[log_n]

I think Josu was actually correct and you two are talking about two different things. Josu is saying that if the purchasers cannot find another (greater?) fool to flip the company to then they will have to manage 12 billion dollars in transactions with 0 costs if they are only charging 5% in order to break even. That's just simple math, 5% of 12 billion = the 600 million dollar buy-out price. That's if nothing changes in terms of what percentage they keep and if they have 0 costs. If the purchasers are going to buy and hold they will need to handle 12 billion dollars in transactions at 0 expenses to get their buying power back to buy another company, unless they can flip the company or borrow against it.

You are saying that the purchasers have broken even on the deal so long as they have not lost money on paper in the valuation since they can probably either borrow against it or sell it off.

It comes down to are you paying for current value, or potential growth in value. Frankly, in my opinion, markets that rely upon a greater fool to bail you out to make your money rather than just getting it back the old fashioned way by providing a good or service are way too frothy.

Counter-argument is that you are betting on growth, not a greater fool bail out. In this instance the only way to get that growth while still handling less than 12 billion in transactions is by increasing their take from 5% to something higher or adding on ancillary sales. I'd bet on ancillaries, but this isn't my space.

By the way for those reading who may not know, I was referencing Greater Fool Theory, not making a pejorative statement (heh, beyond what the theory itself may make). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory

[josu]

Thanks, you put it much better than I did. And yes, that was exactly my point.