GT Advanced Saw Production Troubles as Early as February

[Archer1440]

Let's not forget that a role was played by websites like this one, with speculation and rumors driving investors over the cliff of sapphire iPhone predictions.

There's a reason why Omega Seamaster (diving) watches use sapphire crystals, and the Omega Speedmasters (moon watch) use Hesalite (acrylic). Sapphire has good compression strength, but has limitations in terms of breakage resistance in tension, even in the relatively thick sections used in watch crystals.

We will likely never see an affordable pure sapphire phone face in the size of a 6 series. Some sort of sapphire-glass lamination is possible, but you won't see affordable monolithic sapphire screens in these sizes in this decade.

 

[blue22]

"s" is for shady...

It's not a good sign when the CEO deliberately moves to sell a boatload of company stock 6 months in advance the day BEFORE his company's core product was supposed to be included in a high-end client's product debut. Talk about being shady, shady, shady...

 

[Klae17]

I think this would be a great opportunity for Apple to simply buy out the company and take on manufacturing of the sapphire for themselves. As a side business, they could start also selling it to other handset manufacturers and make even more money.

That would be so ridiculous and stupid. They will sell more iPhones if sapphire was ONLY on the iPhone not others.

 

[0815]

Seems like Apple took on plenty of risk. We'll see how much of that $440 million they get back.

Yes, I don't get the Apple hate related to that story.

It is clear that GT oversold what they can do to Apple and that the Management of GT did shady stuff.

Apple of course was requiring some milestones - they don't hand out half a billion dollars and don't expect anything in return. It was up to GT to decide if they can deliver what they promised and take the deal - or decide that it is unrealistic that they can do that and not take the deal. Nobody was forcing them to take an unrealistic deal, they over promised.

Apple obviously didn't hand out a free gift without expecting anything in return.

 

[samcraig]

I am not defending the CEO, etc.

However (and maybe I missed this) is it known if they had these stocks vested? IE - the timing is very poor and not in their favor. But if the first opportunity to sell was on X date, and they put in for the sale on that date, that's less nefarious than simply sitting on stock and scheduling it to hit on that date. I hope that makes sense.

So the question (for me unless it was answered) is were they actually sitting on stock they COULD have sold earlier - or was this the first opportunity to do so and they took it because they a) wanted to sell b) wanted to sell before any word got out which would lower the stocks)

 

[HyperZboy]

Seems like Apple took on plenty of risk. We'll see how much of that $440 million they get back.

Apple took NO RISK! How could someone say that? How stupid!

Apple will at least get all the equipment back.

For those Apple fanbois, I find it hard to believe that anyone believes Apple didn't know what was going on in Arizona after investing this much money.

If so, then Tim Cook is certainly NO STEVE JOBS!

 

[macduke]

Well there goes that experiment. Back to China, lol. It was fun while it lasted!

Yes I know Corning is American. But Cook kept talking about bringing all these jobs back to America, etc. This shakes the faith that we can keep up with China. Hope that's not true but I'm scared it might be.

 

[dagger01]

Why do we care?

Why is this a continuing story on this site? The fall of GT Advance has had zero impact on consumers and is nothing more than a cautionary tale of a company that couldn't live up to its responsibilities. It's not like any of Apple's products were noticeably delayed, or at all based on any real evidence, so why the continuing fascination by the editorial staff here?

They're going out of business after getting money from Apple to supply sapphire for a product or set of products that we either haven't seen or were not really affected by the problem to a degree that any consumer would notice or care.

 

[MacFather]

Deleted.

 

[Kaibelf]

Apple took NO RISK! How could someone say that? How stupid!

Apple will at least get all the equipment back.

For those Apple fanbois, I find it hard to believe that anyone believes Apple didn't know what was going on in Arizona after investing this much money.

If so, then Tim Cook is certainly NO STEVE JOBS!

Yawn. Used equipment is NOT the same as "taking no risk" and you can give up on the "Tim Cook isn't Steve Jobs" nonsense. The man is dead. Deal with it.

 

[roland.g]

That CEO and COO are going to be in a lot of trouble.

Plans or not, those plans were set in motion through insider information.

CEOs and COOs can dump stock. Usually precautions are set so that they can't use their information to get out in time by requiring their options to be held through vesting dates, etc., along with minimum requirements they must hold. In the case of GT it doesn't appear that those were in place.

I would be surprised if the SEC lets them get off Scott free though.

 

[samcraig]

I find it hard to believe that anyone believes Apple didn't know what was going on in Arizona after investing this much money.

If so, then Tim Cook is certainly NO STEVE JOBS!

I wrote something similar. https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/20060121/

 

[bbeagle]

Apple took NO RISK! How could someone say that? How stupid!

Apple will at least get all the equipment back.

How is this useless equipment worth any money to Apple? Apple is not in the business of manufacturing sapphire. This is the main reason Apple used a company who was supposed to understand how to do this.

This is simply collateral that Apple will sell and get LESS than $440 million back. Apple lost millions on this deal.

 

[Technarchy]

Hey MacRumors,

Have you considered making a GT Advanced drama forum?

Some moderator has a gun to your head and forced you to read the story?

 

[samcraig]

Some moderator has a gun to your head and forced you to read the story?

AND comment!

 

[Technarchy]

How is this useless equipment worth any money to Apple? Apple is not in the business of manufacturing sapphire. This is the main reason Apple used a company who was supposed to understand how to do this.

This is simply collateral that Apple will sell and get LESS than $440 million back. Apple lost millions on this deal.

Apple could take back their equipment and give/lend/sell it to another company in exchange for future glass.

Maybe even farm out production to a Taiwanese or Chinese firm which could salvage the whole deal and minimize loss.

 

[iSee]

Apple took NO RISK! How could someone say that? How stupid!

Apple will at least get all the equipment back.

For those Apple fanbois, I find it hard to believe that anyone believes Apple didn't know what was going on in Arizona after investing this much money.

If so, then Tim Cook is certainly NO STEVE JOBS!

You're so right!
By the way, could I borrow $500 from you? I'm going to invest in a business.
Don't worry, I'll take on ALL the risk, so you have NOTHING to worry about!!

 

[vanzantapple]

Now we know what GT standard for, Grand Theft.

Grand Theft Apple

 

[vpndev]

Thank You Wall Street Journal! I mean seriously. How could a non-disclosure agreement keep bankruptcy proceedings from being disclosed to creditors and the public? That's insane.

I don't think there's going to be any winners here. Apple made a flashy promise of creating jobs in America. How many now? Haha!

GT made promises of delivering this product, but couldn't make enough of it in time. Apple made investments inherently designed to buy this product, but didn't nor did Apple make its final payment to even allow that to happen.

The only thing I know for certain is that the court is going to throw out these non-disclosure agreements for the sake of investors. And maybe even the deal with Apple. If that happens, GT is back in business selling to Samsung.

Like I said, I don't see any real winners here unless Apple & GT come to some terms that the court accepts. The court is not going to just bow before Apple like Apple is used to. This is bankruptcy and now liquidation and debts to investors, Apple being one of them, but also huge layoffs of workers and bad PR. But Apple's investment they could have back in terms of equipment sales or just buying the product.

The bad PR Apple doesn't want. That puts GT in the driver's seat despite the stock sales that may or may not be investigated. Keep in mind, those stock sales are irrelevant to the bankruptcy case. That's and SEC issue. They'll be dealt with there if illegal.

The NDA won't apply, but the BK Judge has almost complete discretion to disclose, or not. He/she might decide that disclosure is not in the interests of preserving the value of the estate - regardless of whatever Apple wants.

We don't know the exact structure Apple's relationship with GT. Did Apple own some of the stock, i.e. as an "investor", or did it just provide loans? And what are the terms of the loans? Were they secured against equipment, or what?

This all maters because of the priority rules in satisfying creditors in bankruptcy. It seems quite possible that Apple is the lead creditor, having provided more money than any other source. If so, it would have a dominant say in any restructuring plan.

You're right that will get messier before it's done. How bad it will look for Apple is still unknown though. GT has been having its say about "oppressive and onerous" terms and Apple has not responded, as is usual.

Don't turn on the cooker just yet but do have the popcorn ready.

 

[carlgo]

Management will probably have to spend most of their profits on attorneys who of course will be the biggest and perhaps only winners...

 

[CFreymarc]

Suddenly, a Corning Glass account manager in Rhode Island just took a flight San Jose and is in the lobby of Infinite Loop One.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2w2j8fd

 

[vpndev]

I am not defending the CEO, etc.

However (and maybe I missed this) is it known if they had these stocks vested? IE - the timing is very poor and not in their favor. But if the first opportunity to sell was on X date, and they put in for the sale on that date, that's less nefarious than simply sitting on stock and scheduling it to hit on that date. I hope that makes sense.

So the question (for me unless it was answered) is were they actually sitting on stock they COULD have sold earlier - or was this the first opportunity to do so and they took it because they a) wanted to sell b) wanted to sell before any word got out which would lower the stocks)

The issue is not whether or not the stock had vested. It is purely and simply whether the CEO made his trade decision based upon knowledge that was not known to the general public.

It seems very suspicious to me that the scheduled sales were organized AFTER missing the first deadline. It doesn't matter that they were sales according to a prearranged plan - if the plan was made based upon non-public knowledge then it's illegal.

 

[samcraig]

The issue is not whether or not the stock had vested. It is purely and simply whether the CEO made his trade decision based upon knowledge that was not known to the general public.

It seems very suspicious to me that the scheduled sales were organized AFTER missing the first deadline. It doesn't matter that they were sales according to a prearranged plan - if the plan was made based upon non-public knowledge then it's illegal.

But harder to prove. If it was the first available sale date - and he took it, it's going to be harder to prove it was because of inside knowledge. If he could have sold at any time AND put this order in when he did, it's pretty clear cut.

 

[teknikal90]

so apple's deal fell through, a company went through bankruptcy, and the iphone as a result ended up with a superior glass.

funny.

 

[itjw]

Management will probably have to spend most of their profits on attorneys who of course will be the biggest and perhaps only winners...

Go attorneys!!!

Even as a proud capitalist, things like insider trading (this is pretty obvious...) are still illegal.

The people that lost their jobs were not under contract (AZ is at-will), and the stockholders still assumed ultimate liability (i.e. the price could go to 0) so I'm sorry for their loss but I don't feel particularly bad there. Everyone knew the possibilities.

But the crooks at the top that bought and sold their positions based on insider information? They should be stripped of all assets, and if they are unable to forfeit equal to what they stole: prison time to offse the difference in addition to what they get for insider trading.

If they'd enforce that way of thinking ONCE, no one would ever do crap like that again. Unfortunately, they'll both be living on an island somewhere by years end.

Kinda crappy, but life goes on. Write your congressmen if you don't like it.