#foreign markets | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 7 months ago

Text

By Thom Hartmann

Back in 1967, a friend of mine and I hitchhiked from East Lansing, Michigan to San Francisco to spend the summer in Haight-Ashbury. One ride dropped us off in Sparks, Nevada, and within minutes of putting our thumbs out a city police car stopped and arrested us for vagrancy.

The cop, a young guy with an oversized mustache who was apologetic for the city’s policy, drove us to the desert a mile or so beyond the edge of town, where we hitchhiked standing by a distressing light-post covered with graffiti reading “39 hours without a ride,” “going on our third day,” and “anybody got any water?”

Vagrancy laws were so 20th century.

Today, the US Supreme Court heard a case involving efforts by the City of Grants Pass, Oregon to keep homeless people off its streets and out of its parks and other public property. The city had tried a number of things when the problem began to explode in the last year of the Trump administration, as The Oregonian newspaper notes:

“They discussed putting them in their old jail, creating an unwanted list, posting signs at the city border or driving people out of town... Currently, officers patrol the city nearly every day, Johnson said, handing out [$295] citations to people who are camping or sleeping on public property or for having too many belongings with them.”

The explosion in housing costs has triggered two crises: homelessness and inflation. The former is harming the livability of our cities and towns, and the Fed’s reaction to the latter threatens an incumbency-destroying recession just as we head into what will almost certainly be the most important election in American history.

The problem with housing inflation is so severe today that without it the nation’s overall core CPI inflation rate would be in the neighborhood of Fed Chairman Jerome Powell’s 2% goal.

Graphic based on BLM data and interpretation by The Financial Times

Both homelessness and today’s inflation are the result of America — unlike many other countries — allowing housing to become a commodity that can be traded and speculated in by financial markets and overseas investors.

Forty-three years into America’s Reaganomics experiment, homelessness has gone from a problem to a crisis. Rarely, though, do you hear that Wall Street — a prime beneficiary of Reagan’s deregulation campaign — is helping cause it.

32% seems to be the magic threshold, according to research funded by the real estate listing company Zillow. When neighborhoods hit rent rates in excess of 32% of neighborhood income, homelessness explodes.

And we’re seeing it play out right in front of us in cities across America because a handful of Wall Street billionaires want to make a killing.

It wasn’t always this way in America.

Housing prices have spun out of control since my dad bought his house in 1957 when I was six years old. He got a Veteran’s Administration-subsidized loan and picked up the brand-new 3-bedroom-1-bath ranch house my 3 brothers and I grew up in, in suburban south Lansing, Michigan. It cost him $13,000, which was about twice what he made every year working a good union job in a tool-and-die shop.

When my dad bought his home in the 1950s the median price of a single-family house was 2.2 times the median American family income. Today, the Fed says, the median house sells for $479,500 while the median American personal income is $41,000 — a ratio of more than ten-to-one between housing costs and annual income.

As the Zillow study notes:

“Across the country, the rent burden already exceeds the 32% [of median income] threshold in 100 of the 386 markets included in this analysis….”

And wherever housing prices become more than three times annual income, homelessness stalks like the grim reaper.

We’re told that America’s cities have seen this increase in housing costs since the 1950s in some part because of the growing wealth and population of this country. There were, after all, 168 million people in the US the year my dad bought his house; today there are 330 million.

And it’s true that we haven’t been building enough new housing, particularly low-income housing, as 43 years of neoliberal Reaganomics have driven down wages and income for working-class people relative to all of their expenses while stopping the construction of virtually any new subsidized low-income housing.

But that’s not the only, or even the main dynamic, driving housing prices into the stratosphere — and, as a consequence, the crisis in homelessness — over the past decade. You can thank speculation for much of that.

As the Zillow-funded study noted:

“This research demonstrates that the homeless population climbs faster when rent affordability — the share of income people spend on rent — crosses certain thresholds. In many areas beyond those thresholds, even modest rent increases can push thousands more Americans into homelessness.”

So how did we get here?

It started with a wave of foreign buyers over the past 30 years (particularly from China, Canada, Mexico, India and Colombia) who, in just the one single year of 2020, picked up over 154,000 homes as their way of parking money in America. Which is part of why there are over 20 times more empty houses in America than there are homeless people.

As Marketwatch noted in a 2015 article titled “The Danger of Foreign Buyers Gobbling Up American Homes”:

“Unusual high appreciation of the aforementioned urban centers is due to the ever growing influx of foreign buyers — mostly wealthy Chinese — who view American residential real estate as the safest investment commodity. … According to a National Realtors Association survey, the Chinese spent $22 billion on U.S. housing in 12 months through March 2014…. [Other foreign buyers primarily include] Canadians, British, Indians and Mexicans.”

But foreign investment has been down for the past few years; what’s taken over and is really driving home prices today are massive, multi-billion-dollar US-based funds that sweep into neighborhoods and buy everything available, bidding against families and driving up housing prices.

As noted in a Wall Street Journal article titled “Meet Your New Landlord: Wall Street,” in just one suburb (Spring Hill) of Nashville, “In all of Spring Hill, four firms … own nearly 700 houses … [which] amounts to about 5% of all the houses in town.”

This is the tiniest tip of the iceberg.

“On the first Tuesday of each month,” notes the Journal article about a similar phenomenon in Atlanta, investors “toted duffels stuffed with millions of dollars in cashier’s checks made out in various denominations so they wouldn’t have to interrupt their buying spree with trips to the bank…”

The same thing is happening in cities and suburbs all across America; the investment goliaths use finely-tuned computer algorithms to sniff out houses they can turn into rental properties, making over-market and unbeatable cash bids often within minutes of a house hitting the market.

After stripping neighborhoods of homes families can buy, they then begin raising rents as high as the market will bear.

In the Nashville suburb of Spring Hill, for example, the vice-mayor, Bruce Hull, told the Journal you used to be able to rent “a three bedroom, two bath house for $1,000 a month.” Today, the Journal notes:

“The average rent for 148 single-family homes in Spring Hill owned by the big four [Wall Street investor] landlords was about $1,773 a month…”

Ryan Dezember, in his book Underwater: How Our American Dream of Homeownership Became a Nightmare, describes the story of a family trying to buy a home in Phoenix. Every time they entered a bid, they were outbid instantly, the price rising over and over, until finally the family’s father threw in the towel.

“Jacobs was bewildered,” writes Dezember. “Who was this aggressive bidder?”

Turns out it was Blackstone Group, now the world’s largest real estate investor. At the time they were buying $150 million worth of American houses every week, trying to spend over $10 billion. And that’s just a drop in the overall bucket.

In 2018, corporations bought 1 out of every 10 homes sold in America, according to Dezember, noting that, “Between 2006 and 2016, when the homeownership rate fell to its lowest level in fifty years, the number of renters grew by about a quarter.”

This all really took off around a decade ago, when Morgan Stanley published a 2011 report titled “The Rentership Society,” arguing that — in the wake of the 2008 Bush Housing Crash — snapping up houses and renting them back to people who otherwise would have wanted to buy them could be the newest and hottest investment opportunity for Wall Street’s billionaires and their funds.

Turns out, Morgan Stanley was right. Warren Buffett, KKR, and The Carlyle Group have all jumped into residential real estate, along with hundreds of smaller investment groups, and the National Home Rental Council has emerged as the industry’s premier lobbying group, working to block rent control legislation and other efforts to regulate the industry.

As John Husing, the owner of Economics and Politics Inc., told The Tennessean newspaper:

“What you have are neighborhoods that are essentially unregulated apartment houses. It could be disastrous for the city.”

Meanwhile, as unionization levels here remain among the lowest in the developed world, Reagan’s ongoing war on working people continues to wipe out America’s families.

At the same time that housing prices, both to purchase and to rent, are being driven through the roof by foreign and Wall Street investors, a survey published by NPR, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health found that American families are in crisis.

Their study found:

— “Thirty-eight percent (38%) of [all] households across the nation report facing serious financial problems in the previous few months.

— “There is a sharp income divide in serious financial problems, as 59% of those with annual incomes below $50,000 report facing serious financial problems in the past few months, compared with 18% of households with annual incomes of $50,000 or more.

— “These serious financial problems are cited despite 67% of households reporting that in the past few months, they have received financial assistance from the government.

— “Another significant problem for many U.S. households is losing their savings during the COVID-19 outbreak. Nineteen percent (19%) of U.S. households report losing all of their savings during the COVID-19 outbreak and not currently having any savings to fall back on.

— “At the time the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) eviction ban expired, 27% of renters nationally reported serious problems paying their rent in the past few months.”

These are not separate issues, and they are driving an explosion in homelessness.

The Zillow study found similarly damning data:

— “Communities where people spend more than 32% of their income on rent can expect a more rapid increase in homelessness.

— “Income growth has not kept pace with rents, leading to an affordability crunch with cascading effects that, for people on the bottom economic rung, increases the risk of homelessness.

— “The areas that are most vulnerable to rising rents, unaffordability, and poverty hold 15% of the U.S. population — and 47% of people experiencing homelessness.”

The Zillow study makes grim reading and is worth checking out. In community after community, when rent prices exceeded 32% of median household income, homelessness exploded. It’s measurable, predictable, and is destroying what’s left of the American working class, particularly minorities.

The loss of affordable homes also locks otherwise middle-class families out of the traditional way wealth is accumulated — through homeownership: Over 61% of all American middle-income family wealth is their home’s equity. And as families are priced out of ownership and forced to rent, they become more vulnerable to long-term economic struggles and homelessness.

Housing is one of the primary essentials of life. Nobody in America should be without it, and for society to work, housing costs must track incomes in a way that makes housing both available and affordable. This requires government intervention in the so-called “free market.”

— Last year, Canada banned most foreign buyers from buying residential property as a way of controlling their housing inflation.

— New Zealand similarly passed its no-foreigners law (except for Singaporeans and Australians) in 2018.

— Thailand requires a minimum investment of $1.2 million and the equivalent of a green card.

— Greece bans most non-EU citizens from buying real estate in most of the country.

— To buy residential housing in Denmark, it must be your primary residence and you must have lived in the country for at least 5 years.

— Vietnam, Austria, Hungary, and Cyprus also heavily restrict who can buy residential property, where, and under what terms.

This isn’t rocket science; the problem could be easily fixed by Congress if there was a genuine willingness to protect our real estate market from the vultures who’ve been circling it for years.

Unfortunately, when Clarence Thomas was the deciding vote to allow billionaires and hedge funds to legally bribe members of Congress in Citizens United, he and his four fellow Republicans opened the floodgates to “contributions” and “gifts” from foreign and Wall Street interests to pay off legislators to ignore the problem.

Because there’s no lobbying group for the interests of average homeowners or the homeless, it’s up to us to raise hell with our elected officials. The number for the Congressional switchboard is 202-224-3121.

If ever there was a time to solve this problem — and regulate corporate and foreign investment in American single-family housing — it’s now.

16 notes · View notes

coochiequeens · 4 months ago

Text

Gay men and the wealthy are no longer content to exploit one woman now exploiting two at the same is becoming trendy

Why have one baby when you can have 2? People are paying $500,000 to hire 2 surrogates at once and have 'twiblings'

By Kelsey Vlamis Jul 16, 2024, 3:04 PM EDT

Some people are hiring two surrogates at the same time to carry their babies.

Concurrent surrogacy can be complicated and costly, with prices reaching up to $500,000 or more.

Many people who do it are in their 40s and trying to build out their family quickly.

Bill Houghton still vividly remembers the moment he met his son.

He was sitting in the hospital waiting room, right outside the birthing room, when a nurse appeared carrying a little green bundle.

"I just held him in my arms and just started crying. It was so overwhelming. My husband was like, 'Oh my God, I can't believe that this is it. We're a family,'" Houghton told Business Insider. "This is my son."

Just one week later, Houghton and his husband would have the same experience all over again when their second child, another son, was delivered.

"And it has been like that ever since," he said. "To this day, I still look at them and I think, 'Oh my God, these are my sons.' My father had sons. I never thought that I would have a son."

Houghton and his husband opted to become parents via concurrent surrogacy — a process in which two surrogates are hired to carry two babies at the same, or overlapping, time.

The resulting children can be born anywhere from one week apart, like Houghton's, to nine months apart, and have been referred to by some people in the industry as "tandem siblings" or "twiblings."

Surrogacy agencies told BI that concurrent surrogacy journeys are not uncommon, with some saying it's a rising trend in a growing industry that was valued at $14 billion in 2022 by Global Market Insights and has attracted the investments of private equity firms.

All kinds of people — couples or singles, straight or gay, young or old — have opted to build out their family two at a time via concurrent surrogacy. But there is one thing that most parents of twiblings have in common: the ability to afford them.

While Houghton hired surrogates abroad, couples who choose to go through US-based agencies can easily spend $300,000 to half a million dollars or more on concurrent surrogates, according to five surrogacy agencies that spoke to BI.

"It is a luxury, absolutely," Brooke Kimbrough, cofounder and CEO of Roots Surrogacy, told BI. "Most American families don't have $200,000 in cash to go through surrogacy generally, and then $400,000-plus in cash to be able to go through that twice at the same time."

Still, the use of concurrent surrogates could grow as surrogacy generally grows in the US, in part because celebrities like Kim Kardashian and Chrissy Teigen have started opening up about using surrogates, as well as depictions in film and TV that have made the practice more mainstream. Teigen was even pregnant at the same time as her surrogate.

Surrogacy is also becoming increasingly relevant as more and more people are opting to have kids and start building their families later in life.

Chrissy Teigen and John Legend have opened up about using a surrogate. Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty Images for Sports Illustrated Swimsuit

Concurrent surrogacy can help build a family quickly

Concurrent journeys typically look like regular surrogacy journeys, just times two. Gestational surrogacy, when IVF is used to place a fertilized embryo into a surrogate, is the most common form of surrogacy in the US today. Parents can use their own egg and sperm or that of donors.

Like many gay couples, Houghton and his husband each used their sperm for one of the babies, as well as the same egg donor, so their sons are technically half brothers.

While there has been increased awareness around what some call "social surrogacy" — using a surrogate when it's not medically or biologically necessary — the majority of people who conceive via surrogacy do so because they have to.

"Typically, when people come to us, they've been through a lot. This is not their plan A, it's often not plan B, maybe it's plan C," Kim Bergman, a psychologist and senior partner at Growing Generations, told BI. "They've had a lot of disappointment, and they've had a lot of trials and tribulations."

Many hopeful parents are in their 40s and are simply eager to build their families, the agencies said. A surrogacy journey can easily take one and a half to two years, so for intended parents who know they want multiple kids, concurrent surrogates can be appealing.

Certainly, some people who opt for concurrent surrogates do not fit the definition of medically necessary, at least according to the standards laid out by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM).

Some people have mental health reasons or a fear of giving birth. Others are actors or brain surgeons who spend 12 hours a day on their feet and who can't get pregnant and continue to do their jobs. All the surrogacy agencies BI spoke with said it's essentially never the case that someone opts for surrogacy simply for vanity reasons.

David Sher, founder and CEO of Elite IVF, told BI they've helped coordinate surrogates for celebrities, politicians, and people in demanding careers like finance or tech. He said he currently has a client who serves on the cabinet of a Western country and is trying to have a baby via surrogate in part due to her demanding schedule.

Sher said he thinks concurrent surrogacy has long been an option for intended parents but that there does seem to be an uptick in people who are opting to do it.

Part of the reason for that could be because fewer and fewer agencies are willing to do double embryo transfers, which were previously more common and could result in a twin pregnancy. The ASRM recommends against them, as twin pregnancies come with heightened risks for both the surrogate and the babies. So concurrent surrogacy is a safer option for intended parents who want to have two kids at the same time or in close succession.

Costly and complicated

Though it's viewed as a safer option, concurrent surrogacy is controversial. The ASRM guidelines actually recommend against concurrent surrogacy, as well as against social, or not medically necessary, surrogacy. But all five surrogacy agencies that BI spoke to will facilitate concurrent surrogacies.

The agencies said they've seen many concurrent surrogacy journeys be successful and that a lot of care and prior planning goes into making them happen.

"It's not taken lightly," Bergman said, adding that concurrent journeys are rarely chosen by 30-year-olds who have plenty of time to build their families, though that does occasionally happen.

Surrogacy, in general, is expensive — commonly ranging from $150,000 to $250,000 for one child. The costs go toward surrogate compensation, agency fees, legal fees for contracts, and clinical bills.

The agencies BI spoke with said a concurrent surrogacy journey would essentially cost twice that. Meaning there's no two-for-one special.

But cost isn't the only factor to consider. Perhaps the primary drawback to pursuing concurrent surrogacy (that is, besides the high price tag) is the logistics of it.

All the agencies emphasized that concurrent surrogacy should only be pursued with full transparency and the fully informed consent of every person involved. That means matching intended parents to surrogates who are fully aware and OK with the fact that they will not be the only surrogate.

Gestational surrogacy, in which a fertilized embryo is implanted in a surrogate, is most common in the US. Jay L. Clendenin/for The Washington Post/Getty Images

There's also tons of planning and talking through hypotheticals. Are the surrogates based in the same area? Can the parents attend both births? Are we staggering expected delivery times enough? What's the plan if one surrogate gets pregnant on the first try but the other doesn't?

There's also a psychological aspect. Will both surrogates feel fully supported? How will one feel if she doesn't get pregnant right away and the other does?

"All of these conversations are front-loaded. Anytime in the conversation, the surrogate can say, 'I'm not comfortable doing this,'" Bergman said, adding that sometimes, after thinking through the logistics, some parents will change their minds and plan to space the deliveries out further than they initially wanted, like to six or nine months.

Most agencies recommended staggering the planned deliveries by at least three months. But at the end of the day, parents need to be ready for the timeline to not go exactly as planned.

Houghton and his husband had actually planned to have their babies six weeks apart, but when one of the babies was born five weeks premature, they ended up with birthdays one week apart.

Concurrent surrogacy may not be for everyone — even if you can afford it

Although the cost of concurrent surrogacy makes it prohibitive for most people, that could change in the future as more and more companies expand their fertility benefits.

There are also more nonprofits popping up that will provide grants or partial funds to people who want to build their families via surrogacy but may not have the means to.

Jarret Zafran, founder and executive director at Brownstone Surrogacy, told BI that it's not necessarily only the ultrawealthy who pursue concurrent surrogacy. He said he currently has clients who are lifelong educators on the older side who are getting ready to start the surrogacy process. They recently asked about what it would look like for them to do a concurrent journey.

"I guess it is still a luxury in the sense that most Americans would not even be in a financial position to afford it the first time," Zafran, who also had a child with his husband through surrogacy, said. "But for them, this is not a frivolous decision, and they're scraping together every single little penny that they have, all of their savings, their retirement funds, and I get it."

By using surrogates abroad over a decade ago, Houghton and his husband, who are based in Spain, spent much less on their concurrent surrogates than they would have in the US. But he's still not totally sure why they chose to do concurrent journeys rather than space the children out a bit more.

"We just liked the idea of having two kids that were about the same age that would sort of grow up together," he said, adding, "I didn't realize at the time the challenges that would come with having two kids."

In reality, he said having the two boys grow up so close together in age, not twins but in the same class in school, ended up leading to a lot of conflict and constant competition as they were growing up. He said it has gotten better now that the boys are facing their teen years and developing their own identities.

Still, if he could do it over again, he thinks he would stagger them more.

"They're unbelievable young men, and I'm so proud of everything about them," he said. "But having the two together has been a challenge."

Have a news tip or a story to share about concurrent surrogacy? Contact this reporter at [email protected].

If a brain surgeon or politician can't do their job while pregnant have they thought about how kids in general will impact their job? What if their kid wakes them up the night before surgery because they got of had a nightmare? Are they counting on a reliable spouse or a nanny to take care to the unpleasant parts of parenting.

Finally at the very end of the article they address how being born so close together impacts kids. We're they really surprised that there was a lot of competition? And they article just touched on how one of the twins was born 5 weeks premature. That means at one week old the dudes in charge of its care were focused on its twibling. Considering that surrogacy pregnancies are more likely to have complications do the parents consider how they will care for one baby while another baby is in the hospital longer than expected?

#anti surrogacy #Twibling #Surrogacy exploits women #Twibling Surrogacy exploits two women at the same time #Babies are not commodities #If people want to build their families quickly why can't they just have one then adopt one?#Half a million dollars spent on having bio offspring when so many kids are up for adoption #concurrent surrogacy #tandem siblings #Surrogacy is an industry that was valued at $14 billion in 2022 by Global Market insights #The dude in this article choose foreign surrogates both times #Using foreign surrogates leads to the human trafficking of infants #Being in a same sex relationship is not infertility #Waiting too long to have kids is not infertility #social surrogacy" — using a surrogate when it's not medically or biologically necessary #Surrogacy is never necessary it just means the reproductive purchasers never considered adoption #American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM)#If people have jobs too demanding to go through pregnancy how they hell are they going to raise the kid?#fewer and fewer agencies are willing to do double embryo transfers which were previously more common and could result in twin pregnancy #All the questions about feelings were about how will the reproductive purchasers balance two pregnancies at the same time #Not about how being born so close together will impact two half siblings #Brownstone Surrogacy #Elite IVF #Roots Surrogacy #Growing Generations

5 notes · View notes

notmoreflippingelves · 10 months ago

Text

Every year, I tell myself that I should really consider taking off work for Father Brown premiere day, and then it comes around and I forget to do it, and I spend all day thinking about how I would so much rather be sitting cozy under a million blankets and going back to Kembleford than being forced to do boring work things.

#father brown #honestly i miss the old release schedule model #i loved having just a nice little ep to look forward to every day for two (and sometimes three) full work weeks #now they just put them on iplayer all at once but only air one a week #so its the worst of both worlds #i either watch them all at once b/c i have no impulse control #but do so with the understanding that the fandom may be pacing themselves w/ one a week instead #OR #i force myself to slow down but am grumpy about it #b/c for years the bbc would give me the perfectly prescribed little dose of serotonin in early-jan just when i needed it #the old system was great; why did they change it #an ep a day for 2-3 weeks was just the best way to pace it #i know there's a former higher up at the beeb that just hates the show #b/c it's much more expensive to produce than the average daytime show --even it more than makes up for production costs #by being the single most exported show from the channel to foreign markets (yup even more than doctor who)#so i can't help but wonder if the new release model is an attempt to kill the show by some other bitter exec #well jokes on them cause it didn't work last year and i pray that it won't work this year as well #am a bit worried about the sister boniface spinoff's future ngl #i think i did hear that it was getting an s3 and i think britbox funding it rather than the been directly does help it #but still a bit worried

10 notes · View notes

chiara-klara-claire · 1 year ago

Text

Books I got in May 2023 🇮🇸 🇿🇦 🇳🇱 🇩🇪

#polyglot #language blog #got the Dutch cities one from flea market on king’s day!!#language lover #foreign language #dutch #Netherlands #Afrikaans #Icelandic #mine #language books #langblr #bookblr #how long has it been since the last study-ish photo post #too many social media oh boy

18 notes · View notes

foxnangelseo · 6 months ago

Text

Apple To Invest More In India

As per undisclosed sources familiar with the matter, Apple Inc. is reportedly revamping the management of its international businesses to place a larger emphasis on India, reflecting the country's growing importance in the company's overall strategy. This move marks a significant milestone as India is set to become its own sales region at Apple for the first time, signaling the surging demand for Apple's products in the region. As a result, India is expected to gain greater prominence and visibility within the company.

The decision to focus on India could be a strategic move by Apple, given that India is one of the fastest-growing smartphone markets in the world. By prioritizing India, Apple may be seeking to gain a larger market share in the region, which could help the company offset slowing growth in other markets. The company's recent launch of an online store in India is further evidence of its commitment to expanding its presence in the country. Last quarter, despite a 5% dip in total sales, Apple achieved record revenue in India. The tech giant has set up an online store to cater to the region and plans to open its first retail stores there later this year. During the last earnings call, Apple CEO Tim Cook highlighted the company's significant emphasis on the Indian market and compared its current state to its early years in China. He mentioned how Apple is leveraging its learnings from China to scale in India. China is Apple's largest sales region after the Americas and Europe, generating around $75 billion in revenue per year. Apart from boosting Apple's sales, India is also becoming increasingly critical to the company's product development. Key suppliers are shifting to the region, and Apple is partnering with manufacturing giant Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. (also known as Foxconn) to establish new iPhone production facilities in India, according to Bloomberg News. Apple has been expanding its focus on the Indian market in recent years, and the company has been making efforts to improve its sales operations in the country. In 2020, Apple launched an online store in India, which allowed the company to sell its products directly to consumers in the country for the first time. This move was seen as a significant step for Apple, as India is one of the world's fastest-growing smartphone markets. If Apple is restructuring its international sales operations to put a more significant focus on India, it suggests that the company sees significant growth potential in the Indian market. Apple may be looking to increase its market share in India by focusing on pricing, localizing products and services, and building relationships with key partners in the country. It remains to be seen how Apple's restructuring will affect the company's operations in other regions. However, this move is undoubtedly a positive sign for India's tech industry, as it shows that major global players are taking note of the country's potential as a growth market.

Fox&Angel is an open strategy consulting ecosystem, put together by a top-line core team of industry experts, studded with illustrious success stories, learnings, and growth. Committed to curate bespoke business & strategy solutions for each of your challenges, we literally handpick consultants from across the globe and industries who fit the role best and help you on your path to success.

This post was originally published on: Foxnangel

#Apple India #Business expansion #business growth #FDI in India #Foreign Direct Investment #FoxNAngel #India market entry #Indian growing economy #Invest in India #Investment #strategy consulting

3 notes · View notes