Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

UpperQuadrant

macrumors 6502
Aug 27, 2014
253
2
Apple loaned GT $441 million so far. GT is mismanaged and planned to not pay Apple back, which is why they filed bankruptcy.

Apple would be out another $139 million if they gave GT the remainder of the loan. GT would have just declared bankruptcy in January when the first payment came due.

It would be ridiculous for Apple to not pay $139 million to secure their $441 million investment, so Apple must have seen things going wrong at GT.

Here's what GT Advanced Technologies says about the $580 Million PREPAYMENT.

http://investor.gtat.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=804195

It doesn't sound like it was a loan, it sounds like Apple fronted the money to GT Advanced Technologies to provide products for Apple for a 5 year period of time. It think what's going on is that GT Advanced Technologies hasn't started to actually ship Apple much product (as originally specified) and Apple is just holding up $139 Million on principal and GT Advanced Technology is mismanaged probably due to not receiving all of the money they expected. GT has to get their collective ***** together because it sounds as though Apple will get free product for 5 years.
 

uwdude

macrumors 6502a
Jul 16, 2014
917
469
Just listened to the August 2012 investor conference call.
Someone asked the CEO what effect it would have on the company if Apple were to withhold the final $139m October payment.

The CEO said basically (a) Apple will have to make the payment if we meet the targets in the contract, and we will meet those targets and (b) even if they don't make the payment, GT would have $400m in the bank "so it wouldn't be a world-changing event"

http://www.media-server.com/m/p/n57pdmg5 - 29 mins in

Well wait a minute then- if they now have $80 million, what happened to $320 million?? That much money does not just go poof! Did they give it back to Apple?
 

Ronm01

macrumors newbie
Dec 31, 2013
21
0
Actually, the rumors were that the yields were too low.

----------



Do you know that "may" and "to" are not the same word?

Thank you for correcting my usage of the wrong word leading to an assumption. I did not attempt to deceive. "May" is correct.
 

ThisIsNotMe

Suspended
Aug 11, 2008
1,849
1,062
Market Cap before bankruptcy filing - $1.6 billion
Market Cap after bankruptcy filing - $182 million

Apple withheld a $139 million *loan* and the company can be bought out for pennies on the dollar even with their $300 million in debt.
 

Breaking Good

macrumors 65816
Sep 28, 2012
1,436
1,204
Well wait a minute then- if they now have $80 million, what happened to $320 million?? That much money does not just go poof! Did they give it back to Apple?


I would surmise it went into the construction of the production facilities and related equipment.

Their money is invested in hard, but illiquid, assets.

If Apple was contractually obligated to make the final payment, then they could have opened themselves up to a lawsuit by creditors and investors.

I'm not saying that GTAT isn't at fault. If success or failure rests on a single loan payment by a potential customer, you are not managing your risks effectively.
 

the8thark

macrumors 601
Apr 18, 2011
4,627
1,729
Sure seems like the stock was being hyped solely based on rumors the new iPhones would have sapphire screens. Apple never said what it was doing with the sapphire so people making assumptions based on supply chain rumors are stupid.

That's how things go. People think they know what Apple will do better than Apple themselves. And this time GT got burnt by trying to 2nd guess Apple.
 

rei101

macrumors 6502a
Dec 24, 2011
976
1
My brother worked at a company in Venezuela, the company was not doing well and the president left. Then, one of the secretaries noticed a large sale under a very low price to another company, they called that company to have a meeting with the owner and when the owner came it was the ex president!

He sold a load of merchandise to another company he owned before leaving... and it was legal! :s
 

gavroche

macrumors 65816
Oct 25, 2007
1,430
1,524
Left Coast
I'm sure they're surprised - not like they withheld a payment - probably to buy the company after they file for bankruptcy for cheap.

All too convenient.

Way too early, and far too little information, for people to be making such insinuations about it. First, contrary to what some people are commenting, Apple didn't withhold a payment of any amount the owed to them. They decided to withhold a LOAN payment. I.E. to not loan them any additional money. None of us is in position to know the reasoning of this decision.
 

macUser2007

macrumors 65832
May 30, 2007
1,504
201
Apple loaned GT $441 million so far. GT is mismanaged and planned to not pay Apple back, which is why they filed bankruptcy....

Nope. Not a loan, but a pre-payment.

Apple strung GT up by insisting on having a new factory built for Apple's exclusive use, then walked out.

Here is what the deal was, according to Reuters:

"Analysts and industry insiders cited terms of GT Advanced's deal with Apple that involved building an Arizona factory to make scratch-resistant sapphire glass exclusively for Apple, but which the Cupertino-based company was under no obligation to buy.

...

Under terms of the deal struck with GT Advanced in November, Apple said it would provide a prepayment of about $578 million to help install furnaces and other gear in the Arizona factory, which is owned by Apple and slated to employ more than 700. Apple would then be paid back over five years starting 2015."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014...N0HX0XV20141008?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Other sapphire glass manufacturers waked away from the deal, because Apple's terms were so onerous.

Also, Corning seems to have walked away from dealing with Apple, as Apple fell back to using "ion-strenghtened" glass, which is exactly what Gorilla Glass is, just without the Corning branding.

Apple is the Walmart of the electronics industry.

On the other hand, I hope the SEC is taking a close look at the insider stock sales at GT.
 
Last edited:

gavroche

macrumors 65816
Oct 25, 2007
1,430
1,524
Left Coast
The stock price has almost nothing to do with the operations of a company with the exception of when you try to raise capital from the market. In that case, it only means that if the price of the stock goes down, you have to offer more shares of stock to get the same amount of cash, diluting the value of the current stock holders holdings.

...

Most likely what happened is that GT expected to sell millions of screens and when Apple didn't purchase them they realized that they wouldn't have cash flow to operate. Bankruptcy allows you to not pay your creditors while you reorganize your company to again operate in a profitable way.

Agreed. I think Apple is used to dealing with companies (in China and Taiwan) that are very large, and have good solid customer bases... and are well financed and run. My hunch (completely my opinion) is that they realized that they were dealing with a company that may have been getting in over their head. One of the effects of the bankruptcy is that it gives protection against creditors... of which Apple was. If Apple got wind of this, I can see why they would decide not to continue loaning money.

----------

But that's how Wall Street works. Buy on the rumour sell on the news. This is why I don't trust the markets. Nobody takes into account fundamentals any more. It's all pure hype, spin and speculation. Might as well stick your money on the roulette wheel instead.

I agree that many do that. Then there are a small minority of people that actually do keep good track of the fundamentals.... and make buying and selling decisions based on when they think that market pricing is way off tilt. Much like knowledgeable sports people bet on sporting events when they think that the spread is way off.

----------

Again, when was this more than a rumor? Not trying to be confrontational, I just don't recall seeing any confirmed report of Apple's plans on Sapphire screens.

Indeed. It's very similar to when we hear about Samsung providing components for some iDevice, and a bunch of people cry out that Apple swore off doing any business with Samsung, and was reversing their decision (eating crow, or whatever they want to say). They never did any such thing. Business is business. Rumors are just rumors.
 

Nunyabinez

macrumors 68000
Apr 27, 2010
1,758
2,230
Provo, UT
I think it is highly unlikely that GT was in the dark regarding Apple's plans for iPhone displays.

So you both are under the impression that Apple built this multi Million dollar Facility, and loaned GT Advanced Millions in funding to start operations, all without telling them what they will be building? I Guess it is possible, however I don't see the benefit to Apple to withhold such information, even with them doubling down on secrecy.

That's not what I was saying. I think that Apple planned to have Sapphire displays on the iPhone 6 and had GT trying to produce them. Maybe GT thought they would be able to overcome their production issues in time to make this happen, but at some point Apple realized that GT couldn't meet demand and reversed course.

It appears that this happened late in the game. Maybe GT was telling them they would be able to and then finally had to admit they couldn't do it. This left GT in a bad situation since they were getting investments with anticipation that they would sell millions of units and then it didn't happen.

As you say, we don't know who is to blame, but if I was a betting man, I would bet that GT screwed up and Apple did the smart thing which was go with proven technology and get the phones out the door. I highly doubt Apple was trying to screw a supplier/partner, they were just taking care of business.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,891
1,480
Palookaville
I am likely missing some key aspects of the situation, but wasn't the bankruptcy due to an overreaction by the market regarding Apple not using Sapphire glass as their main display material for their new phones?

I could see why Apple would be surprised, as they have gone on record supporting GT Advanced with investment in an Arizona facility, and with plans to use the material on some models of the Apple watch. I guess the lack of the final advancement was enough for trigger happy investors to pull the plug.

I hope it wasn't sabotage by apple, but who knows.

The plummeting value of the stock was a result of the bankruptcy filing, not the other way around.

I think Apple is just about as surprised by GT's bankruptcy filing as Captain Renault was at finding gambling going on in Rick's.
 

springsup

macrumors 65816
Feb 14, 2013
1,157
965
I am likely missing some key aspects of the situation, but wasn't the bankruptcy due to an overreaction by the market regarding Apple not using Sapphire glass as their main display material for their new phones?

I could see why Apple would be surprised, as they have gone on record supporting GT Advanced with investment in an Arizona facility, and with plans to use the material on some models of the Apple watch. I guess the lack of the final advancement was enough for trigger happy investors to pull the plug.

I hope it wasn't sabotage by apple, but who knows.

This is all a very odd situation. We'll have to wait until tomorrow morning and the bankruptcy hearing to find out what's going on.

What we know is that GT formerly made the sapphire furnaces. They wanted to diversify and sell the sapphire directly. There are rumours that Apple was impressed with GT's sapphire because of its superior drop-test results, which is why they chose them specifically to partner with.

Apple built GT a building in Arizona (that's Apple's building, GT just occupies it), loaned GT $580m to build the furnaces, and asked for repayments in the form of product or cash, but at Apple's discretion and with Apple under no obligation to ever buy any sapphire at all from GT. That's right - there was no minimum purchase agreement. There were also a bunch of clauses we don't have the full details on under which GT would have to repay the money more quickly (maybe if it failed to meet certain targets).

That seems like a horrible deal for GT - if Apple decide against sapphire (as they did), they are stuck with enormous sapphire manufacturing capacity; 1/2Bn is enough to build an absolutely gigantic plant. They have also taken on lots of new employees.

GT's position right now is that their cash seems to have drastically shrunk - they seem to have gone through $250m of cash last quarter. That points to them having to repay Apple's loans. They still have $85m in the bank, so they're not insolvent. They have also doubled their inventory, so they have loads of sapphire waiting to be sold.

I can see several ways out of this for GT. The biggest problem is the loan repayments to Apple. Chapter 11 will halt that. Alternatively, they could negotiate an extended repayment plan with Apple. I could see Apple agreeing to that - they don't want to endanger so many jobs in the US, and they still need an exclusive, high-capacity sapphire manufacturer for the future.

The next issue is to repair the balance sheet. They need to shift that sapphire! Hopefully rumours of quality control issues are not true. The iWatch is too far out; they need to move lots of it before the end of the year. Maybe Samsung will buy it and do a limited-edition GS5 with it?
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,891
1,480
Palookaville
The bankruptcy was because they were running out of cash, and quickly, after Apple withheld its $139 million payment.

What I don't understand is if GTAT were in such dire straits why it didn't tell Apple that they would file Chapter 11 if it didn't get the final installment, or at least restructure the debt? Perhaps it did, but then I'd have thought Apple wouldn't be able to put out a press release today talking about GTAT's "surprising" decision (i.e. they wouldn't have been surprised by it). Parsing words a bit, they aren't saying they were surprised, but it seems like splitting hairs.

Apple's comments are pure window dressing. This company was a close business partner. Apple had to know GT's financial situation, and what would happen if they withheld their credit line.

----------

But that's how Wall Street works. Buy on the rumour sell on the news. This is why I don't trust the markets. Nobody takes into account fundamentals any more. It's all pure hype, spin and speculation. Might as well stick your money on the roulette wheel instead.

No. Just plain no.
 

please22

macrumors member
Sep 11, 2012
63
36
Again, when was this more than a rumor? Not trying to be confrontational, I just don't recall seeing any confirmed report of Apple's plans on Sapphire screens.


Omg, is this real. Apple almost invested half a billion into the company. It sure wasn't for more covers for the camera and home button. Whatever the sapphire was going to be used for, it was for something substantial. That at least we know. Given that that something "substantial" never materialized this year, surely you can piece together that that would put a strain on the companies cash flow and ability to repay the loan.

Who cares if the sapphire screens were never confirmed by Apple publicly, it doesn't diminish that Apple was expecting something significant from GT. There are only so many things Apple could use sapphire for in its current product line up - be it alleged smart phones or fantasy desktop monitors - neither of which happened.
 

gavroche

macrumors 65816
Oct 25, 2007
1,430
1,524
Left Coast
Nope. Not a loan, but a pre-payment.

Apple strung GT up by insisting on having a new factory built for Apple's exclusive use, then walked out.

Not to split hairs with you... but this pre-payment IS a loan. It is an advance payment, for services and products not yet manufactured or delivered. It's a show of good faith that you intend to buy their products, so you pre-pay. It is a liability on the accounting books of GT, as it is unearned. If GT is either unable to deliver, or Apple is unable or unwilling to purchase... then no purchase takes place... and GT would owe this money back to Apple. Hence all the talk about when it was to have to start making repayments to Apple.
As to your other point.... we really do not have any information to support this statement. Apple has invested a lot of money in other companies to get them up to capacity to meet their needs... without any problem. Seems something has gone wrong in this particular case... and can't see how you are willing to rush to judgment on who/what is to blame.
 

macUser2007

macrumors 65832
May 30, 2007
1,504
201
...That at least we know. Given that that something "substantial" never materialized this year, surely you can piece together that that would put a strain on the companies cash flow and ability to repay the loan.
...

Why do you people keep talking about a "loan"?

Apple did not give GT a loan. The reports are for a pre-payment for the building of a GT factory which was to be used for Apple's exclusive needs for 5 years.

Apple withheld the final payment of the agreed upon amount, which is what likely triggered GT's Chapter 11 filing.
 

springsup

macrumors 65816
Feb 14, 2013
1,157
965
The article says only that they probably could, not that they will.

They don't even have to - Apple's loan is secured against the furnaces. They already own the building the furnaces are in, and they could hire the people back easily if GT went under.

If they wanted to acquire GT, they could have done it last year. They don't want to acquire their suppliers - they just want exclusivity agreements that prevent their competitors getting to them, favourable prices, enormous capacity and ridiculous quality control.

Being an Apple supplier isn't easy. They do squeeze you.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.