Now that the project partnering agreement was signed, John and Peter decided they wanted to monitor it to ensure compliance. In the agreement they had established a prejob conference. They invited all the subcontractors to this meeting and explained how they would measure the success of the agreement. They were interested in knowing if there were any violations of the terms. They were also interested in knowing if there were any subcontractors who consistently violated their agreements. So they created the chart shown below.
John and Peter agreed to review the chart with all the subcontractors twice a year during the course of the three-year project. The first piece of work completed was the demolition and removal of an old abandoned structure. They met after that segment of the project was completed to see how well the subcontractors involved were complying with the agreement.
As the chart shows, the demolition and removal segment was not without violation, but the one minor infraction appeared to be due to an oversight rather than intentional. Both Peter and John felt the matter was handled appropriately and decided this was not a violation of their trust. Both thought the project partnering agreement was working well and agreed to continue to monitor the results. John made a comment that seemed to sum up their success so far: “Although we’ve just started the project, we’re already a week ahead of schedule because the demolition
and site cleanup went so smoothly.”
Posted in Taxes, personal finances, revenue, stock, stock exchange (Tags: crisis, foreclosure, investments, Loans, mortgage, stock, tenant, trade value) | Comments Off
Another option that many independent inventors are choosing nowadays is to license their inventions for royalties. This is a method of choice for many inventors for lots of compelling reasons. Once a product is licensed to a manufacturer, that product will automatically have a place on the planogram of the retail stores where the manufacturer places goods. The manufacturers handle all of the responsibility for producing the product, selling it to retailers, bookkeeping, etc. The licensor (the inventor) goes to his mailbox and collects his royalty checks at regular intervals, usually quarterly. The inventor’s time is entirely his own to spend creating other moneymaking new products or in whatever way he chooses.
While receiving a royalty amount of 3-5 percent of net sales on your product may seem like settling for a very small amount, consider this: the manufacturer is taking all of the financial risk in getting the product on the market. He is spending the money to make the product, warehouse it, insure it, sell it, ship it and handle the bookkeeping. His profit margin on the product may not be as great as you imagine. In addition, if you have a guaranteed annual amount of royalty (and you should!) you will receive at least that amount whether your licensee sells that much of your product or not. Lest you jump to the conclusion that 3-5 percent of the wholesale price does not amount to much, do the math. A product that retails $8-$10 million annually returns between $120,000 and $250,000 in royalty, depending on the percentage. This is money that you didn’t lift a finger to earn once it was licensed. If you are still thinking 3-5 percent is a paltry amount of royalty, consider this; if you are unable to get the product marketed on your own, 3-5 percent of something is much to be preferred over 100 percent of nothing!
Posted in Taxes, personal finances, revenue, stock, stock exchange (Tags: joit, last will, Market, market cycle, market cycles, money, Partnership, rate, tenancy) | Comments Off
Marketed as simple and easy to own, stocks are actually the most complex and emotionally challenging of all asset classes. Powerlessness,
unmanageability, regrets, fears, social pressures, herd behavior, and complexities galore are the norm. Stock investors are primarily an optimistic group. They believe that stocks they purchase will increase in value. They all know stories of stocks that increased in value by 100 times or more. The potential rewards appear unlimited. Of course, most stock investors are aware of the risk of loss, so they diversify and employ other cautions. Still, every stock investor believes that one or more of his stocks or mutual funds will have fantastic returns.
Businesses issuing stock encourage this belief and are all too happy to accept the investor’s cash.
Human and intellectual capital are only valuable when embedded in an enterprise. This point is seemingly obvious but needs to be repeated now because it has some less obvious ramifications.
If I am unemployed, my education and experience are doing me little economic good. But the day I show up on the job, I create a revenue stream for myself. If my employer chose wisely in hiring me, I will subsequently add value to the enterprise as well.
Indeed, the value of a human asset will depend enormously on the nature of the enterprise in which it is embedded. A great quarterback will be more valuable on a good team than on a mediocre one—if only because he will be given more time to throw and because his receivers are more likely to be open.
Furthermore, if he is traded to a contender, he may take that team to the Super Bowl—he is more valuable on the contending team. From a value viewpoint, his present team should value not only his direct services, but also the option of trading him to a competitor, provided that is a realistic business option. In effect, he has no intrinsic value; his value to the Chargers is the difference in their value playing with and without him; his value to the Bills is likewise the difference with and without his services.
If the first number is substantially larger than the second, the Chargers and the Bills have room for a deal that creates additional value for both teams. Of course, his value is zero to an organization that isn’t into football, say a ballet company, which cannot use his talent at all.
Intellectual property is equally situational; a patent will be more valuable embedded in a firm with a position in the market than in a firm without such access.
When the value of an asset is sufficiently situational, there may be important opportunities to create value by framing options.
Specifically, the asset, like the quarterback, may be less valuable in the enterprise in which it is currently embedded than in alternate uses.
In the case of hybrid ARMs, both the purchase and rate and term refinance (no cash out) risk multipliers are greater than 1.0. At first blush, this seems counterintuitive, especially in the case of the purchase loan, which is generally perceived to be stronger. However, we believe the findings are due to the following:
Purchase borrowers may be first-time borrowers or “stretching” to purchase their home. In addition, they may employ a second lien loan to finance their down payment. In either case, they may be overleveraged.
In addition, purchase borrowers have, by definition, no time in property, and this may influence the propensity to default.
Rate and term borrowers are not extracting equity but rather seeking to lower monthly payments. The reluctance to extract equity or the absence of equity available for extraction may signal a weaker borrower relative to a cash-out refinance.
Fixed rate and term refinance default risk is less than refinance cash out or purchase. This borrower is most likely reducing rate and/or extending term. This, in turn, lowers the borrowers and reduces the probability of default.
Overcollateralization is the excess of the mortgage pool balance over the certificate balance and acts as internally generated credit support. Excess spread is used to accelerate the amortization of the outstanding certificate’s principal balance to a level lower than the mortgage pool balance.
Overcollateralization can either be allowed to build over time or be fully funded at closing. If the OC is built over time, excess spread is used to accelerate the paydown of the AAA classes until the target OC amount is achieved. The target OC amount is usually achieved in the early months of the transaction’s life. Conversely, if the OC is fully funded at closing, then excess spread is used to maintain the OC amount. The target OC amount is generally established as a percentage of the original principal balance. The required OC amount varies depending on the underlying collateral composition, structured used and the level of spreads on the liabilities (bonds) issued.
An overcollateralized transaction can sustain losses equal to the amount of current available excess spread and overcollateralization before incurring principal writedowns in the capital structure. For example, assume the transaction structure and a target OC building to 1.3%. Once cumulative losses exceed the OC amount, and if excess spread is insufficient to cover losses in a given period, then subordinated bond investors will incur principal losses.
Triple X is one subgroup in the broader life insurance securitization market. Total life insurance securitization reached roughly $18 billion in outstanding volume in mid-2007, with issuance of approximately $5 billion in 2006 and $2 billion year to date through June 2007. The life insurance securitization market divides into the following:
- Triple X securitization, which funds the regulatory capital requirement for level premium term life insurance policies. Deal terms may be as long as 30 years,
- Embedded value securitizations (also referred to as value-in-force monetization) release the profits “embedded” in future cash flows from a defined block of business,
- Catastrophic mortality bonds pay the issuer in the event of spikes in general population mortality by referencing a mortality index. These bonds can provide insurers with a level of protection that may not be available in the reinsurance market,
- and New business strain funding has been used to finance the upfront costs of writing new business by raising debt against future premiums.
Aside from the difference in motivation, embedded value and Triple X securitization differ in terms of collateral. Triple X transactions retain cash from the debt raised as collateral in the deal, whereas embedded value transactions are collateralized by future profits from a defined block of business.
Whereas Triple X securitization is specific to U.S. law, embedded value transactions have also been executed in the United Kingdom.