“Apple might not be overpaying for Beats Electronics after all,” Patrick Seitz reports for Investor’s Business Daily.
“The two companies have not confirmed Apple’s rumored purchase of high-end headphone maker Beats, but media reports have put the price tag at $3.2 billion,” Seitz reports. “Some analysts have said that the price would be too high, especially considering that The Carlyle Group paid $500 million for roughly 50% of Beats just last September.”
“But Apple effectively could be paying much less for the company because Beats established tax residency in Ireland in 2012 with a holding company,” Seitz reports. “Depending on how a potential acquisition is structured, Apple could buy Beats with foreign funds that have not been repatriated to the U.S., wrote Joe Harpaz, head of the corporate tax and accounting business at Thomson Reuters, in a blog post on Forbes on Thursday. ‘Corporate M&A decisions are increasingly being driven by offshore tax policy,’ Harpaz said. ‘Following the rough tax math of a foreign acquisition, Apple’s $3.2 billion bid would really be more like $2 billion if the transaction could take place in Ireland.'”
Read more in the full article here.
Related articles:
70% chance Apple’s Beats deal is happening and, if so, it’s a Dr. Dre, Jimmy Iovine acquihire, says source – May 22, 2014
As MacDailyNews already posited, Walter Isaacson thinks maybe Jimmy Iovine will run Apple’s content business – May 20, 2014
Apple strikes a new chord in the future of music with Beats acquisition – May 18, 2014
How Tim Cook buying Beats is like Steve Jobs buying SoundJam – May 18, 2014
Apple’s $3.2 billion Beats acquisition may not be finalized until next week – May 15, 2014
Monster CEO sounds a little bitter over Apple’s planned $3.2 billion Beats acquisition – May 14, 2014
Ben Thompson on possible Beats buy: Is Apple losing what makes Apple, Apple? – May 13, 2014
Nolan Bushnell: Beats is a ‘good deal for Apple,’ but it says Apple is ‘not an innovative tech company’ – May 13, 2014
Curated music influencing Apple’s jump into streaming – May 13, 2014
Beats Music is actually so good that I’m worried about Apple ruining it – May 13, 2014
Apple could become most powerful record label in the world with Dr Dre, Jimmy Iovine onboard – May 13, 2014
Bob Lefsetz on Apple-Beats deal: Tim Cook is an operations guy, he’s clueless, and the company has no vision</a – May 13, 2014
Apple CEO Tim Cook makes break from managerial style of Steve Jobs – May 12, 2014
Analyst Sacconaghi on Apple buying Beats: ‘We struggle with the rationale for this deal’ – May 12, 2014
Cody Willard: Apple’s Beats buy is just stupid
– May 12, 2014
Apple may unveil Jimmy Iovine, Dr. Dre executive appointments at WWDC – May 12, 2014
Apple CEO Tim Cook’s pursuit of Beats seen presaging more takeovers – May 12, 2014
Former eMusic CEO explains why Apple wants to buy Beats – May 12, 2014
Apple’s deep ties with Jimmy Iovine key driver of Beats deal – May 12, 2014
Removal of Dr. Dre video about Apple-Beats deal likely means acquisition is real and imminent – May 10, 2014
Game changer: Apple buying Beats could radically transform the digital music business – May 9, 2014
If Beats deal happens, Apple is acquiring a fad, not quality, and that is troubling – May 9, 2014
If Apple’s really buying Beats, here’s hoping it’s brilliant in a way which isn’t immediately obvious – May 9, 2014
The reason for Apple’s $3.2 billion interest in Beats? Spotify – May 9, 2014
Apple buying Beats Electronics: Its best idea since the iPad? – May 9, 2014
Why would Apple want to blow $3.2 billion on Beats Electronics? – May 8, 2014
Apple in talks to buy Beats Electronics for $3.2 billion – May 8, 2014
I love it.
Joe Harpaz is completely wrong in his claim that “…Apple’s $3.2 billion bid would really be more like $2 billion if the transaction could take place in Ireland.” His “rough math” would only apply if Apple were purchasing Beats in the U.S. using repatriated funds. Apple would never do that because it makes no sense at all.
There are only four reasonable approaches for Apple to make such a purchase (were they intending to do so):
1) Fund the purchase in the U.S. using U.S. cash flow
2) Fund the purchase in the U.S. using borrowed money
3) Execute the purchase in the U.S. using AAPL stock
4) Fund the purchase outside of the U.S. using foreign profits
In every one of these cases, the cost is basically the same, except for the relatively low borrowing charges in case (2). The scenario proposed by Joe Harpaz in which Apple somehow magically “saves” $1.2B is fantasy.
That’s nice, but I still don’t believe it’s happening at all.
Why they call it “high end” when it’s no audiophile-grade and made for? It’s only meant to make money out of a stage name! Stop this misinformation! I wouldn’t buy it even if it said Steve Jobs on it from now on. With all due respect to Mr. Jobs. If it’s true it can not be for these plastic head jewelries.
Beats is High-end in price only.
Depends entirely on which Beats ‘phones you’re referring to.
Seeing as how they run from around £99 up to £325, that’s a hell of a price range.
I’ve tried their ‘phones at £125, and ones at £260, sound-wise I was pretty impressed with the high-end ones, while the cheap ones are well-enough built but far too bassy for my tastes, and I like good, solid bass in some of my music.
I do like the simple, uncluttered appearance of Beats ‘phones, and the fact that they fold into a compact package, I’m tempted to pick up a pair of cheap refurbished ones, and set up a custom curve in EQu, a music app that I use with my various different canalphones.
I’m pretty sure most of the negative comments about Beats ‘phones is due to their being highly popular among young people who don’t care much about sound quality, and like lots of bass-heavy music; a modified version, with Apple’s attention to QC, and a modified sound to give a more neutral quality, I’m sure would appeal to a lot of Apple users, with the ‘b’ logo replaced with a more subtle Apple logo.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with Beats ‘phones that a bit of tweaking to give them wider appeal wouldn’t put right.
It would still be $3.2 billion, whatever the monetary unit, whatever bloated taxes #MyStupidGovernment attempts to extract from foreign made profits. Meanwhile, this is all just blahblahblah about nothing substantial.
Another slow news day, apparently…
Yes foreign profit should only be taxed there. I am proposing a similar law in Calif. I think no business should pay CA income tax on any money they get from out of state tourists or businesses. It is not the state’s right to collect non CA profits. In fact I think cities and counties should do the same, No one should pay taxes anywhere they do not want to. There, problem solved.
$2Bn is still too damn much.
I so hope this stupid thing doesn’t happen, if only so I don’t have to bloody hear about it anymore.
Maybe it is going to be used as a tax conversion play similar to he PFE takeover of a UK firm. Apple buys Beats and then merges the firm into Beats Irish Corp and never has to pay taxes on the billions it holds offshore. Would be an immediate windfall as they can reverse the tax expense they booked. This is hypothetical or wishful thinking. I’m no tax expert.