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

Samsung Takes 3% Stake in Sharp, Key Supplier of iPhone and iPad Screens

Applefanboy8153 said:
Apple inc 550 billion usd
Samsung group is not a traded company. Well bring together all Samsung companies and they are still at 350 billion
Apple inc is the world's second most valuable company. Get your facts straight.
Click to expand...
Care to source your numbers?

Total Revenue Samsung $201,1 Trillion
http://investing.businessweek.com/r...aset=incomeStatement&period=A&currency=native
Apple $156,5 Billion
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/earnings/earnings.asp?ticker=AAPL
 
Last edited:
MacNut said:
Samsung electronics, not Samsung group. The group is over 2 trillion.

And unless Apple is releasing a 4K set they are late to the game.
Click to expand...
2 trillion are you nuts? The most valuable group in the world is exon Mobil
2 trillion is like 1/3rd of Chinas economy!
 
Asleep at the Wheel

furi0usbee said:
I don't understand why Apple doesn't take, say, a 30% stake in Sharp... done.
Click to expand...

Why, because Apple is really dead at the head right now. Hate to say it, but like WInston said:

"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
Winston Churchill

I would imagine that with Tim Cook's inventory mgt skills and controls the entire purchase of Sharp could have been beneficial in the LT for Apple. Certainly to invest a few 100 million just to lock out Samsung.

Hey, but, that's cool. Apple has a new alliance with Ferrari, so 4000 "repeat" Ferrari buyers a year will have a newer exposure to Apple.
 
MacNut said:
Samsung electronics, not Samsung group. The group is over 2 trillion.

And unless Apple is releasing a 4K set they are late to the game.
Click to expand...

Samsung group's business is down 16% last FY and the only company gaining in the group is electronics. So I believe Samsung group is soon to become Samsung electronics. :p
 
Applefanboy8153 said:
Well according to the principle of Going Concern Concept a business entity exists indefinitely hence if Sharp fails, there are always buyers like Samsung in this case. Sharp is actually Too big to fail as they are a key supplier to many smartphone and tablet makers, hence these companies would never allow Sharp to fall.
Click to expand...

I know going concern. I am an auditor. Apparently you don't remember 2008 and that whole "TARP" thing; hence, you don't get the joke.
 
Currency exchange?

MacNut said:
Samsung electronics, not Samsung group. The group is over 2 trillion.

And unless Apple is releasing a 4K set they are late to the game.
Click to expand...


the article you quoted is in KRW. South Korean Won. You are still kinda correct
total companies together are worth more than Apple, but broken apart they are not. I think, but hey. The only bank account I look at is mine, and it is relatively small compared to either of them.:(
 
thewordiz said:
the article you quoted is in KRW. South Korean Won. You are still kinda correct
total companies together are worth more than Apple, but broken apart they are not. I think, but hey. The only bank account I look at is mine, and it is relatively small compared to either of them.:(
Click to expand...

There is nothing called Samsung GROUP all companies are individual entities free from all legal bonding from each other hence if one company is undergoing loses Samsung electronics just cannot infuse capital free from interest into that Samsung company.
 
Applefanboy8153 said:
There is nothing called Samsung GROUP all companies are individual entities free from all legal bonding from each other hence if one company is undergoing loses Samsung electronics just cannot infuse capital free from interest into that Samsung company.
Click to expand...

Seriously, you can't even buy pants online at J.CREW and return them to the store. They'll be like 'Sorry, that's a different company'.
 
sarge said:
The entire world economic output is less than $70 trillion. A COUNTRY worth $2trillion is a beast, $20 trillion a monster, but a COMPANY worth $201,1 is a different Animal altogether!
Click to expand...

201.1 trillion indeed! And if the so called Samsung group was valued at 2 trillion they would be a world power with a small nation of their own! Also what kind of logic dictates (assuming that) a 2 trillion dollar company have a revenue of 200 trillion. This guy is better than Mr Bean cause I just fell off my chair laughing. :p

----------
MacNut said:
Care to source your numbers?

Total Revenue Samsung $201,1 Trillion
http://investing.businessweek.com/r...aset=incomeStatement&period=A&currency=native
Apple $156,5 Billion
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/earnings/earnings.asp?ticker=AAPL
Click to expand...

Samsung's revenue is 245 billion. 201.1 trillion is like 3 times the world economy!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Applefanboy8153 said:
201.1 trillion indeed! And if the so called Samsung group was valued at 2 trillion they would be a world power with a small nation of their own! Also what kind of logic dictates (assuming that) a 2 trillion dollar company have a revenue of 200 trillion. This guy is better than Mr Bean cause I just fell off my chair laughing. :p

----------



Samsung's revenue is 245 billion. 201.1 trillion is like 3 times the world economy!
Click to expand...
Revenue is what they earned, assets is what they are worth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Samsung next most popular consumer product after phones and tablets is their Smart TV product line.

Imagine if Apple released the iTV (leveraging Sharp technology) and stated eating away at Samsung's market share. I think the 3% stake is just big enough to learn about the internal moves that Apple and Sharp are making.
That way Samsung won't be 5 years behind Apple's innovation.
 
MacNut said:
Revenue is what they earned, assets is what they are worth.
Click to expand...

I looked at the link you've provided... you've got your currency mixed up. It's in South Korean Wons (... I think there was only one traded company ever with a market cap of over $1T, and it wasn't Samsung).

Assets are not what they are worth, because you have to subtract liability (GM had crazy assets as well, but they had crazier liabilities). In very very general term many companies want lower assets, no liabilities, and lots of profits (that is they want to make lots of money, without having any overhead or shell out any money).

.
 
furi0usbee said:
I don't understand why Apple doesn't take, say, a 30% stake in Sharp... done.
Click to expand...

Probably because Apple doesn't want to be in that exact business. They just want a displays for their Apple products and not all the other stuff associated Sharp.

Apple (it's speculated) help underwrite the building of Sharp display factories, because to mitigate the risk of Sharp going under. In the event that it occurs, the factories would not be affected (by creditors), since Sharp doesn't own them. The part of Apple's supply chain would be secure.

Foxconn (and it's president) also has a stake in Sharp. This likely for the similar reason's ... Sharp's display are sent to Foxconn to be assembled into iPhone. So if displays slow/stops in shipping, then Foxconn will have less work. Foxconn is main securing it's downstream parts supplier.

.
 
GenesisST said:
I hate double standards...

Isn't that the same behaviour that you most Apple fan hated Microsoft for in the 1990s?
Click to expand...

But Apple didn’t copy Microsoft’s products, head-to-heel, that were hot&fresh on the shelf. Remember, there is a common sense about the line between copy vs. borrow/study/learn, the line is made of how similar the two products are, how many new factors are injected into the follower product, in which stage (ascending, peak, descending) of the product life line was the first product at when the follower product is put onto the market.

Using all these criterion, you can see how blatantly Samsung was "totally copy”, that’s why it should be blamed from the industry health viewpoint! Because of that, I don’t see any wrongdoing if someone uses unfair business methods or even illegal actions to kill Samsung. This only applies to Samsung, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back