If you understand Finance Capital Structure Computation Send Pm stating your $$

Known news : Veoneer sold to Qualcomm.

What's different about this ? Deal structure is different.

Source: https://www.ft.com/content/254d8ce3-de74-43f5-8cb9-3bbaa23d8c84

Read the article. It's very interesting.

How an unknown buyout firm pulled off a $4.5bn deal with a novel structure

Former Lazard banker Antonio Weiss teamed up with Qualcomm to acquire Swedish auto parts group.

https://preview.redd.it/v4ajwr9v81681.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=d3f3ddc294f458e2e1982970c7ba0659dc10e0da

What stands out about the deal is its structure. The auction for Veoneer was won in October by a start-up New York investment firm called SSW Partners. The firm had never executed a transaction, had raised no dedicated buyout fund and maintained only a bare-bones website.

The structure of their pending agreement with Veoneer has drawn the attention of the mergers and acquisitions industry. It reimagines how big corporations buy pieces of companies that would otherwise need to be acquired as a whole, deploying the bounty of private capital sloshing around the world while keeping financial disclosures to a minimum.

Qualcomm found itself in a jam this summer before the SSW arrangement took shape. The California company was interested in Veoneer’s autonomous vehicle software business with which it already had a joint venture. But the Sweden-based company had in July agreed to sell itself for $3.8bn to Magna International, a car parts supplier.

Making a rival bid for all of Veoneer made little sense to Qualcomm as it had no interest in the remaining divisions. Yet Veoneer preferred to be sold in full.

I am just thinking .... :)

Update: I misunderstood the part about the value of the assets transferred. The value for the demand note is at the basis, not the value at the time of transfer. I have a call with the attorney author of this trust on Thursday, November 18th. I'll report back then.

Is this the place to have a discussion about tax strategies for gains? I could use some wrinkles. I know it's not as sexy as purple circles or RC tweets but I can't be the only one thinking about this.

Stonkers, I was chatting with my tax guy about my plans for my gains and he was telling me about a trust structure that I could put my stonks into that would defer capital gains essentially in perpetuity. I would be the trustee and have complete control. The beneficiaries have no rights to trust assets, aka beneficiaries have no rights to sue the trust/trustee (like the Hyatt Hotel Pritzker family kids that broke up their trust).

BTW, I’m in the US and this is a US trust.

Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up.

This summation is to the best of my abilities. I’m just going off my notes here. This isn’t financial advice and I’m not qualified to give such a thing.

So here’s how I understand it would work.

I bought my shares/assets at whatever I bought them at. At some point, I buy this trust. I wait for the price of my lovely stocks to rise to a price I see fit to convey. I would convey my stonks to the trust and create a demand note for the value. Let’s just say I originally bought at $200 and conveyed at 10 million. I sell the stonk, now owned by the trust, at 70 million (the floor is 63m at the time of this writing). Convey at the basis....that's the value of the demand note.

Stocks/real estate/crypto grows without capital gains as long as they stay in the corpus of the trust. So 70 million with capital gains deferred and a demand note for 10 million the basis that covers non-trust expenses.

The trust would pay for all its own expenses for the trust business. If I convey my house, examples include taxes, mortgage, utilities, etc. The trust can pay for cars, insurance, etc. The gains remain in the corpus and no tax is due until something like 21 (or maybe 7 years after the third generation dies....am clarifying) years after the last beneficiary dies and beneficiaries can continue to be added.

Things that are excluded like food, fashion, and fun for the trustee are taxable, but in this case, they go against the demand note so they are tax-free up until the amo

Research Topic: How does capital structure affect the performance of European shipping industry? Table of Contents Research aims and objectives: .

Bain had another successful exit... This time from a lawsuit that alleged that one of its companies was engaged in anti-competitive practives and violations of RICO. https://www.sportico.com/leagues/other-sports/2021/accused-monopolist-varsity-spirit-1234643664/

How? Because they convinced the court that even though they are the majority owners of the company that owns the company being sued - which means they control business decisions - that they aren't liable for the actions of that company. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/white-collar-and-criminal-law/bain-capital-exits-antitrust-case-over-competitive-cheerleading (pay wall)

I looked it up on Pacer and they seriously used a screenshot of a search for "Bain" on the company's website of evidence for their argument that they aren't responsible for the actions taken by the company even though they own most of the company that owns it completely.

https://preview.redd.it/01ta4kdznfw71.png?width=855&format=png&auto=webp&s=7f595e9af035f8c55413861bad3bf4ad7de92abb

So I've been looking over the past couple weeks this space. I have found lots of shady stuff and practices on a lot of cannabis related companies like:

• Massive shareholder dilution
• Supervoting shares, usually convertible into the publicly traded shares at crazy ratios (as an example, Verano class B shares can be converted at a 100:1 ratio)
• All companies I have found issue Subordinate Voting Shares instead of common shares.

Is there a reason behind this? This capital structure is not shareholder friendly at all. Even if the companies succeed under this structure, that doesn't necessarily mean the share price will go up, because with this structure they can dilute you to oblivion.

Has anyone found a company in this space with a friendly shareholder structure and that doesn't dilute their shareholders?

Hello! First of all, I would like to thank you for reading this, r/startups has always been very helpful.

During last semester, I took an entrepreneurship class with a top VC managing partner. The whole point of the class was to form teams and launch a startup, so I teamed up with four other classmates. For me, it was never a school assignment but a huge opportunity to actually build something big, so I worked my ass off aiming to achieve that. However, during the semester, most of the work was done by me and another member of the team, while the other three did almost nothing.

Our project ended up being a quite successful (still in a very early stage, but with great feedback from our professor), so I decided to keep going with the idea. The thing is that, after realizing how big it could actually be, the three members of the team who did nothing suddenly decided to be a part of it (still doing close to nothing, but claiming they are co-founders too).

I do not really know how the legal and ownership part of a startup works, so I have several questions regarding these points. First, do they actually have ownership right? Taking into consideration that no legal contract was ever signed and their contribution was marginal. How can you kick someone out of a startup?

And second, in general terms, what advice do you have for future founders for establishing the capital structure? Any legal instruments that can help avoid a situation in which a co-founder is only a burden?

I think it is very important to emphasize the fact that they did nothing. I hope you understand how angering it is to work as crazy in something you are passionate about, while others enjoy your success without contributing a thing. It just seems unfair to me.

It seems like the one of the main gripes that anti-capitalists have with our current system is the corporate power structure (CEO -> board of directors -> managers -> shelf stockers etc.). Richard Wolff described a corporations executive management as a "king and his court" in one of his debates. However, their entire worldview is predicated upon the elimination of private ownership of the means of production.

It's recently crossed my mind that these are two separate issues.

Like all enterprises (government agency, airplane crew, military, etc.), corporations have a command structure. CEO is just another position within the company. Since it occupies the top spot in the command structure, the CEO will earn more due to their increased responsibility and massive scope of their intellectual labour. A CEO is no different than an airplane captain, president or military general.

CEOS and CFOs are not necessarily owners, and owners are not necessarily CEOs.

Jeff Bezos, for instance, doesn't do ANYTHING with respect to the operation of his company. He doesn't manage projects, he doesn't lead development teams, and he doesn't manage the companies finances or legal matters. He basically just makes money in his sleep due to his large ownership share.

On the other hand, Satya Nadella isn't the controlling shareholder or owner of Microsoft despite being it's CEO.

So, when socialists criticize the concept of a CEO, are they actually misunderstanding their own ideology?

A publicly owned factory still needs a command structure to function. So, under socialism, we would still have command structures in order to facilitate production but the overall wealth circulating will decrease.

Thoughts?

Hey guys:

I am looking for in-depth example of investing across the capital structure regarding credit instruments. For example, conducting a relative value analysis of Senior Debt, Junior debt, unsubordinated debt, Preferred and Equity of the same company. The more complicated, the better (in this case).

I am writing a piece that explains the concept (which i understand) but haven't done it in a professional setting - looking to understand the details.

Thanks

Why is it (1) and not (2)? So, why do we only add back (Depreciation * (1 - D/(D+E))) (1) instead of its full amount (2)?

(1) FCFE = Net Income - (Capital Expenditures - Depreciation) * (1 - D/(D+E)) - Increase in non-cash Working Capital * (1 - D/(D+E))

(2) FCFE = Net Income + Depreciation - Capital Expenditures * (1 - D/(D+E)) - Increase in non-cash Working Capital * (1 - D/(D+E))

Update: I misunderstood the part about the value of the assets transferred. The value for the demand note is at the basis, not the value at the time of transfer. I have a call with the attorney author of this trust on Thursday, November 18th. I'll report back then.

Stonkers, I was chatting with my tax guy about my plans for my gains and he was telling me about a trust structure that I could put my stonks into that would defer capital gains essentially in perpetuity. I would be the trustee and have complete control. The beneficiaries have no rights to trust assets, aka beneficiaries have no rights to sue the trust/trustee (like the Hyatt Hotel Pritzker family kids that broke up their trust).

BTW, I’m in the US and this is a US trust.

Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up.

This summation is to the best of my abilities. I’m just going off my notes here. This isn’t financial advice and I’m not qualified to give such a thing.

So here’s how I understand it would work.

I bought my shares/assets at whatever I bought them at. At some point, I buy this trust. I wait for the price of my lovely stocks to rise to a price I see fit to convey. I would convey my stonks to the trust and create a demand note for the value. Let’s just say I originally bought at $200 and conveyed at 10 million. I sell the stonk, now owned by the trust, at 70 million (the floor is 63m at the time of this writing). Convey at the basis....that's the value of the demand note.

Stocks/real estate/crypto grows without capital gains as long as they stay in the corpus of the trust. So 70 million with capital gains deferred and a demand note for 10 million the basis that covers non-trust expenses.

The trust would pay for all its own expenses for the trust business. If I convey my house, examples include taxes, mortgage, utilities, etc. The trust can pay for cars, insurance, etc. The gains remain in the corpus and no tax is due until something like 21 (or maybe 7 years after the third generation dies....am clarifying) years after the last beneficiary dies and beneficiaries can continue to be added.

Things that are excluded like food, fashion, and fun for the trustee are taxable, but in this case, they go against the demand note so they are tax-free up until the amount of the basis/demand note 10,000,000 (the value of the stock/asset the day I conveyed to the trust). The trustee can take out cash at any time, in any increments or full, or pay for use of trus