Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
The only thing Manz has to fear is ...fear itself.
"If only 12 million people in the billion people market migrate to the Apple ecosystem, if only one in ten sapphire customers come from the outside, then we're talking about an additional 8 billion dollars of revenue and an additional 3 billion dollars of profit in addition to the aforementioned additional amounts of money earned. We're talking then about an additional 60 billion dollar market cap."
But let's keep it a little queer and a little upbeat.
Everybody please turn to Manz' claim #805 and calculate Apple's cover glass annealing capacity in China.
Shit, no, wait. I'll be like my government teacher and do an 'open-book test'.
"Apple's post-procession capacity in China is a staggering 56,250×(76÷14)×365.24=111,528,642 cover screens a year! Our two special edition phones can produce over 3 billion U.S. dollars additional revenue and over 1.5 billion dollars additional profit! And that is just for the sapphire component alone. No additional phone sales have been taken into account."
And now everybody can just copy that.
Exactly what I need. In the POR, Apple can get boules thrown at them since they originally had been 'delivered' so they can just as well be deemed 'sold' cause they had been 'prepaid' and thus 'paid' for since they had also been 'ordered'. Deduction's missing but no creditor nor any equity owner shall finance this or any Apple, Crapple or Snapple R&D. 'Prepaid' and 'delivered' is all we need to know, and if it's all intentionally short-funded then it's no wonder why there cannot be any other sapphire.
I think of those units as neat tools for calibrating individual furnaces and they're also good for R&Ding. But once a standard process has been established, which, given the multicolored boules, had not been the plan back then, it should be way more efficient to just slice the boule down and in certain sections toss maybe even every other screen out. That would have to be done by different tools to be found in China.
A politically incorrect comma could have done the job. Then again, it all had so far been an OK way to tell customers what not to expect during the next 12 months. I just dispute that prank-ordering 2136 burgers that come pretty close to menu depiction should cost me, and that's indeed regardless of how Mr. Douglas has the law. Because I'd miss the substance of his claim and also appropriate global player conduct. International media has a tendency of being after Apple. Think about it: an iPhone screen subsidized with Grandma's money. Works not. But then it had been prank-ordering. Works not either. What works is work. That'll work one day. Paying in kind.
Damage is not the point, the point is that it had been a bridge test asking the least important thing, that is, whether your phone can bend very nicely. See 0:25: It's clearly a pit.
Bending however is totally different from impact with strong support on the other side. Pretty much all that matters then is hardness. Wouldn't call it brittle, it's just less bendable.
Indicates one thing: They're desperate.
The bend test is so utterly unimportant, I wonder how much that corrupt thug got paid.
Sapphire will be on top of a substrate that will never ever bend. End of story. Nor will sapphire ever be used to bridge a gap, regardless of what Corning may think a phone constitutes. Pressure point tests are therefore meaningless too.
AMR half a year into bankrupty at 55 cents, half a year later at 36 cents. Identical streak, down 35 percent. Nothing unusual.
60 Sirius Inspection Tools were once seen on BidIndustrial.com...
Now it's down to eight. Guess they're needed.
Depends on what Apple had been telling them. That's what Tom G. can, in his words, "expect".
And I got 'to not get'. Sapphire needs to be expensive now as long as possible in order to recoup the initial investment as quickly as possible. So one feels unlike selling ASFs but tries to put everybody on hold for a jumpstart first-mover advantage.
Competition's price-wise cool with it, they smell improved gross margins and free advertising.
Apple's claim that they steal IP could be proven through competition's unfortunate timing. "We should've been the first mover in Court", those may one day say. Well, at least no antitrust issue for Apple due to former lack of interest. ("Why can't we overbid? Why can't we contract them? They're a public company.")
I once read that a quick and dirty settlement is cancelable in a chapter 11 proceeding, especially if new facts arise, for instance, that Apple still needs no sapphire this year or next. Which could be a display of a flawed corporate culture. First secrecy so that every other sentence starts with a 'maybe', thereby shelving everything. See large screen phones. Sad but true. One can easily get overtaken like that.
Or what those lazy Chinese can't deliver in time which is why one needs to wait two months. Typical East German marketing, but hey, go for it.
Anyway, then the previous settlement can just as well be considered a ceiling not to be exceeded. One could produce for others straight out of Mesa under equitable relief doctrines. 160kg in 20 days or 240kg in 30 days is in any event nothing one can make a giant fuss about. Furnaces are too heavy, can't be moved, had been ordered and that's it.
But most likely it's a joke indeed.
Entirely speculative but my two cents with regard to this thing are that FTC from Taiwan wanted sapphire because my two Touch Pro phones fell apart after only 1 to 1.5 years, and Snapple said, "you can't have that, and this time I feel like market leading cause then it's a $30-$50 upmark. That I can't have if you're at it."
Cause that 'dispute' never got explained, nor even tried to explain away, so why not do business? Top thing I can come up with: Better business with somebody else. More business that is. First batch of furnaces had been alright, and if the second batch isn't, why not fix them?
So the sole remaining question would be why people have no issue burning money through in Vegas but won't invest here. Well, have you been to a US high school? I have. Ironically, the common perception of which is also why the story is being bought by very many, unless you're from abroad.
Cause as a German, you may not get the second part. You get it once people start asking for your homework in Senior English. And it's not Americans that make America great. It's the gap. "Hehehehehe." :D
(c) Larry Hagman
That would then again be too much like shooting blanks. Fire up your goodie back while working against gravity, media-ordered negativity, conspiracies, and prejudices.
So I'd actually prefer good news around, or even after, the POR when they matter from a recovery percentage point of view. GTAT can then get the same amount of money for printing less shares.
Do you know how much Citi as of now gave Ranor for the claim? $507,834.82. That's the promised amount minus the holdback.
Now we look at http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1328792/000095015915000112/tpcs8k.htm ...
If the entire claim gets disallowed, Citi will get
"$1,692,782.74 multiplied by 30%" back from Ranor.
And indeed, that's exactly the same amount.
Actual damages to Ranor (and GTAT) in case of future business being conducted is the "interest at 7% per annum" from 21 Apr 2015, but other parties would call it pocket change. Irreversible damages had so far not been shown. Lost profit damages are almost always only getting through in connection with THIRD PARTY lost sales, but they had especially been hiring (and firing) people for the GTAT order.
A $35,000 discount for the reinstatement of an $8,000,000 order seems to be handlable anyway and it all is quite an incentive to indeed conduct future business.
With Meyer Burger it's quite the same. Delivered goods had been paid for, what happens with those overorders remains to be seen. Ranor and Meyer Burger will most likely one day have an interest in getting their claims cut down in court. Citi owns a claim for this proceeding only. That's different from owning the equity and goods of those two suppliers in spe.
Ranor's claim #285 just happens to be total garbage. GT namely pre-paid $2,425,613, and in return got hold of chambers worth $1,641,600, yet they didn't pick up finished goods worth $957,600, which means that GT pre-paid a whopping 81.8 percent.
So when Citi overpays for an unproven opportunity cost claim entirely settleable out of court through future business transactions, one can rather say: Thank you, Apple.
Then my attorney would kick in. He'd mumble that the stuff they want, they could've gotten a hundred of them for twenty bucks. Should've bought, should've hedged, should have paid 2 percent on top, so no need to quarrel. Obvious case. Too much stuff they demand for a bad performance, and that's even twice the case. Overly greedy, then overly scroogey. Risk? Bad math. Too much 'stuff for nothing shares for free' mentality in a semi-private market. Too little action, too little self-preservation, too little contributions, too much entitlement thinking. For me, right then, undue burdens, major hassles, equal protection issues. Not everyone can get hold of their stuff.
So it's needed for the second IPO. And that's another twenty bucks.
(I may have 3 percent extra interest p.a. for them to straighten it all out, but that's it. Last resort: Equilibrium talk. It'll make them whine. Let's cancel half of your stuff, and your other half is IPO money. Shareholders then can have something like 116 percent taking formerly diluted share counts into account and your principal amount can have that too.)
I'd auction off the stuff for tax credits, buy all stuff back and test-run stuff and other stuff. That just-in-time produced stuff gets checked out in Asia. I'd have other stuff put around my stuff. Spot sell stuff. I'd yell that 'I ain't got no money' and POR myself. People say, well, never mind, but gimme more stuff. I'd have a little more stuff for them on the second try. They say, what gives.
Mesa seems to be a two storey building at least in part.
Does anybody know to what extent? How many square feet on the second floor, etc.? The lighter equipment seems to be up there, e.g. Sirius, see bidspotter.com.
http://investor.gtat.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=315066-15-1999&CIK=1394954
That thing here. "I hold a boatload of shares during the bankruptcy." What should change? Parties in interest will most likely be the same.
I had been checking for their Pyramis Fund who appeared as a holder back in February. That one now files within the FMR LLC report, and in that one there's no mentioning.
But they sure are not so stupid to do away with all the shares for pennies, since there had been no real prep time to exit. Book a tax loss now, but attach a parachute so that later you can reown them.
But selling for 1% makes no sense. I expect some pressure from undercover equity owners because no prepackaged deal has been struck. Stuff like that can namely well be settled too.
Ten fund managers managing the fund. You may hear a 'good for you', but probably not in this case. (I don't think FMR's corrupt.)
People you hire to do exactly that is generally one option.