A
andreapalladio
Guest
^"Wealthy folks uninterested in making money".
You read it hear first.
You read it hear first.
|
|
|
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
B
bizorky
Guest
I also find it strange that Bill Gates is bothering to involve himself in this kind of business venture. He's giving away 90% of his wealth- what's the motiviation in owning a piece of a luxury hotel chain? I wonder if there is any synergy between microsoft and 4 Seasons?
Why would Gates not want to diversify his investments? Why should he focus on only one business? What is wrong with diversifying his investment portfolio?
If he makes money on his investments outside of Microsoft, maybe he is giving that money away, too? If that's what he plans to do, then good for him. At least someone is spending money on trying to stop malaria.
I
Irishmunk
Guest
"And that national benefit is?"
Uhh, what's the name of that new opera hall at Queen and University?
Uhh, what's the name of that new opera hall at Queen and University?
S
SD2
Guest
But this is a multi-billion dollar shareholder-owned business; I don't think doing "what's best for Canadian interests" factors into their decisions at all.
Actually, the Sharp is taking the business private and it will basically be owned by two foreign investors.
As for why it's beneficial to the country to have successful Canadian-owned companies...Bogtrotter summed it up nicely.
A
alik01
Guest
Bill Gates is buying it along the Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal who is already 4 season's biggest shareholder.
So Gates is not the only one.
So Gates is not the only one.
U
unimaginative2
Guest
In terms of Canadian control, this isn't so bad. Sharp will retain his control of the company through his multiple-voting shares.
Clearly there are huge benefits to having a headquarters located in your city/country. Most of their legal, consultant, etc. business will be directed to their headquarters area. Obviously the highest-paid jobs will be at headquarters, and they will have a significant spinoff effect. Most charitable giving is directed to the headquarters community. These are just a few of the benefits.
Canada is completely unique in that respect. If you look at any other country in the world, there isn't this sense of a corporation "graduating" to a foreign headquarters once it reaches a certain size. Nokia doesn't have a problem with being based in Finland, despite only a tiny minority of its business taking place there. Same goes for Fortis and ING in the Netherlands, Nestle in Switzerland, Repsol in Spain, and countless others.
I can't think of one large corporation whose Canadianity has conferred any special benefits to Canada.
Clearly there are huge benefits to having a headquarters located in your city/country. Most of their legal, consultant, etc. business will be directed to their headquarters area. Obviously the highest-paid jobs will be at headquarters, and they will have a significant spinoff effect. Most charitable giving is directed to the headquarters community. These are just a few of the benefits.
If the bulk of its business is in Canada, the head office will likely be also -- regardless of ownership. If it's an international business, the head office will be either tied to city of origin, or to a convenient world city (Ny, London... TO?), again regardless of ownership.
Canada is completely unique in that respect. If you look at any other country in the world, there isn't this sense of a corporation "graduating" to a foreign headquarters once it reaches a certain size. Nokia doesn't have a problem with being based in Finland, despite only a tiny minority of its business taking place there. Same goes for Fortis and ING in the Netherlands, Nestle in Switzerland, Repsol in Spain, and countless others.
T
TdotTrickyRicky
Guest
^"Wealthy folks uninterested in making money".
You read it hear first.
Nope I can think of at least an early 1960's example of this phenomenon being explained say Ferdinand Lunberg's "The Rich and The Super-Rich". For the super rich business is an exercise in control and influence not money making, although there are of course exceptions to this who see the pursuit of money as an end in itself. The fact that Mr. Sharp developed a hotel empire specifically and continues to desire a controlling stake suggests he is not just in business purely for profit sake.
You read it hear first.
Nope I can think of at least an early 1960's example of this phenomenon being explained say Ferdinand Lunberg's "The Rich and The Super-Rich". For the super rich business is an exercise in control and influence not money making, although there are of course exceptions to this who see the pursuit of money as an end in itself. The fact that Mr. Sharp developed a hotel empire specifically and continues to desire a controlling stake suggests he is not just in business purely for profit sake.
A
andreapalladio
Guest
Yeah, that's probably why he's selling it for hundreds of millions of dollars in profit.
S
SD2
Guest
Canada is completely unique in that respect. If you look at any other country in the world, there isn't this sense of a corporation "graduating" to a foreign headquarters once it reaches a certain size. Nokia doesn't have a problem with being based in Finland, despite only a tiny minority of its business taking place there. Same goes for Fortis and ING in the Netherlands, Nestle in Switzerland, Repsol in Spain, and countless others.
This is becoming even more common now that everything (and everyone for that matter) is so connected.
U
unimaginative2
Guest
Yeah, that's probably why he's selling it for hundreds of millions of dollars in profit.
No, that's why he's selling it for hundreds of millions less than he would have received if he had gotten rid of his super-voting shares.