Tclcis
said
:
The conglomerate that owns Hongda isn't losing money though. Why does it look bad if they borrow money to buy Jagex?
And where did I say it was to claim tax loss?
**** me, you spend more time telling us what we have said than actually reading what we did say.
As stated multiple times I believe that this acquisition has many objectives. Firstly, I believe it to be a hedge. Secondly I see it as a way to tap into one of the worlds largest mobile games markets. Thirdly I see it as a way to give Runescape back to the players.
Let me just quote myself "If they are not losing money, it still makes them look pretty bad to their shareholders to acquire a company on loan for hundreds of millions just to claim tax loss while their peers are making colossal progresses and profits conquering the gaming markets investing their money for GROWTH. That's the point."
Obviously I referred to a COMPARISON with the other Chinese companies, formerly not into gaming business, but then bought a game foreign game developer.
Secondly, as you said yourself, you have stated multiple times what you believe. There is no need to restate it once more without additional information, and I don't see anybody asking for it.
It does not look bad at all in the eyes of shareholders if a company finances its operations through debt. First of all, it's cheaper to borrow capital than to save and consume your own. Also, by borrowing, company ceases an opportunity to grow faster than the ones who utilize its savings only. Of course, the more company borrows, the higher the risk of default, and in order to compensate the risk, the higher the interest. Sufficient ratio has to be established to meet the risk level expectations and bearable interest expense.
Secondly, the acquiring company does not have to borrow from independent parties. They can borrow the required funds from associated parties and inter-company financing is very common. Whereas the interest rate would have to be at the 'arm's length' and it would have to be documented accordingly to the local tax/transfer pricing regulations, once again, it does not signal anything bad. I expect that the acquisition is financed through inter-company loan/line of credit. And ability to borrow signals that the lenders trust borrower's ability to repay the loan. That's definitely a good signal
As claiming tax losses on interest.. Considering that it most likely is a loan from a related parties - not all interest expense is deductible from CIT. Currently OECD is developing and many other non-OECD countries planning to adopt BEPS plan. Action 4 is going to set a threshold of 30% on
Net interest/EBITDA
ratio or 1 mEUR whichever is higher. Interest exceeding this ratio could not be included into deductible expenses. Also, there're various thin capitalization regulations which restrain deduction of interest expense.
Last, but not least, as a result of excessive monetary supply, various asset purchase/quantitative easing programmes, interest rates have been very low for quite a while
It's great time to borrow now.
And $300 m. is not really a huge sum to borrow and is in the range of typical corporate bond.
Star SAN
said
:
It does not look bad at all in the eyes of shareholders if a company finances its operations through debt. First of all, it's cheaper to borrow capital than to save and consume your own. Also, by borrowing, company ceases an opportunity to grow faster than the ones who utilize its savings only. Of course, the more company borrows, the higher the risk of default, and in order to compensate the risk, the higher the interest. Sufficient ratio has to be established to meet the risk level expectations and bearable interest expense.
I don't think anybody said borrowing money for a project or acquisition is bad. It is what the company's plan and how does that plan compare to their peers' that's more concerning to the shareholders.
Dilbert2001
said
:
Tclcis
said
:
It really has nothing to do with other game companies.
Thank you for you comment, but comparing a company with its peers in the same industrial group among other criteria is what Wall Street analysts do.
When judging the price of the companies. But we aren't doing that here. We don't care about share prices or how much imaginary profits will be made in the next few months.
We only care about the deal, its outcomes and where it could progress. Which is why comparing it to other companies is pointless.
Tclcis
said
:
Dilbert2001
said
:
Tclcis
said
:
It really has nothing to do with other game companies.
Thank you for you comment, but comparing a company with its peers in the same industrial group among other criteria is what Wall Street analysts do.
When judging the price of the companies. But we aren't doing that here. We don't care about share prices or how much imaginary profits will be made in the next few months.
We only care about the deal, its outcomes and where it could progress. Which is why comparing it to other companies is pointless.
You have already expressed your opinion, there is no need to state the SAME thing "multiple times" as you said yourself. Thank you for your comment, again. But other than that, please leave it to the people interested to know the situations decide how they interpret the facts.