adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Investment

Five business lessons for MBA students from a long-time investment professional – Financial Post

Published

 on


Startups, IPOs, acquisitions and takeovers, Peter Hodson has been through it all

Article content

This week, I was a guest presenter for an MBA Entrepreneur Class at York University. When originally asked to present, I really didn’t know why. After all, I am just a stock guy. But then I realized that, from a corporate perspective at least, I have been through a lot in terms of types of companies I have worked at, transactions, transitions and challenges. So, suddenly I had a few more ideas to present to the class other than some of my favourite stock picks. For budding entrepreneurs, all will likely go through at least a few of these work/corporate transitions in their careers. Here are my thoughts on five corporate scenarios:

Being an employee

Most people, even the most-talented entrepreneurs, are going to start off working for someone else. In fact, having a bad ‘boss’ and doing things only a certain way is often the prime impetus for someone to quit and go the entrepreneur route instead. There are some pros to being an employee — nice benefit packages, paid vacation time, the ability to learn from others and so on — but at the end of the day, you are working for someone else. Everyone is replaceable. You are a salary man or woman, dependent on a boss and the company to keep your paycheque coming. I have worked for good companies and bad companies. I have worked for great bosses and horrible bosses. Making friends at a big company is the best part. Living with a bunch of office politics, and boring, useless meetings is the worst. The Lesson: If you want to be an entrepreneur, you can’t be an employee.

Advertisement

Story continues below

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Article content

  1. Just because you hear about something again and again and again, does not mean it actually has added importance to your portfolio.

    Five common investing mistakes to avoid if you want to end this year in the money

  2. With stock markets suddenly not-so-friendly anymore, investors have become a little worried.

    Will rising rates crush my portfolio and other questions nervous investors are asking right now

  3. None

    Five things that could go horribly wrong in this high-flying stock market

Going through a start-up

I have been involved in two start-up companies, both very different. In 1997, I joined a start-up mutual fund company, Synergy. We started with $0 in assets to manage. We had a couple of key strengths. One, the initial founder, Joe Canavan, had done it all before at other companies. It was easy to join such a seasoned executive. Two, we had $13 million in capital, provided by a Canadian bank that owned part of the company. As far as start-ups go, Synergy had very good bones. Six years later, we managed more than $1.5 billion in assets, and the company was sold to CI Financial. In 2011, 5i Research was my other start-up, and current company. The genesis was quite different. I had to fund the entire start-up myself, and, for the first little while, I was the sole employee. There were some long hours and lots of stress, but hiring some very smart partners (thanks, Ryan) helped me get through the rough patch. We are not quite a giant conglomerate yet, but we continue to add staff and grow. The Lesson: With any start-up, look for lots of capital or lots of help. It’s pretty tough to succeed without these.

Going through an IPO

In 2008, the company I worked for went public. The IPO process was interesting, and I was involved in the road shows to investors. I was on the board of directors. I became a good salesperson that year, so much so that I never sold any shares in the company in its initial public offering. We went public at $100 per share (adjusted for a reverse split last year). Shares are now $47. Of course, going public two months before a global financial crisis wasn’t exactly good timing. But a public company is much different than a private company. Investors focus on three-month results, rather than a long-term strategy. It felt different after the IPO. Some employees were happy to have sold shares, some were miserable for not (the stock bottomed at $17). Some partners got rich, and left the company, or retired. Even myself, the chairman, was gone three years later. The company did not need capital at the time (IPO proceeds went to initial shareholders). While profitable, I can’t really say it was an enjoyable experience. The Lesson: Despite media hype, not all IPOs are great.

Advertisement

Story continues below

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Article content

Acquiring another company or asset

In 2011, just days after founding 5i Research, I bought Canadian MoneySaver magazine, a financial advice magazine that has been now publishing for 40 years. While with the 5i company start-up everything was new, I had now acquired a legacy company with an archaic website and old systems. While readers liked the magazine, the back office was a mess. I hired a consultant to evaluate possible changes. We counted 10 separate steps in order for a customer to buy a subscription to the time of fulfilment. We dropped this to one. We revamped the website at great cost. We acquired this giant computer filled with data, and the founding sellers said if it ever broke it would be “really bad.” We moved everything to the cloud. I really had no idea what I was doing at first. I had never owned a company before, nor published a magazine. I am happy I bought it, but boy it was tough. Shout out to my business partner Lana for getting me through those first two years. The Lesson: Acquisitions can be very difficult, don’t always work, and you’ll find tons of problems you never even expected. Get some help and make sure your acquisition price accounts for all of this.

Being acquired

In 2003, as noted above, my company Synergy Mutual Funds was acquired by CI Financial. It was a nice payday. But, only a handful of Synergy employees moved over to the new company. I was one of them. But I no longer worked with a lot of close friends and partners. CI was a great company and treated me very well, but it was different. Synergy had perhaps 80 people when it was sold, and CI had at least 700. There was bureaucracy — and less fun. We were no longer building and growing a company: it was already built. I lasted two years. Still, from CI’s perspective, the acquisition was a giant success. It got to retain most of the managed money, and margins went up as existing managers took over from departing managers like me. The Lesson: Acquisitions can work out very well, but there is a ‘people’ cost. Cultures have to match, and entrepreneurs may not stick around long.

Peter Hodson, CFA, is Founder and Head of Research at 5i Research Inc., an independent investment research network helping do-it-yourself investors reach their investment goals. Peter is also Associate Portfolio Manager for the i2i Long/Short U.S. Equity Fund. (5i Research staff do not own Canadian stocks. i2i Long/Short Fund may own non-Canadian stocks mentioned).

Comments

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notifications—you will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

Taxes should not wag the tail of the investment dog, but that’s what Trudeau wants

Published

 on

Kim Moody: Ottawa is encouraging people to crystallize their gains and pay tax. That’s a hell of a fiscal plan

The Canadian federal budget has been out for a week, which is plenty of time to absorb just how terrible it is.

300x250x1

The problems start with weak fiscal policy, excessive spending and growing public-debt charges estimated to be $54.1 billion for the upcoming year. That is more than $1 billion per week that Canadians are paying for things that have no societal benefit.

Next, the budget clearly illustrates this government’s continued weak taxation policies, two of which it apparently believes  are good for entrepreneurs. But the proposed $2-million Canadian Entrepreneurs Incentive (CEI) and $10-million capital gains exemption for transfers to an employee ownership trust (EOT) are both laughable.

Why? Well, for the CEI, virtually every entrepreneurial industry (except technology) is not eligible. If you happen to be in an industry that qualifies, the $2-million exemption comes with a long, stringent list of criteria (which will be very difficult for most entrepreneurs to qualify for) and it is phased in over a 10-year period of $200,000 per year.

For transfers to EOTs, an entrepreneur must give up complete legal and factual control to be eligible for the $10-million exemption, even though the EOT will likely pay the entrepreneur out of future profits. The commercial risk associated with such a transfer is likely too great for most entrepreneurs to accept.

Capital gains tax hike

But the budget’s highlight proposal was the capital gains inclusion rate increase to 66.7 per cent from 50 per cent for dispositions effective after June 24, 2024. The proposal includes a 50 per cent inclusion rate on the first $250,000 of annual capital gains for individuals, but not for corporations and trusts. Oh, those evil corporations and trusts.

There is a lot wrong with this proposed policy. The first is that by not putting individuals, corporations and trusts on the same taxation footing for capital gains taxation, the foundational principle of integration (the idea that the corporate and individual tax systems should be indifferent to whether an investment is held in a corporation or directly by the taxpayer) is completely thrown out the window. This is wrong.

Some economists have come out in strong favour of the proposal, mainly because of equity arguments (a buck is a buck), but such arguments ignore the real world of investing where investors look at overall risk, liquidity and the time value of money.

If capital gains are taxed at a rate approaching wage taxation rates, why would entrepreneurs and investors want to risk their capital when such investments might be illiquid for a long period of time and be highly risky?

They will seek greener pastures for their investment dollars and they already are. I’ve been fielding a tremendous number of questions from investors over the past week and I’d invite those academics and economists who support the increased inclusion rate to come live in my shoes for a day to see how the theoretical world of equity and behaviour collide. It’s not good and it certainly does nothing to help Canada’s obvious productivity challenges.

Of course, there has been the usual chatter encouraging such people to leave (“don’t let the door hit you on the way out,” some say) from those who don’t understand basic economics and taxation policy, but these cheerleaders should be careful what they wish for. The loss of successful Canadians and their investment dollars affects all of us in a very negative way.

The government messaging around this tax proposal has many people upset, including me. Specifically, it is the following paragraph in the budget documents that many supporters are parroting that is upsetting:

“Next year, 28.5 million Canadians are not expected to have any capital gains income, and 3 million are expected to earn capital gains below the $250,000 annual threshold. Only 0.13 per cent of Canadians with an average income of $1.4 million are expected to pay more personal income tax on their capital gains in any given year. As a result of this, for 99.87 per cent of Canadians, personal income taxes on capital gains will not increase.” (This is supposedly about 40,000 taxpayers.)

Bluntly, this is garbage. It outright ignores several facts.

For one thing, there are hundreds of thousands of private corporations owned and controlled by Canadian resident individuals. Those corporations will be subject to the increased capital gains inclusion rate with no $250,000 annual phase-in. Because of the way passive income is taxed in these Canadian-controlled private corporations, the increased tax load on realized capital gains will be felt by individual shareholders on the dividend distribution required to recover certain refundable corporate taxes.

Furthermore, public corporations that have capital gains will pay tax at a higher inclusion rate and this results in higher corporate tax, which means decreased amounts are available to be paid out as dividends to individual shareholders (including those held by individuals’ pensions).

The budget documents simply measured the number of corporations that reported capital gains in recent years and said it is 12.6 per cent of all corporations. That measurement is shallow and not the whole story, as described above.

Tax hit for cottages

There are also millions of Canadians who hold a second real estate property, either a cottage-type and/or rental property. Those properties will eventually be sold, with the probability that the gain will exceed the $250,000 threshold.

Upon death, an individual will often have their largest capital gains realized as a result of deemed dispositions that occur immediately prior to death. This will have the distinct possibility of capital gains that exceed $250,000.

And people who become non-residents of Canada — and that is increasing rapidly — have deemed dispositions of their assets (with some exceptions). They will face the distinct possibility that such gains will be more than $250,000.

The politics around the capital gains inclusion rate increase are pretty obvious. The government is planning for Canadian taxpayers to crystallize their inherent gains prior to the implementation date, especially corporations that will not have a $250,000 annual lower inclusion rate. For the current year, the government is projecting a $4.9-billion tax take. But next year, it dramatically drops to an estimated $1.3 billion.

This is a ridiculous way to shield the government’s tremendous spending and try to make them look like they are holding the line on their out-of-control deficits. The government is encouraging people to crystallize their gains and pay tax. That’s a hell of a fiscal plan.

There’s an old saying that tax should not wag the tail of the investment dog, but that is exactly what the government is encouraging Canadians to do in the name of raising short-term taxation revenues. It is simply wrong.

I hope the government has some second sober thoughts about the capital gains proposal, but I’m not holding my breath.

 

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

Everton search for investment to complete 777 deal – BBC.com

Published

 on

By


Getty Images
  • 2 hours ago

Everton are searching for third-party investment in order to push through a protracted takeover by 777 Partners.

The Miami-based firm agreed a deal to buy the Toffees from majority owner Farhad Moshiri in September, but are yet to gain approval from the Premier League.

On Monday, Bloomberg reported the club’s main financial adviser Deloitte has been seeking fresh funding from sports-focused investors and lenders to get 777’s deal over the line.

300x250x1

BBC Sport has been told this is “standard practice contingency planning” and the process may identify other potential lenders to 777.

Sources close to British-Iranian businessman Moshiri have told BBC Sport they remain “working on completing the deal with 777”.

It is understood there are no other parties waiting in the wings to takeover should the takeover fall through and the focus is fully on 777.

The Americans have so far loaned £180m to Everton for day-to-day operational costs, which will be turned into equity once the deal is completed, but repaying money owed to MSP Sports Capital, whose deal collapsed in August, remains a stumbling block.

777 says it can stump up the £158m that is owed to MSP Sports Capital and once that is settled, it is felt the deal should be completed soon after.

Related Topics

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

Warren Buffett Predicts 'Bad Ending' for Bitcoin — Is It a Doomed Investment? – Yahoo Finance

Published

 on

By


NanoStockk / Getty Images

Currently sitting in sixth on Forbes’ Real-Time Billionaires List, Berkshire Hathaway co-founder, chairman and CEO Warren Buffett is a first-rate example of an investor who stuck to his core financial beliefs early in life to become not only a success but a once-in-a-lifetime inspiration to those who followed in his footsteps.

One of the most trusted investors for decades, the 93-year-old Buffett isn’t shy to pontificate on his investment philosophy, which is centered around value investing, buying stocks at less than their intrinsic value and holding them for the long term.

Read Next: Warren Buffett: 6 Best Pieces of Money Advice for the Middle Class
Find Out: 5 Genius Things All Wealthy People Do With Their Money

300x250x1

He’s also quite vocal on investments he deems worthless. And one of those is Bitcoin.

Sponsored: Protect Your Wealth With A Gold IRA. Take advantage of the timeless appeal of gold in a Gold IRA recommended by Sean Hannity.

Buffett’s Take on Bitcoin

Over the past decade, it’s been clear that the crypto craze isn’t something Buffett wants any part of. He described Bitcoin as “probably rat poison squared” back in 2018.

“In terms of cryptocurrencies, generally, I can say with almost certainty that they will come to a bad ending,” Buffett said in 2018. And his stance hasn’t wavered since. According to Benzinga, Buffett believes that cryptocurrencies aren’t a viable or valuable investment.

“Now if you told me you own all of the Bitcoin in the world and you offered it to me for $25, I wouldn’t take it because what would I do with it? I’d have to sell it back to you one way or another. It isn’t going to do anything,” Buffett said at the Berkshire Hathaway annual shareholder meeting in 2022.

Although the Oracle of Omaha has his misgivings about the unpredictable investment, does that mean crypto is doomed as an investment? Not necessarily.

For You: 10 Valuable Stocks That Could Be the Next Apple or Amazon

Is Buffett Wrong About Bitcoin?

Bitcoin bulls argue that while it’s not government-issued, cryptocurrency is as fungible, divisible, secure and portable as fiat currency and gold. Because they occupy a digital space, cryptocurrencies are decentralized, scarce and durable. They can last as long as they can be stored.

Crypto boosters continue to predict massive growth in the coin’s value. Earlier this year, SkyBridge Capital founder and former White House director of communications Anthony Scaramucci told reporters that Bitcoin could exceed $170,000 by mid-2025, and Ark Invest CEO Cathie Wood predicts Bitcoin will hit $1.48 million by 2030, according to Fortune.

“They really don’t understand the concept and the whole history of money,” Scaramucci said of crypto critics like Buffett on a recent episode of Jason Raznick’s “The Raz Report.” Because we place a value on “traditional” currency, it is essentially worthless compared with the transparent and trustworthy digital Bitcoin, Scaramucci said.

Currently trading around the $66,000 mark, Bitcoin is up nearly 50% in 2024. This means it’s massively outperforming most indexes this year, including the S&P 500, which is up about 6% in 2024.

Although Berkshire Hathaway has invested heavily in Bitcoin-related Brazilian fintech company Nu Holdings, which has its own cryptocurrency called Nucoin, it’s possible Buffett will never come around fully to crypto, despite its recent surge in value. It’s contrary to the reliable investment strategy that has served him very well for decades.

“The urge to participate in something where it looks like easy money is a human instinct which has been unleashed,” Buffett said. “People love the idea of getting rich quick, and I don’t blame them … It’s so human, and once unleashed you can’t put it back in the bottle.”

More From GOBankingRates

This article originally appeared on GOBankingRates.com: Warren Buffett Predicts ‘Bad Ending’ for Bitcoin — Is It a Doomed Investment?

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending