Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 7, 2012, 12:44 PM   #1
MacRumors
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Did Apple Spend $2 Billion to Bail Out Sharp?




Apple analyst Horace Dediu has dug deep into Apple's 2012 capital expenditures and found some spending, above and beyond what Apple had previously disclosed. He discovered that Apple spent $2.3 billion more than it had forecast on "product tooling, manufacturing process equipment and infrastructure".

However, Apple didn't actually shell out cash for its increase in CapEx, but instead is booking vendor financing. Dediu believes it may have been to bail out Sharp, which was in dire financial straits earlier this year.
Quote:
Circumstantial evidence points to the asset being production equipment (or even a whole plant) previously owned by Sharp. Sharp is a key supplier of screens to Apple but is also in financial distress. Sharp has also been the object of an intended investment by Foxconn [Hon Hai]. That deal fell through as Sharp's finances deteriorated. My guess is that these attempts to shore up Sharp are directed by Apple to ensure both continuity of supply and a balanced supplier base (offsetting Samsung, another supplier.) If Sharp were to enter into some form of bankruptcy, the key plant(s) used in producing screens for Apple might be "up for grabs" by creditors and they might be taken off-line, jeopardizing Apple's production capacity, irrespective of contractual obligations. I believe that Apple's late and unprecedented expenditure was to secure this asset. I further believe that the financing for this deal was done through a swap of "pre-orders".
Dediu has much more on the spending and his analysis at Asymco.

Article Link: Did Apple Spend $2 Billion to Bail Out Sharp?
MacRumors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 12:46 PM   #2
gmanist1000
macrumors 68020
 
gmanist1000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Makes sense if they want to move away from Samsung displays.
gmanist1000 is online now   11 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 12:47 PM   #3
abhishake
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Why not just buy Sharp at a steep discount?
__________________
Once you go Mac, you never go back.
abhishake is offline   16 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 12:50 PM   #4
NT1440
macrumors G3
 
NT1440's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hartford, CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by abhishake View Post
Why not just buy Sharp at a steep discount?
Because its not up for sale....yet

If apple tried a takeover you get an inflated bidding process costing way more than a company is worth. It's great for the stockholders whom bail immediately afterwords but you leave the company in far more debt than it had before.
NT1440 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 01:25 PM   #5
paul4339
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by abhishake View Post
Why not just buy Sharp at a steep discount?
because they don't want the headaches owning & running a company, especially one that is currently a liability.

.
paul4339 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 01:45 PM   #6
JayRedliner
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by abhishake View Post
Why not just buy Sharp at a steep discount?
Sharp likely has significant amount of debt that Apple couldn't assume. IE: They have debt greater than their perceived worth, making them impossible to purchase.
JayRedliner is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 03:53 PM   #7
joesegh
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: New Jersey, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by abhishake View Post
Why not just buy Sharp at a steep discount?
Because they're hemorrhaging money?
joesegh is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 11:52 PM   #8
Ramchi
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: India
Quote:
Originally Posted by abhishake View Post
Why not just buy Sharp at a steep discount?
And to pay all its steep debts and liabilities?
Ramchi is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 12:47 PM   #9
rnizlek
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Interesting, but I wonder why Apple wouldn't just buy the production factory outright and have Sharp operate it. That way, if anything happened to them, the plant would not be at risk of shutting down.
rnizlek is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 12:48 PM   #10
Navdakilla
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Canada
take that samsung!
__________________
New convert, and never turning back!!!
Navdakilla is offline   9 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 12:59 PM   #11
lilo777
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Navdakilla View Post
take that samsung!
They will. Apple winning $1 billion by suing Samsung and loosing $2 billion because it had to prop Sharp to get the components they could easily get from Samsung. That makes perfect economic sense (and APPL trend proves it).
lilo777 is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 01:19 PM   #12
TMay
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Carson City, NV
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilo777 View Post
They will. Apple winning $1 billion by suing Samsung and loosing $2 billion because it had to prop Sharp to get the components they could easily get from Samsung. That makes perfect economic sense (and APPL trend proves it).
You are "loosing" your ability to read. Apple is prepaying for product that Samsung doesn't produce, IGZO displays.
TMay is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 01:34 PM   #13
Thunderhawks
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilo777 View Post
They will. Apple winning $1 billion by suing Samsung and loosing $2 billion because it had to prop Sharp to get the components they could easily get from Samsung. That makes perfect economic sense (and APPL trend proves it).
Yes,it does, because you need to look a little bit further than just how much money was spent and where it went.

Apple is clearly trying to get away from SAMSUNG and it isn't exactly new that SAMSUNG copies whatever others do (Not only Apple stuff)

So, this is most likely a long term investment!
__________________
It's ready, when it's ready !
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin
Thunderhawks is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 02:50 PM   #14
peterdevries
macrumors 68020
 
peterdevries's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilo777 View Post
They will. Apple winning $1 billion by suing Samsung and loosing $2 billion because it had to prop Sharp to get the components they could easily get from Samsung. That makes perfect economic sense (and APPL trend proves it).
nonono, it makes perfect sense, because this investment if it is indeed true enables Apple to dictate the pricing of the screens they get from Sharp and increase margins on their products while keeping the sales price equal.

Apple will not invest 2 Billion of the shareholders funds into a business for charity. They need a return, as it is an investment. Since Apple has some really top-notch finance capability, I'm sure the ROI will be very favorable.
__________________
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
peterdevries is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 02:57 PM   #15
jctevere
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilo777 View Post
They will. Apple winning $1 billion by suing Samsung and loosing $2 billion because it had to prop Sharp to get the components they could easily get from Samsung. That makes perfect economic sense (and APPL trend proves it).
My guess is that you have an elementary/rudimentary economic/financial background. The two events are unrelated; furthermore, Apple didn't lose (which is the proper word, not loose) $2 billion. It is an investment for which Sharp will pay back with interest, or perhaps Apple is planning a buyout and is already a partial stakeholder in the company with the transaction.

It makes perfect economical sense because Sharp doesn't compete with Apple in the mobile, smartphone, tablet, iPod, etc (any market), where as Samsung does. I think its only logical that Apple try to keep afloat arguably the ONLY non-competitor screen manufacturer for Apple. Not to mention that the Sharp LCD used in the iPhone 5 is considered the best LCD screen for any smartphone to date.
jctevere is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 07:56 PM   #16
iZac
macrumors 65816
 
iZac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Shanghai
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilo777 View Post
They will. Apple winning $1 billion by suing Samsung and loosing $2 billion because it had to prop Sharp to get the components they could easily get from Samsung. That makes perfect economic sense (and APPL trend proves it).
Very true, one step forwards two back. But at least it give's Apple far more muscle in the future supply of components. It can much more effectively dictate quality control, features of new components, prioritise it's own supply over other companies etc.

I know Sharp needed bailing out, but it's kind of similar to when Apple tied up a huge chunk of Samsungs Flash supply years ago with a few billion upfront payment?
__________________
Robert Goulden
http://www.robgoulden.com
iZac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 08:28 PM   #17
PaulChowHK
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilo777 View Post
They will. Apple winning $1 billion by suing Samsung and loosing $2 billion because it had to prop Sharp to get the components they could easily get from Samsung. That makes perfect economic sense (and APPL trend proves it).
They never collecting 2 billion from Samsung. In this world over time Apple bad days coming. We still not seeing the best, soon new inventions coming to market and everything changing.
PaulChowHK is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 11:57 PM   #18
vvswarup
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilo777 View Post
They will. Apple winning $1 billion by suing Samsung and loosing $2 billion because it had to prop Sharp to get the components they could easily get from Samsung. That makes perfect economic sense (and APPL trend proves it).
It also makes perfect economic sense for Apple, with $121 billion in the bank, to sit there and let Sharp fail, removing competition for Samsung, a major supplier of parts, allowing Samsung to take Apple to the cleaners in the future.

It makes even more sense to let manufacturing capacity get wiped out of the industry, especially when Apple frequently struggles to have enough product on hand to meet demand.
vvswarup is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 01:00 PM   #19
WannaGoMac
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnizlek View Post
Interesting, but I wonder why Apple wouldn't just buy the production factory outright and have Sharp operate it. That way, if anything happened to them, the plant would not be at risk of shutting down.
This way if labor practices turn out bad, it's not Apple's fault. Just like it does with Foxconn...
__________________
Is your AT&T carrier reliability improved with the 4s on AT&T? Please respond here:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1258982
WannaGoMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 01:02 PM   #20
macchiato2009
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Apple should buy Sharp... and expand the company
macchiato2009 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 09:46 PM   #21
pearvsapple
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by macchiato2009 View Post
Apple should buy Sharp... and expand the company
$4000 TVs minimum.
pearvsapple is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 01:09 PM   #22
extricated
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Slightly off-topic, but yet another thing that illustrates people shouldn't assume items (like the iPad Mini) are overpriced just because the components are relatively inexpensive.
Expenditures like this have to be absorbed into their products as a cost of doing business.

Otherwise, Apple wouldn't be profitable (and Eddie Cue couldn't have his Ferrari).
extricated is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 01:34 PM   #23
xofruitcake
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnizlek View Post
Interesting, but I wonder why Apple wouldn't just buy the production factory outright and have Sharp operate it. That way, if anything happened to them, the plant would not be at risk of shutting down.
Because the ROI will look terrible for the investment. also Apple has no interest in owning a production facility. as of now, they can move to a different vendor if their technology is ahead of Sharp down the road. But once you own that facility, Apple is stuck with the technology, good or bad. IGZO is hot today but the industry can easily move to something else next year. Apple is a serial dater and never make any commitment to it's vendor more than a year or two..
xofruitcake is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 04:36 PM   #24
ladeer
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnizlek View Post
Interesting, but I wonder why Apple wouldn't just buy the production factory outright and have Sharp operate it. That way, if anything happened to them, the plant would not be at risk of shutting down.
because a factory doesn't know how to design, innovate, qa, the next generation screen. because a factory can only make what its tools are designed to make which is the screen for phones today, not tomorrow. for sharp to continue designing and making better screen for apple, so apple doesn't have to rely on samsung's technology roadmap for its business, apple needs more than one display maker.
ladeer is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 02:58 PM   #25
iChrist
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: 3 countries for tax benefit
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmanist1000 View Post
Makes sense if they want to move away from Samsung displays.

Makes sense if they want to move away from LG screens.


.
iChrist is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apple Announces $13 Billion Payout to Developers, 60 Billion Cumulative App Downloads MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 4 Oct 22, 2013 03:43 PM
Apple's App Store Reaches 50 Billion Downloads, Now on Pace for 20 Billion Apps Per Year MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 80 May 16, 2013 11:42 AM
Sharp to tap Samsung, banks for survival after $5.4 billion loss bobenhaus Alternatives to iOS and iOS Devices 2 May 14, 2013 12:59 PM
Apple Announces 40 Billion App Store Downloads, Nearly 20 Billion in 2012 MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 100 Jan 10, 2013 11:17 AM
Apple Reports Results for Q3 2012: $8.8 Billion Profit on $35 Billion in Revenue MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 274 Jul 27, 2012 08:06 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:15 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC