Search results

The premise of this discussion is that private equity players intend to create real options that maximize the value derived from potential movement in the worth of the underlying business platform. This intended maximization occurs when the current value of the exercise instrument equals the current value of the underlying asset (so the option is at the money). It is also clear that when the time horizons of different arrangements tend to be consistent (as tends to happen in private equity arrangements) the attraction will be for higher volatility. The actions often criticized in the media are readily understandable in this context. For example, private equity partnerships are criticized for “borrowing heavily to buy companies, breaking them up, and selling off the pieces at huge profits.” Even before exiting, the private equity players separate the acquisitions into business units and asset pools. This changes an option on a portfolio into a portfolio of options, and we know from option pricing theory that the resulting position is worth more than the starting point.

Private equity partnerships also have been criticized for putting acquisitions into debt to receive dividends. Upon acquisition of a new business platform (perhaps composed of multiple business units) the private equity firm has paid a substantial premium for an option on a portfolio. After separating it into multiple options on different business units, the private equity firm might understandably want to sell assets that do not need to be owned (but could be leased instead), thereby reducing their equity investment and bringing the options closer to the money. Then additional borrowing (and withdrawal of dividends) again brings the options closer to the money.

In order to illustrate the nuances of private equity as real options, we include discussion of three recent cases, each illustrating one of the common paths followed in private equity.

Perhaps the most difficult objection raised by skeptics of the real options approach concerns the apparent lack of market transactions that would verify that real options have actual value. Although there are no organized exchanges with publicly disclosed prices, there are nevertheless several mechanisms for buying and selling real options. Observing these could offer important advantages in the quest for enhancing the role of real options in financial decision making:•demonstrate that real options can indeed add value•in some cases even gain a sense of the amount of value added by real options•offer expert appraisers methods for improved estimation of the value of a business when real options are part of the organizational capital

The most frequently used method for buying or selling real options occurs when a product that includes real options is sold to customers (often at a premium above the price of a comparable product that does not include real options). Real options that are part of the organizational capital of a business are part of the package in an acquisition (or minority equity position). In this chapter we examine several cases of such transactions.

The Labour Party has produced ambitious new nationalization plans for British Industry. Although the controversial plan to take 25 major companies into State ownership has been scrapped, Labour leaders are still debating what to nationalize and when. Andrew Roth reports.

Ceramabond™ 668, a viscous single component alumina based adhesive system with temperature resistance to 2500 degrees F used to bond, fill and encapsulate sections up to ½”, is now available from Aremco Products, Inc.

A monthly feature giving news of recent Government and professional appointments, industrial developments and business changes, etc.

This is, the publishers tell us, the twenty‐fifth year of issue of this annual, which made its first appearance in 1911. Anyone who has a complete set of the volumes possesses a remarkable history of aeroplane design. It is almost impossible to review in the ordinary sense, and one can do little except announce its appearance with the customary plaudits. “Jane” is quite essential to anyone who desires information on any type of aeroplane. It is sad but inevitable that it should always appear, whenever it makes its bow, just too early. The present issue, for instance, perforce misses the new Hawker P.V. low‐wing monoplane and does not contain even the meagre details, as to engines, etc., that are now available of the Mayo composite seaplane. It is a pity that manufacturers cannot be dragooned into uniformity in the supply of information as regards personnel. Some give the fullest details of directors and technical staff, while others vouchsafe none. We still find the preliminary sections, quaintly labelled “historical,” rather indigestible and strangely uninformative; mainly because the information supplied by the various countries differs so noticeably in quality. Mr. Grey provides one of his characteristic prefaces, which, in the candour of its self‐revelation, makes us feel rather shy—a feeling which must be strongly shared by Mr. Bridgman.

No. 1 of the year 1939. Civil Specification Memorandum No. 21 Civil Specifications No. 19 (Accumulator Cutouts or Reverse Current Relays), No. 20 (Absolute Atmospheric Pressure Gauges), and No. 21 (Voltage Regulators) have now been issued and can be purchased, price 6d. net per copy or 7d. post free, either direct from His Majesty's Stationery Office at any of the following addresses:—York House, Kingsway, London, W.C.2; 120, George Street, Edinburgh, 2; 26, York Street, Manchester, 1; 1, St. Andrew's Crescent, Cardiff; 80, Chichester Street, Belfast; or through any bookseller.

This paper aims to explore the concept and spread of the five-foot way (5FW) as an aspect of urban design peculiar to Southeast Asia. It locates the 5FW as an aspect of planning law and property law that has been adapted culturally to provide a unique space for public–private interaction. The paper also explores, in a related context, conflicts over the appropriate use of 5FWs and the issue of regulating such use.

The approach adopted is to look at the development of the 5FW over the entire colonial period of Singapore, starting in 1819 up to the present day. Comparisons are drawn from other urban settlements over a similar period.

The paper finds that the 5FW, with its related device of the shophouse, provided a uniquely efficacious space for protection of the public from the elements and for public–private interaction. It finds that regulation of 5FWs should be undertaken with due regard both to public right of way and to the cultural element of making private use of the space.

The originality of the article lies in the fact that the 5FW has not been considered as an artefact of legal culture in addition to being an artefact of urban design.