at5

12 ms·

1.
by at5 11y ago
1) In practice there is no way the deal would have proceeded without GS giving the go ahead. Nowhere in your sources does GS say they said no to the deal as was consummated. 3) Was a lawyer before banking. Can assure you the stake matters.
2.
by at5 11y ago
Ah yea but bankers are like real estate agents; their incentive is to maximize their return per unit of time invested. If GS didn't think there's going to be a large marginal return (on time) in asking for more from the buyer then
3.
by at5 11y ago
Never said it was illegal...
4.
by at5 11y ago
Lock up periods. Would apply to the banker too I'd imagine
5.
by at5 11y ago
I think you misunderstand. It's not a legal issue. It's whether you provided adequate service. And Goldman didn't. And bankers are almost never liable fyi because of the language baked into engagement letters. It's also
6.
by at5 11y ago
Oh not illegal for sure. But they dropped the ball. Bankers are shielded from practically every type of litigation based on engagement letters. But that doesn't mean that they didn't fail their client. I mean practically speaking
7.
by at5 11y ago
86bps is an ok fee given that you had a VP running this who was on vacation for a number of key events during the deal ( http://dealbreaker.com/2013/06/goldman-was-professionally-ne... ) PE firms pay a few hundred g
8.
by at5 11y ago
Technically you're right. But a banker's role is really to provide advice on the deal and work in the best interests of the client. Sophisticated clients don't need bankers so don't pay them much (PE firms sometimes pay
9.
by at5 11y ago
Former banker here. Really impressed you guys get paid in the same form of consideration as your clients. 100% the way to go.
10.
by at5 11y ago
What? Part of a due diligence process is looking at internal financial statements. Cashflow issues would have jumped out immediately. GS absolutely dropped the ball on this one. Also not recommending your client put in a collar after an all
11.
by at5 11y ago
Why do you say that?
12.
by at5 11y ago
They absolutely need to take blame for not atleast advising James Baker to put in a collar. All stock deals are hugely risky. A deal being run by a VP and associate is also a no no at most banks, and one would presume Goldman after this fia
13.
by at5 11y ago
100%. Many boards think that by getting Goldman or Morgan you're covering your ass. They don't realize that unless you're atleast $1BN in size they really are not incentivized to do a thorough job. Why? Because M&A deals
14.
by at5 11y ago
Actually not surprising that GS would let a VP and an associate run this deal. $580MM is small potatoes for Goldman, and it was 99 so they were up to their eyeballs in deals. There was probably a senior banker committee overseeing the deal
15.
by at5 11y ago
Sentiment expressed by westerners towards others stand. Still possible for him/her to be racist towards arabs. You would do well to recognize its patronising tone. Read the poem perhaps. Iraqis arent children and don't need anyone
16.
by at5 11y ago
Not just fratboys tbh. Wall Street is only about the money. Like power it tends to attract the worst and corrupt the best.
17.
by at5 11y ago
Not much in the way of bs in the big short tbh. A little dramatisation of the characters probably but hey, gotta sell a book right? Facts were pretty spot on. The book atleast; no clue about the movie.
18.
by at5 11y ago
Maybe because we in the west are biased towards our own and vilify the other? And quite frankly who gives a damn what the west thinks about one of its leaders? Hardly an objective POV is it? Why not ask the victims or observers with data an
19.
by at5 11y ago
Your assertions are based on? Intuition? Mine are backed by data from market studies. Twitter is a known quantity and those who haven't signed up don't because they don't have a need to. Social networks are valuable because o
20.
by at5 11y ago
No. There are basically 5 ways make more money as a company. Professional investors usually have a better handle on these than the companies themselves. Time and time again, companies come up with supply driven theses that give birth to pro
21.
by at5 11y ago
Making the point that views of Stalin and Churchill are quite far apart from each other despite similar actions. Churchill denied food aid from other allied countries that wanted to feed the starving in Bengal. His role went beyond prioriti
22.
by at5 11y ago
Big difference between perfection and a monster no? I mean he's known for the same thing Stalin is. Interesting that my comment sits in the negative. Says a lot about the crowd around here.
23.
by at5 11y ago
Investors compare earnings quality across all sectors. Very very few companies trade at 8x revenue. Tech companies typically get a premium because they usually are quasi monopolies (See MSFT at 4x EV/Rev) and have solid growth rates. I
24.
by at5 11y ago
Guess someone should have pointed it out to him, that his childhood hero was an avowed racist ("I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion". Also see the Bengal famine; right up there with Holomdor.) Why not
25.
by at5 11y ago
Still possible for Uber to be overvalued though. Fedex, a proven business, has an EV of $39BN and FCF of ~$700MM. Uber has a $63BN valuation and loses money. Uber could take over the world. Or it might not. A lot of assumptions baked into t
26.
by at5 11y ago
Have to disagree. They're still preferred equity instruments with unique trigger provisions. Higher up in the capital structure but not debt; you can't credit bid using these instruments in a Chapter 11 scenario and they aren&#x27
27.
by at5 11y ago
As an outsider who analysed moving to a startup, parts of this struck me as being particularly accurate. The employee takes on more risk via 1) Not having full access to the financials and discussions over change of control events 2) Having
28.
by at5 11y ago
No. R&D spend has risk because you only succeed a certain % of the time. Valeant succeeded by jacking up prices. They were able to do so by partially paying copays. Here then you have a version of the principal agent problem. Customer g
29.
by at5 11y ago
You're actually quite right. Capital intensiveness is a barrier to entry. That's why software businesses rise rapidly and fall rapidly at a greater frequency than other types of businesses.
30.
by at5 11y ago
Tons always have. Look up the valuation of Macy's real estate; it is about 2x the market cap. Even adjusting for the full EV value its at a discount. They would realize more value by shutting down the retail business and selling off th

More ›