Sherdog Mixed Martial Arts Forums

Go Back   Sherdog Mixed Martial Arts Forums > Fight Discussion > UFC Discussion

UFC Discussion Discuss UFC, former WEC and former Pride events here.

Thread Tools
Old 05-13-2014, 07:14 PM   #51
Charming Quark
JudoThrowFiasco's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 8,029
vCash: 10000
Private investors.

Public makes no sense, they aren't really diversified for growth. Their ppv and live attendance seem to be on a decline.

JudoThrowFiasco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2014, 07:56 PM   #52
Hugo Drax

Green Belt
Hugo Drax's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,027
vCash: 10000
If they went public the UFC would have to give real concrete numbers regarding ppv buys, fight pass subscribers, etc. and there's no way they would want to do that.

Hugo Drax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2014, 08:07 PM   #53

Brown Belt
thebaconator's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,102
vCash: 10000
I have never heard of a sport league making public offerings

Prodigy all day!

Cung Le vs. Yoshihiro Akiyama
thebaconator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2014, 08:56 PM   #54

Black Belt
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,597
vCash: 6635
Originally Posted by TheonGreyJoy View Post
yes and yes.

I would not expect the UFC to have a hot IPO as I do not think the company is on a big growth curve. I may be wrong as they don't release much, but in answer to the question I was replying to an IPO would likely not be a way for Dana and Zuffa to 'cash out'. Cash out as a term generally refers to selling all or almost all of your position.

No he did not. Not as the term is used. He sold a tiny portion of his holding to pay taxes.

Right. not 'cashing out' which generally involves the sale of all or most of ones position. thus the 'out' part of cashing out.

Zuckerberg almost certainly had almost zero cash to pay his taxes since all his wealth was in his stock. even still FB market cap dropped by $3B on the news.

Again the NEED to sell was precipitated by FB going public, and his stock options being 'in the money' thus he had to pay tax immediately to realize them. Had FB not gone public he would not have needed to pay that tax and thus would not have to sell. So he did not sell to cash up. It was basically a neutral transaction for him.

This here is some BS.

Cite some examples please. I am a big Buffet follower and know of none of the holdings he sells typically taking a big hit.

Buffets a value buyer who likes to by and hold and invest. Yes his investments usually grow, but no you are wrong if you think they basically go back to neutral upon sale.

But again cite some examples please.

What is cheap? For Zuffa it is doubtful the market would put any big forward value on the stock. It would likely LIST cheap and if they announced they wanted out, with all the uncertainty over who would run it and how would it be run, the stock would likely plummet.

Zuffa would be far better off seeking the same buyer now in a private sale then spending the large amount of money to take and keep the company public and then risking spooking the market and driving the price down in a sale.

what you are saying may have some truth in general but we would be hard pressed to see it applying here.

You watch too much TV. I have orchestrated several IPO's for several companies from front to back. Other then a few FB look cases the vast, vast majority of them are priced based on comparables and a Price too Earnings ratio.

You make $X per share and have Y shares outstanding and your price is pegged solidly within a range of your comparables. Rarely do you see a 10X jump over night. 2X is rare and often retreats back if it does jump up. the few exceptions are purely speculative early stage companies or new disruptive tech companies (like FB) that people simply imagine huge wins with.

You obviously understand the intricacies of the issue better than I do... but in any case, we more or less agree:

Zuffa doesn't need the liquidity, so they would never go public unless there was an opportunity to gain a large speculative bump by doing so. You suggest that this is something that isn't particularly common.

I'll defer somewhat to your... except I would argue that stocks in general are over valued. You'd be pretty hard pressed to get a similar price to earnings ratio if you were selling, say, your corner store or your gym or your restaurant to another private buyer ("My ice-cream shop earned $50,000 last year... and you can own it for the low, low price of $1,000,000!").

As for Buffet, I don't know the exact numbers, and I get that he generally invests in large companies and even though his investments are large, the percentage of the company that he buys isn't always such a huge slice. But I also know that a lot of people follow his lead (like... a LOT) on whatever he buys, so prices do rise on his purchases. Likewise, when he gets out a lot of people (probably not as many) follow him to the next investment... and just the act of selling drops prices at least somewhat (as you pointed out originally in debunking the 'cash out' option).

At any rate, I won't suggest I understand the nuances the way you do. I do know, however, that although I agree that Zuffa isn't in a position to do it, going public has pretty much always been used by some, and will continue to be used by some as a way of 'cashing out.'

(And, yeah, it's pretty hard not to put Zucherberg in that category considering that pretty much over night he went from owning a company that couldn't figure out how to generate $1 billion in total profits to a guy with a networth of around $30 billion.)

jeremyemilio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2014, 09:57 PM   #55
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 16,512
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Tonycpa View Post
Facing the combined burden of an
economic recession and plunging capital
markets, the IPO market turned in
its worst performance in a generation.
In 2008, there were only 31 IPOs—the
lowest annual total since 1975—with
gross proceeds of $24.1 billion (of which
$17.9 billion came from a single offering).
The year’s tallies were down 85% in deal
volume and 48% in gross proceeds from
2007, ending a run of four strong years
that had averaged about 200 IPOs annually.
While 2008 was a down year across
the board, the second half of the year was
even slower than the first. The IPO market
virtually dried up in the second half of the
year, producing a mere six offerings raising
just $1.0 billion. As discussed further
below, the market drought continued into

See? I had no idea what I was talking about. lol

Austin 3:16


AV by Lethal
PRIDEWASBETTER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2014, 12:16 AM   #56

Purple Belt
mma2013's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,120
vCash: 14091
Originally Posted by jeremyemilio View Post
There are two basic reasons for going public.

The first is, as you suggest, to raise funds by selling off equity. You are correct that the Fertitta's would never have a reason to do this.

The second reason, though, is because if your timing is right in issuing an IPO, going public is the closest a private citizen can come to printing money.

When Facebook went public it sold for (excuse me if the numbers are a bit off; I'm going by memory, but they're close) 80 times what it had earned in the past year, 40-50 times what it had earned in its entire existence to date, and more than it is likely to ever earn from now until the end of time.

Say someone came to survey your land for oil reserves, and then word got out, and so much hype built up around the very possibility that you could have oil on your land that someone offered to buy it from you for the maximum you could ever hope to make IF they did find oil (which was still purely a hypothetical). Would you sell?

The closest the UFC has ever come to that situation was in 2009/2010. Chances are they could have gone public then and sold for at least a few times what it was worth then (which is probably more than it is worth now).

If they went public now, though, they would just look like they were hard up for liquidity, and would likely end up taking a hit. Defeating any purpose of going public, for all of the reasons you listed already.
why would i sell when i can lease the land and have profit sharing if any oil is found? i collect a steady income from the lease and potentially, massive profit sharing if there is oil. when you sell, your profits are substantially reduced by capital gains tax.

given those two choices, i would have a higher rate of return on the cash flow from the lease and the potential profit sharing if oil is found by owning the land.

mma2013 is offline   Reply With Quote


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Latest Threads

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:30 AM. Forum Rules Clear Cookies Social Groups Lost Password
Contact Us - Sherdog Forums - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices

Skin made by Alex. © Powered by vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.
monitoring_string = "fd5733925866a04e50edd70f38dfaa35"
monitoring_string = "603ac9fff68f23709f2a42bf5e29272b"