Added: 9 months ago
From: khanacademy
Views: 12,391
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (38)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • good explanation but no bank would give you 90% leverage, maybe 50% if you are lucky on a small private company - if it has hard assets.

  • wow thanks very informative!

  • This is an interesting presentation. But nobody structures leverage buyouts like this. Well not anyone that knows what they're doing. You borrow less than the assets. So you can actually sell the assets to payoff the loan. Or you bring in other investors since banks only lend to about 10% of deals.

  • thanks

  • Helpful video but when u take that 9M loan with 10% interest you does not have to pay just the interest 900K a year but also the principal has to be paid off in time. So at the end not so great :-) Anyway I love your vids, thanks

  • @Frostpako The terms of the loan can be negotiated and the size of the installments varies from business case to business case. You cannot conclude based on the video whether or not the installments are larger than the net income.

  • @Frostpako Actually most corporate debt is interest only and you pay most or all the principal at once (usually taking out a new loan to pay the principal on the old one). Also, principal payments do not get accounted for on your income statement.

  • @khanacademy "usually taking out a new loan to pay the principal on the old one" exactly. always in debt.

  • @Frostpako Its about what the business is turning over a year numbie...

  • American Hero Right here

  • with only 400k , i don't think that'd make you very competitive, and given the fact this isn't YOUR company there is bound to be a learning curve, add competition to the mix and you'll have to work VERY HARD for your money or simply fail as are the odds anyway. Good video.

  • @ExquisiteDoom Please stop spewing statistics you made up. The facts are that most companies grow even more successful when somebody has bought the owner out - primarily because the new owners typically are very experiences at running businesses. How come all this pessimism? Are you mad at Sal for not calling Capitalism the work of the devil?

  • @ChallengeDK What are you talking about? The leveraged buyer now has 900k less than he would of had in comparison with someone who did not lever up; who would have the upperhand, the one who has more capital to reinvest or the one who doesn't? Furthermore this has nothing to do with statistics, and i did not USE statistical data to illustrate my point but simple logic and there was nothing in what i said that could come anywhere close to meaning that i am an anti-capitalist, why the rage?

  • @ExquisiteDoom See my replies to TheHumanAgenda. You are welcome to reply as were they directed towards you.

    Furthermore, you said that most companies undergoing management change fail. That's a made-up statistic - and not only is it made-up, it's factually untrue and logically unsound.

  • @ChallengeDK I said there was a learning curve in addition to the capital differential , i don't think your statistics cover both characteristics, if so i'd like to see it. As for undergoing management change , ceteris paribus, i'm in complete agreement with you.

    Basically, all i've been saying is leverage adds risk, add that risk as leverage to the statistics about how many companies actually succeed within a 5 year period and i doubt you'll end up with a better number.

  • @ChallengeDK Also, after reading some of your exchanges with agenda, i'm not in total agreement with him and your responses aren't really relevant to the exchange i'm actually having with you (at least i don't see the connection)

    It seems to me you've projected an image onto me, especially since you pretty much called me a liberal or a socialist while i'm a radical freemarket guy.

  • but if you got the business outright you could invest that profit and make further profit on the profit. so its not such a "great deal"

  • @TheHumanAgenda

    Wow, a lot of economic illiteracy going around here.

    1) What prevents an indebted company from reinvesting its proceeds? Virtually no company these days operate without debt; in fact, debt makes possible ventures otherwise impossible because not a lot of people have or is willing to pay out of pocket the expense.

    2) The word "leverage" is meant to be taken outright; leverage magnifies the invested amount - the profit is quadrupled as a result, in this case.

  • @ChallengeDK i would call your education incomplete, because with fractional reserve banking bankers fuck both the savers and the guys that buy firms on margin. in the long term banking will always impoverish businesses,exactly because it borrows from the future. the indebted company will reinvest a lower amount and that will completely crush its acumulative profit until it is free from debt, get it? i think you do.

  • @TheHumanAgenda Really? Well, f*ck me then.

    1) When companies or individuals use leverage in their investments, two scenarios are applicable:

    1.1) The company/investor do not have the sufficient funds to pay the whole expense out of pocket. Loans thus generates competition, as more individuals or entities can compete in the marketplace.

    (con't)

  • @TheHumanAgenda (con'td)

    1.2) The company or investor DO have the available funds, but are unwilling to lock p the money in a single project. As a result, the rest of the money is freed up for other investments or furthering the one already in business.

    (con't)

  • @TheHumanAgenda (cont'd)

    2) A 40% return is better than a 10% return. If you are unable to see this, not even Sal can help you understand. If 10 people lever up their investments, they get a total return among them of 4m, compared to 1m if they did not lever up. Everybody wins!

  • @ChallengeDK If you borrow money to buy a company ,a bigger company ,or even a competitor can borrow even more money to buy that asset, then a lot of other companies or individuals can borrow even MORE money to buy the same asset, therefore the price will go higher for the particular asset or even asset-class. That of course isnt in the interest of anyone BUT the bank,because why would they be in the business of lending money if they couldnt more profitably just buy out all the companies

  • @TheHumanAgenda I'm sorry, but that's not how demand works - especially not when we're talking million-dollar corporations. The value of the firm is carefully calculated (be it on a stand-alone basis or with synergies taken into account) by potential purchasers. What loans generates is liquidity. Liquidity in markets does not drive prices to explode or otherwise create inflation; liquidity results in prices being MORE accurate to the true value/NPV, and it helps attract the best people/managers

  • @ChallengeDK not create inflation - create a bubble. can you explain "true value" ? are you quoting an economics textbook? Because i dont understand how price has anything to do with "attracting the best people/managers".

  • @TheHumanAgenda

    Banks don't like running companies or owning real estate. 

  • @jxsilicon9 but why not, why dont they?

  • @TheHumanAgenda

    They don't like taking on risk. And they don't want to run a business or deal with real estate. They will just end up selling it at probably a lost. If you have a triple A rating or lots of collateral. Sure they will give you a good deal.But most deals are funded through other sources along with banking or instead of bank loans.Like a private equity firm already has millions,billions in capital from investors.But there are plenty of financial sources.

  • @jxsilicon9 well isnt loaning money a risk as well?

  • @ChallengeDK and yeah 40% return is better, but in the long run ,the money that u spend on repaying the debt + the money that you could've made with a outright buy out will generate at LEAST what you're making with the LBO (correct me if im wrong) ,but if you put in the thing i said in the previous message then it clearly shouldnt come even close. Although i agree that borrowing to get "better returns" sounds like an awesome idea. you gotta consider ...where are borrowing from? is it really

  • @TheHumanAgenda If you were able to produce a worked-though example of your claim, maybe I'd consider what you're saying. Until then I'll have to regard your comments as nothing more than empty claims. If, for instance (as Sal also mentions), the loan is a bullet loan (i.e. principal repayment in one installment at maturity), there are no gradual repayments.

    But it seems you've figured it all out; but what makes you smarter than virtually every single company that disagrees with you?

  • @ChallengeDK they dont disagree with me neccesarily ,they just work the system in which they are grounded in. I dont need to give examples for something that is only based on mathematics and i was describing an asset-class bubble as well, im saying that loans trough fractional reserve banking create bubbles and therefore are unhealthy ,because MOST of those indebted companies are unsound during the long term. 

  • @ChallengeDK some old grannies stale savings. or is it the banks thats already hyper leveraged that gives you the phony unsound currency. which a indebted business is as well - unsound.

  • =]

  • Man these are so great! Keep on posting these vids!!!!

  • this was pretty helpful - thanks bro, you did it again!

  • Thanks, Khan:)

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more