Apparently, Nick Hayek is freaking the fuck out since Rolex announced that deal. This will not remain without any response from SG, I'm now convinced.
-
Tired of adverts on RWI? - Subscribe by clicking HERE and PMing Trailboss for instructions and they will magically go away!
Rolex buys Bucherer
- Thread starter Karbon74
- Start date
Apparently, Nick Hayek is freaking the fuck out since Rolex announced that deal. This will not remain without any response from SG, I'm now convinced.
Hmmm... Maybe. At this point, nothing is out of the question anymore.
A week ago, I would have said "never". Quite amazing how fast things can move all of the sudden, even with a seemingly hyper-conservative, inflexible and ultra-traditionalist enterprise like Rolex.
Thinking about a retail network for Swatch Group brands, I just realized that they don't even have to buy anything. They already have plenty of locations! 
Aren't Swatch stores the biggest waste of space in watch world? On average, they have like 2 or 3 watches on display per 50 sqm.
And the best part is, you go into one to buy a $260 piece of plastic and they don't even have one in storage.
Aren't Swatch stores the biggest waste of space in watch world? On average, they have like 2 or 3 watches on display per 50 sqm.
And the best part is, you go into one to buy a $260 piece of plastic and they don't even have one in storage.
the problem is Swatch is fast fashion. You cannot mix with Luxury. The codes don't match.
and I don't think they can buy WOS either. Regulators will never let them. Rolex is a two brand shop, so they wiggled through it
and I don't think they can buy WOS either. Regulators will never let them. Rolex is a two brand shop, so they wiggled through it
I'm wondering if they continue to gobble up companies- especially Swiss companies- will the Swiss government reexamine the Wilsdorf Foundation and it's tax free status ..
They are technically a "non-profit", so apart for some to charities, all the money has to be reinvested in the company. There are no shareholders or markets to please.
They must be able to mobilize shitload of cash for acquisition
They must be able to mobilize shitload of cash for acquisition
I think this urban legend will never die.
Rolex is not a non-profit organization by North American (or elsewhere, for that matter) standards. It's true that Rolex SA (which IS totally for-profit) is owned by the charitable Wilsdorf Foundation, but the whole construct is very complex corporate construct and there are actually several companies that own shares of each other and stuff like that...
It's totally a Swiss thing, and may seem somewhat shady anywhere else in the world. In Switzerland, everything is very different though. Let's just put it that way.
That also includes taxation, among other things... If you make 11 Billion a year, but pay only a few grand or even NO taxes, that's considered criminal anywhere else in the industrialized world, but not in the land of Rolex, cheese and banks. 
Is Rolex a Non-Profit Company? | The Watch Club by SwissWatchExpo
Did you know that Rolex is also a non-profit? It's a complicated situation that is extensively debated on the internet. We explain in this article.
www.swisswatchexpo.com
don't worry. 100% agree with you, I oversimplified indeed.
My point is that they don't have to pay dividends, they don't have to do share buybacks etc etc. The conglomerate generates massive cash so they don't need investors.
So with all that money, apart having the execs getting filthy rich, they have more than enough to buy whatever they want
My point is that they don't have to pay dividends, they don't have to do share buybacks etc etc. The conglomerate generates massive cash so they don't need investors.
So with all that money, apart having the execs getting filthy rich, they have more than enough to buy whatever they want
Spontaneously, I'd assume they'd only go for higher tier brands.
But actually, if Rolex wants to crush the main competition (which is SG), it would make sense for them to go for different tiers (from affordable to even above Rolex), so that they could position themselves against SG (which also has watches from $50 to $500,000) in the portfolio).
But then again, what's there to gain for Rolex? They are already larger than SG with only two brands. The only goal could be to increase the market share and ultimately to crush Swatch and pick up only the good bits like Omega.
"non-profit" does not mean "no money"
It only means that your balance sheet has to show zero
It only means that your balance sheet has to show zero
They might go for the higher end too, but that risks to dilute the Rolex brand as the flagship.Spontaneously, I'd assume they'd only go for higher tier brands.
But actually, if Rolex wants to crush the main competition (which is SG), it would make sense for them to go for different tiers (from affordable to even above Rolex), so that they could position themselves against SG (which also has watches from $50 to $500,000) in the portfolio).
But then again, what's there to gain for Rolex? They are already larger than SG with only two brands. The only goal could be to increase the market share and ultimately to crush Swatch and pick up only the good bits like Omega.
My thinking when I say Oris as an example is that they can raise the brand's positionning and pricing power, placing it at Tudor level.
Then they hike up Tudor, and hike up Rolex.
Again, we ants look up at the gods in the sky and wonder what they eat
They might go for the higher end too, but that risks to dilute the Rolex brand as the flagship.
My thinking when I say Oris as an example is that they can raise the brand's positionning and pricing power, placing it at Tudor level.
Then they hike up Tudor, and hike up Rolex.
Again, we ants look up at the gods in the sky and wonder what they eat
I wish that anyone who says that this deal will be positive for the customers, or at least that the positives will outweigh the negatives, are right.
But being the pessimist that I am, I can't help and doubt it. I mean, since when has it been a goal of capitalism to selflessly help the consumers and not to just increase revenues & profits? I think the latter is what this is all aimed at. I have no illusion about what is behind this deal.
And who pays for more revenue and profits (no pun intended)? We, the sheeple are the ones who willingly pay for it... And not only that, we even wait years and years and play along with their silly games of 'building a relationship' for the AD to finally, graciously accept our hard earned $$$ for an overpriced mediocre product. Rolex knows this and they can't wait to finally get full control over this madness and maximize the racket even further.
At the end of the day, the choice is still ours.
We don't need a Rolex. We just want it for myriad reasons.
In their shoes, I for one would do exactly that too. When there is demand, the offer always appears
We don't need a Rolex. We just want it for myriad reasons.
In their shoes, I for one would do exactly that too. When there is demand, the offer always appears
When the answer to a question like " is Rolex really tax free" is " well... It's complex...".I think this urban legend will never die.
Rolex is not a non-profit organization by North American (or elsewhere, for that matter) standards. It's true that Rolex SA (which IS totally for-profit) is owned by the charitable Wilsdorf Foundation, but the whole construct is very complex corporate construct and there are actually several companies that own shares of each other and stuff like that...
It's totally a Swiss thing, and may seem somewhat shady anywhere else in the world. In Switzerland, everything is very different though. Let's just put it that way.
Is Rolex a Non-Profit Company? | The Watch Club by SwissWatchExpo
Did you know that Rolex is also a non-profit? It's a complicated situation that is extensively debated on the internet. We explain in this article.
That means they are making out like bandits. End of story.
We have members from Switzerland. That's why I was beating around the bush to not offend any national pride...
But yeah, that's pretty much how it is.
Well, I sure hope I didn't offend any of our fine Swiss members.We have members from Switzerland. That's why I was beating around the bush to not offend any national pride...
But yeah, that's pretty much how it is.
I am under no delusion that similar arrangements are not rampant in the US as well- especially our " not for profit" hospital systems- total scam.
I'd like to buy a Batman or Pepsi. But I won't pay a +100% or more premium for a gray piece.
It's still tough to get one at retail, although a bit easier than in 21 or 22.
But here's the thing. If this whole deal in the end works out so that we'll finally able to buy one at retail again by simply walking into a Bucherer branch in 3 years from now, but the retail list price for a GMT-Master II will be at almost 20k by then, how will that be any better? I may just as well get one now on the gray market, no?
I think it's important to keep in mind that they apparently found different ways of making things work. Each time I'm in Switzerland, I don't get the impression that the government there needs any taxes from Rolex.
Yeah, absolutely. The US has the best medical system in terms of technology, science and medical training. But the financial side is rotten to the core, I think. It's way too expensive. If you somehow struggle, despite 3 jobs, and you still don't get access to decent health care, then there's something going wrong in America. As difficult as health care in Europe can be sometimes, especially on the public plans, at least everyone here has access to basic care and nobody has to file for bankruptcy if they suddenly need cancer treatment.