19 ms·

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Takes $1B Position in Apple

• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• paulpauper 10y ago
  it seems like a lot until you realize it's 1/300 of Berkshire Hathaway and 1/550 of Apple
  • itodd 10y ago
    It still seems like a lot (to me).
    • epalmer 10y ago
      "A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you're talking real money." often attributed to Everett Dirksen but he denies saying it. Seems like real money to me. Edit: fixed typo
  • nstj 10y ago
    And that it probably wasn't Warren Buffett who bought it (he has 2 portfolio/investment managers who he's gradually handing the reins to).
  • skj 10y ago
    Then it still seems like a lot, frankly.
  • tacos 10y ago
    A little more than 1% of its cash and a little less than 1% of its total equity portfolio.
  • rcar 10y ago
    Agreed - if you buy an S&P 500 index, 1/36 of your money is in Apple. (Holdings tab on https://www.spdrs.com/product/fund.seam?ticker=SPY https://www.spdrs.com/product/fund.seam?ticker=SPY) Not that big a bet on BH's part.
    • xapata 10y ago
      Not necessarily. The index fund is supposed to track the index. It doesn't need to actually buy the exact stocks as the index, though in the case of the S&P 500, that might be the easiest strategy.
      • whatok 10y ago
        Uh, it's not only the easiest strategy but the only purpose the ETF exists. If people thought SPY had drifted from its benchmark, no one would use it.
        • lis 10y ago
          ETF still have different replication strategies. To the customer they guarantee to track the index, however they might buy completely unrelated stocks or options to achieve this. The replication strategy should be an important factor when buying an ETF.
          • whatok 10y ago
            I agree with what you're saying but I was talking about the SPY example listed above. The prospectus [0] for SPY says that it's not actively managed and that it rebalances at least monthly. [0] https://www.spdrs.com/library-content/public/SPDR_500%20TRUST_PROSPECTUS.pdf https://www.spdrs.com/library-content/public/SPDR_500%20TRUS...
          • jonknee 10y ago
            Yes, and SPY is the monster ETF that it is because there is no funny business and it tracks the index the old fashioned way by actually holding the securities. Broker dealers can trade in a basket of securities for new shares of SPY and vice versa which keeps it very close to perfectly tracking the index.
        • xapata 10y ago
          SPY isn't the only S&P 500 index fund.
  • coldtea 10y ago
    1/300 of the most valuable company in the world (or close) is still a hell of a lot.
• reviseddamage 10y ago
  What I get from BH signal: Well I don't have to worry and put AAPL into retirement portfolio, although probably means no longer salacious enough for shorts or immediate growth investors.
  • tedmiston 10y ago
    ... until the car comes out. In reality, Apple has always been a long for me, and presumably anyone working in tech that invests directly.
• shrugger 10y ago
  I swear this is just for headline generation. I mean, a billion IS a lot of money, but it's a very small risk on BH's part, and an even smaller part on Apple's. That amount of money is a lot of money relative to other money, but it's not really a big deal relative to either party here. However, I think that Buffett is just making a statement of 'look how much I think of Apple' by throwing that bn around, perhaps inspiring other investors? Not really my preferred science...
  • nstj 10y ago
    Buffett himself quite possibly had no knowledge of this investment
    • lorenzhs 10y ago
      Not sure about the downvotes. To quote directly from the article: "Mr. Buffett has said that large stock picks of above $1 billion are usually made by him, while smaller purchases are made by one of the two managers. They don’t consult with him before making their investing decisions, Mr. Buffett added Monday."
  • pessimizer 10y ago
    [misinformation] One or both of the parties saw fit to press release it. It's clearly a favor for Apple. [/misinformation] edit: For some reason I didn't process that the investment was old, although it's the first few paragraphs of the article.
    • whatok 10y ago
      From the article: > Berkshire’s positions were disclosed in a 13F filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, a quarterly requirement for investors managing more than $100 million. The report indicates the number of shares held and the value of each stake at the end of the quarter, so it isn’t clear if Mr. Buffett’s firm has continued buying the stock since the quarter ended.
  • zepto 10y ago
• lujim 10y ago
  Took. This happened in March at an average price of $109. Today it is around $93. Berkshire just disclosed it today.
  • ninkendo 10y ago
    That's a really good point. Various articles are spinning it as if they bought AAPL because it's so cheap after the nosedive it's been in lately. That's not what the timeline was, and isn't really Berkshire's MO to time the market like that.
    • gist 10y ago
      Well we don't know that he didn't buy more at the cheap price as well though. He could disclose today and have bought some on Friday at the lower price.
      • stingraycharles 10y ago
        But like you said, we don't know that. At this point, that is just speculation about a fact we have no reason to believe happened at all.
  • IBM 10y ago
    You don't know what price they bought it at, it could have been purchased at any time between Jan and March (where it traded in the mid $90s frequently).
    • lujim 10y ago
      True, good point. AS of March at an AVERAGE price of $109
      • SmellTheGlove 10y ago
        And in a quarter, they may disclose another contrarian buy to dollar cost average that down to $100.
• elcapitan 10y ago
  I thought Buffett doesn't invest in tech companies - is Apple now so much away from tech and so close to being a product like Coca Cola?
  • wklauss 10y ago
    Normally he doesn't but he has made exceptions in the past. He has a position on IBM, for example. I wouldn't consider IBM "away from tech".
  • atestu 10y ago
    That used to be true, but he's had a stake in IBM since 2011 (which he just increased)
  • techterrier 10y ago
    car companies OTOH ?
• whafro 10y ago
  This isn't a huge bet in BH's world, barely cracking their top 20 holdings list, and it barely registers a blip for Apple, but it's culturally interesting to see Buffet make another no-tech exception for Apple, and it will be interesting to see how much that confidence transfers to the street. Buffett and Berkshire do tend to love companies that generate cash, and Apple certainly does that. They don't tend to chase massive growth, but rather steady climbs backed by real profits. It seems like a pretty reasonable fit.
  • nstj 10y ago
    Does the Buffett "no tech" rule hold for Tedd and Todd, his investment managers?
    • zrail 10y ago
      It does not. And it's not a "no tech" rule, it's a guiding principle of not investing in what you don't understand. There's generally something smart to do somewhere in the market that you understand, so why waste time and energy on something you don't? Throw it on the "too hard" pile and move on.
      • deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      • nstj 10y ago
        Follow up to your edit - and I'm totally familiar with the "Circle of Competence" philosophy, but given Buffett has stated he won't invest in things which he doesn't understand, and he's said he doesn't understand tech, then it's safe to say that he has a "no tech" rule. I've always been unsure of how to interpret the circle of competence thing, as people always develop new skills, so personally I look at it as "only invest in things with which you are most familiar".
        • saganus 10y ago
          Maybe it's not about not understanding tech per se, but about not understanding the company. If they feel like they understand how Apple works by now, that would make it qualify as not not-understanding, and thus it would not break the "rule". Apple is a tech company but in the eyes of Berkshire maybe they are predictable enough regardless of what they produce (i.e. in terms of their cash flow, product strategy, etc).
• qaq 10y ago
  For everyone dismissing this as a small play for BH it's not that small also we have no clue about other possible elements of this position (e.g. derivatives, options etc.).
  • nstj 10y ago
    That logic works the other way also (ie: it could just be some huge long in the stock to arb an options position and therefore be a $0 exposure to Apple stock). Disclaimer: I am not an options market maker so I'm unsure if you can realistically do a delta hedge on 1bn of AAPL.
    • qaq 10y ago
      very true
  • whatok 10y ago
    13F requires you to report all long listed option positions.
• 11thEarlOfMar 10y ago
  Seems that there is a significant difference of opinion between Carl Icahn and Warren Buffet. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-28/billionaire-icahn-exits-apple-stake-almost-3-years-after-buying http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-28/billionair...
  • DavidHm 10y ago
    To be honest I always thought that Icahn was never in for the long term. He just went and raised a ruckus about wanting those $100B cash reserves distributed to stock owners.
    • zerohm 10y ago
      I saw a TV segment / interview about Icahn years ago and that was impression I got. His M.O. is to buy a stock, create some attention, and sell, based mostly on the attention he brings, more so than the improvements he makes.
  • mdasen 10y ago
    In the article, Ichan noted, "if China was basically steady I would probably go back into [Apple]...I hope one day to get back into [Apple]." That's not a huge indictment of apple, but rather a concern. He did note that Apple still looked cheap: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/28/icahn-we-no-longer-have-a-position-in-apple.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/28/icahn-we-no-longer-have-a-pos.... It's hard to read too much into it. For all we know, Ichan wants to play things a little conservative for the rest of 2016 due to big losses in his oil investments.
• zhte415 10y ago
  Very interested in how the trade was executed. A big fish order, was it done in small chunks, by proxies? It was certainly not done in one go. Experience: Even 10 years back putting when in an investment management team, a $100 million order (of roughly same magnitude for total outstanding) was done painstakingly, often over several days, via various brokers, varying what was done based on intra-hour liquidity. Now, intra-hour liquidity is much less than hours and highly automated, so anyone HFT looking, would be interested.
  • whatok 10y ago
    $1bn~ MV on a very heavily traded stock over a quarter does not seem like it would require any sort of acrobatics on BRK's side. Know nothing about their execution but really doesn't seem to be anything difficult.
  • tim333 10y ago
    Traditionally Buffett works with two or three stock brokerage firms he trusts and tells them to buy the stocks he wants. They often just keep buying when blocks come on the market or it looks cheap. That can go on for months or years. Maybe not so much with $1bn of Apple but his $27bn stake in Wells Fargo for example has been built over some years.
• ZoeZoeBee 10y ago
  Berkshire Hathaway was down 12% last year, has under-performed the S&P 500 for five years running, bought Apple North of $100, and are heavily invested in the railroads via Burlington Northern which has seen freight revenue dropping for over a year. Which part of this is not true?
  • corin_ 10y ago
    > Berkshire Hathaway was down 12% last year It's easy to cherry pick dates to suit your argument. 12 months leading to end of 2015: down 12% 24 months leading to end of 2015: up 11% 36 months leading to end of 2015: up 40% ~5.5 months between end of 2015 and today: up 8% Was your statement true? Yes. Misleading? Even more so. Your other statements... well maybe you're 100% right and not even misleading on those, but after choosing such a bad statement for your lede I'm not going to bother looking them up. Edit: Actually I was curious enough to look into one more of your "facts". According to Business Insider, S&P 500 doesn't even come close to beating B.H. But maybe you have better data than them. http://static2.uk.businessinsider.com/image/54f4d8a6dd08955d558b4622-1200-924/good-index-comp-final.png http://static2.uk.businessinsider.com/image/54f4d8a6dd08955d...
    • ZoeZoeBee 10y ago
      Last year refers to 2015, Jan 1st 2015 = $151 Dec 28 end of year 2015 = $133 Not misleading at all. >Berkshire Hathaway’s poor performance in 2015 is noticeable due to the huge underperformance relative to the market. But a closer look at the performance of the company over the past three years suggests that this is something that has been going on for some time. Berkshire Hathaway has actually significantly underperformed the market over the past five years, with a return of 61.4% vs. 71.4% for the S&P 500 Growth Index (the index tracks the performance of large-cap U.S. securities with growth characteristics). http://amigobulls.com/articles/has-berkshire-hathaway-lost-its-mojo http://amigobulls.com/articles/has-berkshire-hathaway-lost-i... Your Business Insider Chart is a chart of a price index from the day he took over Berkshire, things aren't what they used to be, it was my bad that I did not preface Growth Index, but your conclusion that the first statement was misleading is completely incorrect
• Rainymood 10y ago
  To get around the paywall, follow this link http://bit.ly/1VYxVrA http://bit.ly/1VYxVrA This bit.ly link redirects you to the first google hit after looking for this article on Google. For some reason this circumvents the paywall.
  • Velox 10y ago
    Just click the "web" link underneath the title on the comments page.
    • Rainymood 10y ago
      Never knew that. Today I learned. Thanks a lot.
  • teh_klev 10y ago
    Better still: http://archive.is/9Y8jf http://archive.is/9Y8jf
• nxzero 10y ago
  Curious, anyone have any info on the relationship between Jobs and/or Cook and Buffet?
• Negative1 10y ago
  And here I was thinking "what a great time to buy Apple stock". I don't think Buffet is betting on technology. From his perspective he is betting on the car and car brand of the future.
  • sethev 10y ago
    Only he knows for sure but it seems a lot more likely from reading his annual letters that he's betting on the quality of their management team and their continued ability to produce profits. It would be very out of character for him to make a bet on future technology.
  • spinchange 10y ago
    The stock is trading at a discount to earnings and probably not even that huge of a premium over book value (relative to its peers). Incidentally, it's probably (still) the most valuable and venerated modern consumer brand on earth.
• mandeepj 10y ago
  Not sure why Buffet decided so late to invest in apple. Returns will not be as high as pre iPod or iPhone era
  • zepto 10y ago
    There's actually nothing to support that conclusion.
  • kasparsklavins 10y ago
    But profits are higher than ever.
  • corin_ 10y ago
    Comparing to past theoretical entry points to buying Apple is irrelevant. I'm not sure why all of us didn't invest in Apple 10 years ago! Oh, it's because it's easier to predict the last 10 years than the next ten years. Just because investing 10 years ago would have been great, it doesn't mean that in 10 years time a 2016 investment in Apple won't also look great.
    • coldtea 10y ago
      >Comparing to past theoretical entry points to buying Apple is irrelevant. I'm not sure why all of us didn't invest in Apple 10 years ago! Shortsightedness? Without any hindsight involved, 10 years ago the continuous rise for several years seemed inevitable AT THE TIME. Now it's not so clear. But it's not because "it's easier to predict the last 10 years than the next ten years". Rather it's because it was easier to predict the next ten years in 2006 than it is now.
      • nicky0 10y ago
        Since it was so obvious and inevitable to you at the time, I assume you put all the spare money you had into Apple in 2006?
      • deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
• chmaynard 10y ago
  http://on.wsj.com/1sriCf9 http://on.wsj.com/1sriCf9
• programminggeek 10y ago
  To be clear, it's not even a technology investment. It's more of a clear, easy to understand investment in a hardware product company with great margins, great marketing, great customer loyalty. It's like investing in Coke.
• SixSigma 10y ago
  Maybe he's gambling on Trump's "onshore your cash or else"
• lingben 10y ago
  "I can tell you this was not a purchase Warren Buffett made. It was one of his two lieutenants" @BeckyQuick on CNBC this morning
• mudil 10y ago
  Berkshire has too much money and too few ideas as to what to do with it. Why not the second largest stock with tons of untaxed cash? And they can push for tax amnesty to repatriate it.
• jalopy 10y ago
  [edit]Disclosure - I am a Berkshire Hathaway investor and more intense than average follower of the company and it's top management.[/edit] This is almost certainly a bet by Ted Weschler or Todd Combs - Buffett's chief investing lieutenants. Buffett has maintained his aversion to tech as he doesn't "understand"[1] it, and I see nothing to indicate he's changed his mind at this stage in the game. Also - a $1bn investment is relatively small change for Buffett, but fits squarely within the size range of Ted and Todd's reported $8-10b (each) investment warchest. [1]: Not "understanding" doesn't mean he doesn't or couldn't understand the technology aspects; rather, it means he doesn't have the ability to see which of the participants will survive and thrive in 10 years time to justify an investment today. IBM is a notable exception.
  • mathattack 10y ago
    I suspect that IBM fits his understanding because he views it as a services company, rather than a hardware or software company. Services he does understand. I think he also likes that they give most of their cash back to the shareholders. (Which makes them a value play rather than a growth play) I was still surprised by the investment though.
    • jalopy 10y ago
      Agree on these points. Also, across the dozens of businesses fully owned by Berkshire Hathaway, he has unique insight into the tech vendors that those businesses rely on. The rumor is that he polled a significant portion of the managers of these businesses which helped to inform his decision that IBM would be around for a long, long time.
      • mathattack 10y ago
        Interesting. The challenge is that tech companies can become obsolete very quickly. I don't think IBM is as sticky as he gives them credit for.
        • dgreensp 10y ago
• MicroBerto 10y ago
  I'm just here to set in stone and state for the record that I believe this will be a losing play. My reasons are here: Rationale here from a comment over 3 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11035168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11035168 > last time I was on an airplane (December), every single older woman over the age of 60 had an iPhone. This means that it's not only reached critical mass (the late majority on the technology adoption curve has been achieved), but now it's no longer hip. > I'm not sure what will be next, but I'm guessing it won't be Apple's. > Were I gambling man, I'd have shorted Apple's stock right there after that airplane ride. So when I'm wrong, y'all can roast me proper.
  • faraggi 10y ago
    Those seem like valid suppositions, but I do think you're missing a big variable. (I think) you only take into account the US Market but the emerging world is late to the party and should represent a big piece of the pie. It hasn't reached majority tech adoption nor is it no longer hip. That said, I also think its a loosing move because of the downwards trend in AAPL stock- bit that's only layman's conjecture. I guess it depends for how long they want to hold it.
    • twcooper 10y ago
      Buffett and his managers aren't concerned about the stock price "trend," they're looking at the stock price in relation to the intrinsic value of the equity. With that said, I'd bet Todd Combs made the investment and he does trade more frequently than Buffett and Ted Weschler.
  • kfk 10y ago
    Be careful thinking Apple will keep sellng iphones and ipads. Their expertise and their cash can probably be thrown into a lot of industries with disruptive success (car industry, pharma, space exploration, etc.). Even the name, Apple, does not bind the company to any specific line of product. I think what the investors are betting here is the ability of Apple of coming up with something as big as the ipod-ipad saga in the coming years. I can see risk in this assumption, but I don't believe is 100% going to turn out badly, so far I'd distribute probabilities equally and do a 50/50 that Apple gives the investors 10x in the next 10 years.
• swalsh 10y ago
  Let's say you're an owner of one of the nations biggest car insurance companies... and the biggest threat to auto insurance are automated cars. Perhaps the smart thing to do, if you're an investor is to hedge your bests by investing in a company that is likely to dominate the sector. Of course Alphabet would be a more logical path, so this theory might be bollocks.
  • maerF0x0 10y ago
    How are automated cars a threat to car insurance?
    • robmcm 10y ago
      Reduction in accidents and auto makers taking responsibility for accidents. http://fortune.com/2015/10/07/volvo-liability-self-driving-cars/ http://fortune.com/2015/10/07/volvo-liability-self-driving-c...
    • riprowan 10y ago
      Why should one need to buy a liability insurance policy on a self-driving car? What driver exactly am I insuring?
      • dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Why should one need to buy a liability insurance policy on a self-driving car? The same reason property owners in general by liability insurance for liabilities that may occur to do property they own. > What driver exactly am I insuring? Most likely, you're insuring against liability resulting from your obligation as the owner (or leaseholder-in-possession, in the case of a lease) of the autonomous vehicle to maintain the vehicle in condition for safe operation and to remove it from operation if that is not possible.
      • rdancer 10y ago
        The liability in car insurance is virtually unlimited. Cars are very good at killing people and damaging property. You don't have to insure against small payouts (large excess gives you small premiums), and this is an area where the insurance companies want to upsell you. The risk you're insuring is negligent or wilful bad driving, and risks inherent in the technology. All of the above is true for self-driving cars, only with much-reduced negligent risk. The premiums will go down significantly, but the consumer motivation and the public policy interest to have insurance will remain. It may be assumed by the manufacturers for 100% self-driven cars, but insurance of outsized payouts is not something unique to the current iteration of the car industry.
• vadym909 10y ago
  Wow- This must be hard for Buffett to explain to Bill Gates- his close friend. Did he ever invest in Microsoft?
  • nicky0 10y ago
    I'd be surprised if Bill Gates holds ill feelings towards Apple.
  • chrismarlow9 10y ago
    Bill and Buffett are smart enough to know you should keep investments and friendships as two different things.
  • cowsandmilk 10y ago
    Well, when Bill was in charge of Microsoft, he had Microsoft invest $150MM in Apple, so.... I'm sure he could care less whether Berkshire Hathaway invests in Apple.
• Mikeb85 10y ago
  Not a terrible bet. Their dividend yield is fairly respectable at current prices, the price has fallen to around 2012 levels, and Berkshire mostly likes long-term, stable bets. I personally don't see Apple doing too much in the short term, but they'll certainly continue to be around, and will probably match the market in returns for the foreseeable future.
• bernardlunn 10y ago
  Apple is now almost a value stock. With an incredible franchise. Don't bet against Buffet
• darawk 10y ago
  As someone who is short AAPL, my perspective is that they simply don't have room for growth. At the moment, they are essentially a one product company: the iPhone. And yes, that product is insanely profitable, but those numbers are going down, and personally I don't see a way for that trend to change. Apple has expanded into every available market on the planet (literally). The only way for them to grow at this point is to increase their market share relative to android, or increase world economic growth sufficiently that more people in developing countries can buy iPhones. Increasing their market share relative to android in any significant way seems incredibly unlikely to me at this point. As technology stagnates (as is happening with smart phones), the premium products lose cachet and the lower-end products start to achieve parity with their premium competition. The two markets where they could still theoretically hope to achieve more growth/penetration are China and India. But China has been antagonistic to them of late, and has demonstrated an interest in protecting its own incumbents who are now making phones that even Westerners will buy (e.g. Huawei). India on the other hand is a highly tech-oriented culture, and as such has a predilection for customization and control that tends to make them prefer android phones. Not to mention that the CEOs of both Microsoft and Google (the only two competitor platforms to the iPhone) are currently Indian, and both companies have demonstrated a specific interest (especially Google) of expanding in the Indian market. And I think that gives them an advantage that's hard to overstate. All of this would be fine if the market itself were expanding. But it's not. People are upgrading less and less frequently. This looks to me just like the PC market of 5-10 years ago or so. Things have gotten "good enough" for most people. I certainly no longer feel compelled to have the latest and greatest phone right away, and it seems to me that most people feel the same. Lastly, there is the possibility that they will create some new category defining product. This is of course a real possibility, but I feel pretty confident that anything they attempt to do in the car market will fall flat on its face. I could certainly be wrong here, but I just don't see how they could possibly offer something so much better than existing cars that i'd want to pay an Apple-level premium for it. Especially when they're competing against someone like Tesla, who has already captured all of the rebellious smart-person cool points in this category. Of course, I could certainly be spectacularly wrong. And to be honest, if I am, I don't think i'd mind losing the money too much. Because it'd mean that we'd all probably have some cool new product to play with.
  • deleted 10y ago
• louprado 10y ago
  A bit off topic, but when you buy that many shares of a public company can you negotiate a discount? Is the trade done directly with Apple, or does Berkshire Hathaway just buy it through Nasdaq ?
  • lujim 10y ago
    Let's say you are a private company and want to raise money. Instead of taking on debt you decide to sell some of your business. You will go through an investment bank who will help you quantify the value of your business and underwrite/distribute shares of it to the public. This is the primary market where new shares are created. After that happens market participants can sell those shares to each other based on supply and demand. As demand for a companies shares rise, prices rise and vice versa. The secondary market is what you and I as individuals think of when we talk about buying and selling stocks. There is no real discount that Apple could offer Berkshire because they aren't selling the shares, market participants are (individual investors, brokers etc). The trade would take place as a complex series of transactions on a variety of exchanges. Sometimes Nasdaq, but other times on exchanges like ArcaEdge, Bats, Direct Edge, NYSE and others. The complexity is that if you dump 1 Billion dollars into the market to buy x number of shares of AAPL you will drastically increase demand and move the price considerably, so the trade must be executed as a series of transactions over a given time period. Now if one public company buys another public company in a merger there is a set share price that is negotiated but that's outside of the normal process of buying and selling stocks.
  • rdancer 10y ago
    If AAPL were interested in selling more shares (their cash reserves growth indicates they don't), they would usually sell the whole bunch of them at once, either to one investment bank, or a consortium (who then resell it on the open market). So yes, Berkshire is buying a lot, so instead of selling to Goldman Sachs, Apple may sell to them. It all comes down to whether both Apple and Berkshire can agree on a price and cash flow that is better than buying/selling on the open market. This would probably not be a great discount for the buyer. Other companies would probably still ask Goldman to broker the sale (at a lower fee) and take care of regulatory compliance, but both AAPL and BRK like to maintain in-depth knowledge of the intricacies of the stock market in-house, so they may just do everything themselves.
• williesleg 10y ago
  This is the same Warren Buffet who blew big chunks losing at IBM. And the same Warren Buffet who chased Solar City out of Nevada. He's a real prize.
• EGreg 10y ago
  This doesn't make much sense to me. I would expect Apple to have nowhere to go but down since a few years ago. I realize this isn't a huge bet, but what are they betting on? Apple for Cars?