Hold on tight

[dime line]

NJA Owner, does CS own a 1/16 or 1/32 of each (maybe not each) plane that they have in their control?

 

[NJAowner]

Fresh Air -- I am not sure what it mean she can do under the other agreements, but I am just telling you from a 40000 foot level (ok a flying analogy) how the deal may be structured. Especially since (as rumor is) the $$$ are flowing from CA to DAC (in order to assume liabilities), it is less of a purchase of assets.


Dime - not sure. For example, NJ hopes that it doesn't own any interest in any jets. But practically it ends up with stub pieces from a departing owner having 1/4 and only being able to resell 3/16 at the time in question. Ideally, each jet starts off (or after initial sales starts off) with 0 company interest. Plus, if you are looking at a 50% of assets standard, there are many ways around that. First, in many acquisitions receivables are not purchase and in a fractional company they have to be huge. Secondly, intangible assets such as good will and the trademarks may have substantial value and may not be sold. It is very different than a manufacturing company where plant and equipment is sold or even an airline where jets are sold.

All being said, I think FO needs something between the Phenom and the X (since they are phasing out the Hawker 800) and the planes don't fly themselves. They would instantly need many well qualified pilots and getting then from CA is a logical choice.

 

[gret]

Fresh Air -- I am not sure what it mean she can do under the other agreements, but I am just telling you from a 40000 foot level (ok a flying analogy) how the deal may be structured. Especially since (as rumor is) the $$$ are flowing from CA to DAC (in order to assume liabilities), it is less of a purchase of assets.


Dime - not sure. For example, NJ hopes that it doesn't own any interest in any jets. But practically it ends up with stub pieces from a departing owner having 1/4 and only being able to resell 3/16 at the time in question. Ideally, each jet starts off (or after initial sales starts off) with 0 company interest. Plus, if you are looking at a 50% of assets standard, there are many ways around that. First, in many acquisitions receivables are not purchase and in a fractional company they have to be huge. Secondly, intangible assets such as good will and the trademarks may have substantial value and may not be sold. It is very different than a manufacturing company where plant and equipment is sold or even an airline where jets are sold.

All being said, I think FO needs something between the Phenom and the X (since they are phasing out the Hawker 800) and the planes don't fly themselves. They would instantly need many well qualified pilots and getting then from CA is a logical choice.

Don't forget if they keep the receivables, they also have to keep the payables...which are also massive and usually exceed the receivables in the case of an aviation company.

A seller of a frac has to pay the buyer cash because of the obligations, including the buy out for the owners if they leave the program. The seller is escaping and has to pay to get out of a bad business.

 

[Sparse]

I find it funny that Allen edmunds shoes advertises on this web site. In this thread, people are worried about their jobs and how to feed their family. I doubt they are concerned about what style of $300 shoes they are going to buy. Now don't get me wrong, they make great shoes, I have two pair I have had for 12 and 30 years, but with the exception of NJOwner, I doubt many on this site are going to be shopping for theses items.

 

[jonjuan]

I find it funny that Allen edmunds shoes advertises on this web site. In this thread, people are worried about their jobs and how to feed their family. I doubt they are concerned about what style of $300 shoes they are going to buy. Now don't get me wrong, they make great shoes, I have two pair I have had for 12 and 30 years, but with the exception of NJOwner, I doubt many on this site are going to be shopping for theses items.

Maybe it's a leak over from the 10/250 thread where advertisers are Rolex, Mercedes, and Members Only. :laugh:

 

[gunfyter]

In THE MILLIONAIRE NEXT DOOR, I remember it said that most millionaires had never spent $149 or more for a pair of shoes.

That was one example ... but there were many other items he mentioned too. The people buying this crap are people who can't afford it

 

[NJAowner]

Re: Allen Edmunds. Great shoes and if you get them re-soled when needed can actually be a better value than cheaper shoes. They can last a long time (but do need more $ upfront). I have one pair for over 10 years -- get them resoled and conditioned every 2 years or so and they are better than new -- just like new but already broken in.

Gret --"Don't forget if they keep the receivables, they also have to keep the payables." Not quite sure how many transactions you have been involved in but very rarely is something that "they also HAVE TO" anything. In probably 75% of asset acquisitions, that is probably the case, but is far from a "HAVE TO". I would envision a deal structure that has some type of a post-closing "work out/earn out" for dealing with the owner buybacks, etc. CA may even stay on the hook directly for those. This is not the "first rodeo" for KR & DAC. If they are assuming the owner buy back liabilities I assume they will be adequately compensated for it. Since they are all Cessna products maybe they just take them back.

Sparse --a good bit of internet advertising on these boards is based upon other websites which have been visited on your computer. You may see "Allen Edmunds" because you were looking at shoes, Fisch will see oceanfront condos in Maui or La Jolla because he has been trying to figure out how to spend all his 10/$250 and retirement benefits, and I don't think we really want to know what comes on Jonjuan's screen. But we probably all get the Sporty's and pilot stuff. That is just how internet advertising usually works.

 

[ProFracPilot]

Firefox + AdBlock Plus = Advertising? What advertising ?

 

[Sparse]

Re: Allen Edmunds. Great shoes and if you get them re-soled when needed can actually be a better value than cheaper shoes. They can last a long time (but do need more $ upfront). I have one pair for over 10 years -- get them resoled and conditioned every 2 years or so and they are better than new -- just like new but already broken in.

.

They are great shoes. Don't know if it is still the case but Delta pilots could buy these through payroll deduct for 1/2 price. That's how I got mine. I have had one pair factory refurbished and they are just like new. I have had that pair for over 30 years.

 

[dime line]

In THE MILLIONAIRE NEXT DOOR, I remember it said that most millionaires had never spent $149 or more for a pair of shoes.

That was one example ... but there were many other items he mentioned too. The people buying this crap are people who can't afford it

Make no mistake about it, they might not buy 149.00 shoes, but I bet they have 50,000 into a home stereo. just saying