3 ms·
I get the feeling that your comment is (purposely) so content-free that you could apply it to virtually any transaction by a suitably large company. This sugge
by patio11 13y ago
I get the feeling that your comment is (purposely) so content-free that you could apply it to virtually any transaction by a suitably large company. This suggests to me that it has very little signal for this discussion, since it evinces absolutely no knowledge of either of the companies at issue or any attempt to rectify that.
For example: will Softbank require a $1.2 billion bank loan to make this purchase? That's possible (they do 100% of their borrowing in a country where money is, essentially, free for the asking) but unlikely, because they're sitting on over $14 billion in cash and cash equivalents and they hold the vast majority of it in a country where, as mentioned, money is free for the asking.
See page 106 in their annual report, or some other page at some other link if you would prefer the English version:
http://www.softbank.co.jp/ja/design_set/data/irinfo/library/annual_reports/pdf/2013/softbank_annual_report_2013_008.pdf http://www.softbank.co.jp/ja/design_set/data/irinfo/library/...
If for some reason they wanted to borrow money, they'd probably finance with bonds, not bank loans. There's a "why" here but I just got told by the flight attendant to turn off my iPad -- ask me later if you care.
- dschiptsov 13y agoIt is not about technical details but how a deal with such inflated valuation that it is obvious even for a layman could occur in principle. I am most probably wrong about how exactly they did raise money, but this, it seems tome, is of second importance.