Is it not possible to merge or buy a publicly traded company without buying shares? It's not AT&T buying them right now. They don't buy them until the deal closes. But the shares are going to trade very close to the purchase price because anything below $17 will make a profit for anyone buying. Those selling don't want to sell at much of a discount to the purchase price. The difference between the current price and the purchase price would be what the market considers the risk of the deal falling through, if that makes sense. Usually you see shares trading below the purchase price because nobody is going to buy for $17 just to sell at $17. However, if there is a belief in the market that competition may enter and the company could be sold at a higher premium, it may trade above the purchase price (see: Sprint). alnilam posted:Wait, so if I had shares of Leap and wasn't taking any action personally, would I get a message from my broker saying "sorry bud, we sold your shares of Leap cause we had to, but good news is you got $17 for it Well yeah. When the deal closes your shares are purchased for the purchase price and you receive the compensation which will either be in cash or shares.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
alnilam posted:Wait, so if I had shares of Leap and wasn't taking any action personally, would I get a message from my broker saying "sorry bud, we sold your shares of Leap cause we had to, but good news is you got $17 for it Yes, or the equivalent in new shares.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
Look at DELL in comparison; Icahn is saying that DELL is worth $14, $15 a share or more. Mikey Dell is saying 13.65, but the stock price says 13.15. Every other day there is some poo poo about who will or who won't get the deal, who will do the financing, what is the company going to do after, etc. etc. There are some offers on the table, but nobody is really buying into it yet. Also like BBY when the founder said he wanted to take the company private and investors were like "uh okay gramps, whatever you say."
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
alnilam posted:Wait, so if I had shares of Leap and wasn't taking any action personally, would I get a message from my broker saying "sorry bud, we sold your shares of Leap cause we had to, but good news is you got $17 for it Because in theory, you as a shareholder get to vote on such acquisitions (assuming voting rights are associated with your shares).
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
I've had two stocks I owned get bought. In one case, I simply received cash in lieu of my shares in my brokerage account when the conversion date took place; in the other, I received a notice from my broker that I had two options: cash, or an equivalent value in the buying company's shares, and if I failed to pick, I'd get the buying company's shares. The exact terms can vary from one deal to the next, and there is usually a long lead time between the announcement and the actual buyout (I think because with many mergers there's the risk that the government will block the sale for antitrust reasons, I'm not sure if they're required to build in a waiting period for this review or what). Another thing can happen if the people involved are jerks. A former employer of mine was purchased by a much larger company. We had public stock, and many employees had stock options, and our combined in-the-money-but-not-yet-vested and out-of-the-money options cumulatively amounted to a huge amount of shares - a significant fraction of the total outstanding shares of the company (I think like 30% or so). The company's board decided to issue a new, preferred class of shares. They gave themselves and the company executives the lion's share of these shares, in the form of "retention bonuses" announced at the time the merger was announced. These shares essentially devalued the public shares of the company massively. The buyout company then bought the preferred shares, gaining ownership of the company. They still bought the public shares too, but due to the devaluation they didn't have to buy as many of them, so the price offered was lower (but still at a small premium to the quoted price prior to the buyout announcement). This ensured that the vast majority of the stock options would never be in the money. The total amount spent on the public shares was actually less than the cash my employer had on hand, so for sure it would have been a higher valuation if they hadn't issued the preferred stock. The justification was that the preferred shares for the executives took 6 months to vest or whatever, and these "key employees" had to stay with the new company that long to get the money. So it would keep them from fleeing the sinking ship like rats the day the buyout was announced. It was a tremendously dickish thing to do that basically hosed over all the regular employees so that the execs could walk away rich, justified as being in the buyer's interest via the "key employee" contracts, and I believe they were sued by the (public class of) shareholders, but the company was small and its stock had been declining for years (this happened in 2003, the company had gone public in 99 or 2000) and I guess the lawsuit went nowhere. So yeah, there's poo poo like that that can be done, especially when nobody's looking, but it's much less likely when it's a newsworthy buyout. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Jul 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
What is going on with the bond market lately? All my long term investments in bonds have seen a ~ -5% loss over the last 3 months.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 10:22
|
|
|
Uhh, seriously? e: No really, Google "Bond Market News" and it'll catch you up on what's been dominating financial news for the past couple months..
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 10:25
|
|
|
So I've been reading books on Technical Analysis and Money Management and have been applying them with play money on the Futures and FX markets. I've had a net positive (right now I'm 4.5% in the black with the play money overall). I was wondering at what point should I decide to start doing it with real money? I've read that the amount of money I start with has a big impact on how things will go, but my intuition tells me that "5% is 5%" so to speak. How do I know that I'm ready to start doing it with real money? Is it just a matter of money management (i.e. no more than X% of total capital should be available for buying/selling)? Love Stole the Day fucked around with this message at 10:49 on Jul 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 10:44
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:This is a value judgement, but I don't happen to agree that the iPhone's success lies in its [diminishing] role as a status symbol. It's practically the only game in town underpinned by a solid and secure mobile application platform. Not surprisingly, it seems to be replacing the blackberry in a lot of corporations (GE is switching over to iOS, for instance). I disagree; the Apple name has for a long time stood for reliable products that are also very trendy. A large chunk of that premium price tag comes from it being an Apple product. The Apple name and logo is why tons of people line up in front of Apple stores every time that Apple releases a new product, even if it's functionally equivalent to existing products from other manufacturers or even Apple itself. They make good products, but you can find equally good products for less elsewhere; all that's really left is the name. As for the iPhone being the only game in town, there's this: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 11:03
|
|
|
Love Stole the Day posted:So I've been reading books on Technical Analysis and Money Management and have been applying them with play money on the Futures and FX markets. I've had a net positive (right now I'm 4.5% in the black with the play money overall).
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
SplitDestiny posted:What is going on with the bond market lately? All my long term investments in bonds have seen a ~ -5% loss over the last 3 months. Simple...Interest rates are going up... Hopefully you did not buy the bonds at the top of the bond rally. Be aware there is potential for more downside longterm
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 15:05
|
|
|
Love Stole the Day posted:So I've been reading books on Technical Analysis and Money Management and have been applying them with play money on the Futures and FX markets. I've had a net positive (right now I'm 4.5% in the black with the play money overall). Does your play money account charge commissions and fees?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 15:17
|
|
|
gvibes posted:Over what period have you been up 4.5%? The past year. Also today I left a position on the FX one (AUD/SGD and AUD/CAD were oversold according to RSI a day and a half ago, plus they're both at record lows for the past 3months/2years from what I can see so I went long on both with the small 10k units each and it paid off and my Trailing Stop went off during the a traceback a few hours ago) and now it's up 5% though. quote:Does your play money account charge commissions and fees? The Futures play money account doesn't, although I've spent more time with the FX play money account which does a spread which I suppose counts as a commission/fee. Love Stole the Day fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Jul 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Hope that all of you who own $TSLA took some profits
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
So glad I had a trailing stop order in place for my TSLA. This is the second time it has triggered for me. First round from 60-85, and this from $90.5 to $116.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
MrBigglesworth posted:So glad I had a trailing stop order in place for my TSLA. This is the second time it has triggered for me. First round from 60-85, and this from $90.5 to $116. Good Job! I was looking to short it but I was out of the office this morning. My long gold trades are holding good but I missed my day trade on that little $NUGT bastard. It slipped my hands this morning and could not catch it for a day trade at 5.80. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
I'm sure that this is Goldman getting a discount for the sake of clients. Little bummed of such the quick turnaround, but tsla can definitely use a healthy breather .
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
I'd buy some calls but I just have no feeling for what it's going to do. I shall refrain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
DNova posted:I'd buy some calls but I just have no feeling for what it's going to do. I shall refrain. Thinking the same thing. I'm worried it could fall through to the lower 90s, but if it does, 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 20:44
|
|