Too often, corporate customers and brokers rationalize the purchase price of a negative cash transaction by the value of the assets available for sale. The argument is that, if the value of property X, the Company shall not be less than X, because even on the rainiest day, could sell one of these assets to recoup the initial investment.
That is an argument only if you have no interest in making money. If you are the businessMake money, you have to discount heavily the value of those assets to the fact that they're not income properties are illiquid and the opportunity costs.
Buying a business is a risk / reward set. The acquired assets generated a return of more than a weighted average of the buyer the cost of capital or assets will cost money instead of earning money.
Consider again the negative cash transaction with a substantial asset base andTo justify buyer that an offer price on the resale value on these assets. Are these buyers as a waste disposal costs? Storage costs? There is also an active market for the resale of these assets? How quickly they can be converted into cash?
I'm not saying that a company with a break-even cash flow and a purchase price is fully secured by the assets minimal risk. But I will argue that in most cases provide minimal return. Risk and return, not mutuallyexclusive concepts. The available yield of an investment is the return of all other investments with the same excess risk in order to attract investment. If a similar return can be achieved elsewhere with less risk, then why any informed investor would assume the greater risk for less return? This is the concept of opportunity cost.
Now you can argue that the intrigues of the discussed negative cash business with the purchase price fully collateralizedby assets, the potential of the assets that ultimately generate a return greater than that on other investments. This can be a valid argument. However, you must think about why these assets have potential. Is it about what you bring, that the buyer or the seller, bringing to the table? When you create the opportunity as a buyer, then for the assets, why are you willing to pay the former owners of this potential?
The seller needs to bring in additional benefits forTable in more than the resale value of the assets to justify the full resale value for the assets. Examples include: customer lists, supplier relationships, a talented workforce, management team, distribution network, research and development, etc. If there are no additional benefits offered by the seller, then why you should buy the assets? Why not buy a similar group of assets elsewhere (possibly cheaper to produce) with the same capacity to the desired return on investment?(So your leverage necessary that the assets are discounted)
Risk, return, opportunity costs and asset markets will be held in conjunction with the ability of any other consideration, in order to adequately assess the suitability of a potential business partner acquisition. Please note, you will quickly discover that the assets of a break-even or negative cash does not dictate the business a "no basement" price should a buyer be willing to pay for the company. If there is noback, offered by the seller, attracting an investment in the assets (either cash or) other intangible assets, then the buyer's assets should be off. If not, misled, what to buy these assets? The possibility of losing money every year?
0 ความคิดเห็น: