Categories Finance

7 days 30 days All time Recent Popular
Today, a mezz thread!

Also, the answer to a few questions including:

Yesterday’s Value That Company!
Also, Why am I so dumb?
Finally, Why listen to me? 🤷‍♂️

Here we go!


A few years ago, I get a call from an acquaintance (we have several mutual good friends). He’s running a fast growing consumer finance company and needs cash...

It isn’t “I need $5 Million by Friday” but it’s close...


How fast are they growing? By the time we are negotiating the deal a week or 10 day later, the ask is up to $10 Million...


We did a little time travel yesterday on Value That Company, and I put you back in my shoes 3 years ago...

(Answer shortly)...
https://t.co/mNFNGgHiMI


The business is fascinating, but also extremely sensitive to assumptions, underwriting, etc...

Management is good, but also very aggressive which I’m not sure I love...

Worse, we don’t have the time to really dig into the numbers as extensively as I’d like... https://t.co/np5UPBmjnu
Alberta's multi-billion $ public investment in KXL takes another step toward a write-off. It leaves me wondering: what role did an erroneous understanding of "indemnification of political risk" play in getting us here? #ableg


There is a logic to public investment to indemnify a project against political risk in some situations: where the government making the investment has some control or influence over that risk.

It serves the same function as a change in law provision in a contract with government: the government accepts the losses of the prospective policy change that creates the risk. The losses are allocated to the party who can best avoid them.

The federal government's TMX investment is one example. The major impediments apparent were largely under Ottawa's control: adequate environmental assessment and adequate FN consultation.

By making the investment, Ottawa either carries out the necessary actions to allow TMX to proceed, or suffers the losses of failing to do so.
Off the back of the thread below, lots of people asked for one on services & financial services. So here it is. The deal is very thin in both areas, though that was expected. I don't think it amounts to making the deal unfair/unbalanced but it is a missed opportunity. 1/


First, we shouldn't look at this through the lens of UK having trade deficit with EU in goods & surplus in services. That is too simplistic. EU accounts for a large proportion of UK's goods trade so zero tariff zero quota is beneficial for UK as well for the EU. 2/

Similarly, having a very thin deal on services & financial services is also bad for EU. Belief in some quarters than business will simply move from UK to EU in these areas. But its not that simple. Will be costs & duplication while some business just won't make sense any more 3/

We also shouldn't forget that while services is the largest part of our economy, it is inherently much more domestically focused. Furthermore, the single market in services is less integrated than that in goods so there are already some non tariff barriers to contend with 4/

It is also important to remember how we got here. Services was ultimately deprioritised under the previous Govt Chequers approach. This was because the Govt was seeking frictionless trade in goods. 5/