|
|
K-Swiss Inc. |
You were already wrong with your comment about how the dual structure
halves the value of the shares. As someone has already mentioned, it’s
merely for voting right purposes and unless you give the extra voting
right a premium value, it doesn’t change your valuation-formula.
“In any case, a single share structure will almost always be better
because if short term goals are being achieved at the expense of long
term value, then shareholders can effect change. This could happen if
someone bought majority ownership. Without majority ownership, the
vast majority (maybe 90%) of all proxies fail.”
A single share structure is not always better in all circumstances.
Imagine a partnership with only 2 partners each has 50% of voting
right and very different objectives. The partnership will practically
spend all its resources on negotiations and meetings. You can say
whatever you want to defend your arguments, but really, do you want a
good voting structure with shitty management or shitty voting
structure with good management? Shitty management will look for
loopholes and I can guarantee you that they’ll get what they want.
Oh ya, the operating lease, I was just checking the numbers. It
doesn’t look like a big difference to me.
> But I think you made a good point. its not the case that all dual
> share structures are bad for investors. Majority ownership was never
> an issue with me, however.
> You also wrote that, "in terms of profitability, if we look at the
> FCF, ROIC or CROIC, we
> can see that KSWS is a profitable company," but I am curious to know
> if you factored in the value of the assets that the company has
> operating leases on. Operating leases are carried off the books, and
> those are assets that are needed to earn revenues. Any metric looking
> at assets is only useful if all tangible assets are accounted for in
> the measurement. I guarantee you that when you include operating
> leases the profitability will be a lot lower.
> Good luck!
> Big.