Report: Fed cautioned Goldman Sachs about UFC deal

This is a non issue, UFC is not going to go under or get in trouble move along, I seen these silly articles all the time. The people involved are too smart to screw up. they know all the loop holes to avoid any type of trouble. thats the same thing they said about Lehman Bros.......

Lol... Exactly,,, thank you haha yeh, that's why I called bs. :rofl: Goldman Sachs(god), probably the leader of bridge loan staying away from a potentially lucrative trade because of a theoretical half-assed formula. NEVER :lol1: A lot of people think what they do is fancy, but they're just hustlers. They just happened to know more angles because well, excuse the pun, they're in the street. Like literally. I met a middle school dropout handling a couple of bil AUM. While his geek squad of MBAs try and apply econometrics furiously to try and get money out of the game.

:lol1: trust me guys, whoever doesn't know about the indicator, really doesn't need to know. You're better off not knowing how to improperly measure something's worth using any derivative pertaining to earnings via an accounting gimmick. Considering different industries have different tax codes and working capital requirements and such, the EBITDA Ratio is something you use to pretend you're a fabulous stock picker awaiting for your sentence to the poor house. Lol... Exactly,,, thank you

Lmao.. Do any of you guys know what EBITDA is??? What it means? What it indicates? This story is a non story and nothing more than fanboys overreacted to stuff they don't understand but somehow think it's bad for ufc :lol1: trust me guys, whoever doesn't know about the indicator, really doesn't need to know. You're better off not knowing how to improperly measure something's worth using any derivative pertaining to earnings via an accounting gimmick. Considering different industries have different tax codes and working capital requirements and such, the EBITDA Ratio is something you use to pretend you're a fabulous stock picker awaiting for your sentence to the poor house.

Lmao.. Do any of you guys know what EBITDA is??? What it means? What it indicates? This story is a non story and nothing more than fanboys overreacted to stuff they don't understand but somehow think it's bad for ufc

Calling bs when it comes to the fed giving any sort of advice to g-man regarding acquisitions. :lol1: I think LTCM was leveraged 30:1? We're talking a private equity firm that was tossing around UFC's entire enterprise value worth in about 4 months? But the fed wasn't involved with the dealings and all the haircuts the firm received. hahahahaha They don't care, unless s*it actually hits the fan. Banks pay around that much just to settle their lawsuits LOL

The UFC really doesn't have to "go anywhere", so to speak; if the Ali Act ends up getting revised to include MMA, and Bellator's more fighter-friendly model really does emerge as a viable competitor for talent, the growth projections could be greatly undercut. Still, risk is risk; leveraging out debt worth 12 times what could actually be projected (once you pull all of the gimmicks), on nearly $2b in debt, is something worth mentioning. the big wigs who own the ufc can easily pay off politicians through lobbying, it will never happen, UFC is untouchable at this point they got some billionaire investors or guys close to a billion. Politics works by money, if you want an issue or a way of life to be pushed you make a lot of money and than find some politician to push your belief for you you pay them off by donations to their party or interest group. quid pro quo how else do you think gay marriage got passed? Obama, Clinton and most of the democrats were against same sex marriage just a few years ago, but their rich backers many who happen to be Gay hollywood billionaires told them what to do and they changed their view and pushed it. politicians are puppets. UFC is not going anywhere as long as they got these big wig backers.

If the UFC didn't have a monopoly on MMA it would seem more noteworthy news, but its income is more or less printed already & just waiting to be delivered to the UFC owners plus with their growth thats still coming & the TV deal expected to be doubled or even tripled in a couple years when it up I don't think its much of a risk. Although granted I have no expertise in this at all so I'm completely pulling this opinion out of my ass, but I can't see the UFC going anywhere anytime soon. I'm sure if this wasn't a monopoly or a company thats more or less become the name brand of a entire sport it could be something to consider more seriously doe. The UFC really doesn't have to "go anywhere", so to speak; if the Ali Act ends up getting revised to include MMA, and Bellator's more fighter-friendly model really does emerge as a viable competitor for talent, the growth projections could be greatly undercut. Still, risk is risk; leveraging out debt worth 12 times what could actually be projected (once you pull all of the gimmicks), on nearly $2b in debt, is something worth mentioning.

I thought this was fascinating. I know this is UFC stuff, but considering MMA is a competitor to boxing I thought this thread belonged here. I'm not so sure about that, that would be like comparing hockey and soccer. Some people prefer MMA, and some prefer Boxing.

This is a non issue, UFC is not going to go under or get in trouble move along, I seen these silly articles all the time. The people involved are too smart to screw up. they know all the loop holes to avoid any type of trouble.

I thought this was fascinating. I know this is UFC stuff, but considering MMA is a competitor to boxing I thought this thread belonged here. It goes to show that the UFC deal was smoke and mirrors. Report: Fed cautioned Goldman Sachs about UFC deal http://mmapayout.com/2016/10/report-...bout-ufc-deal/ October 7, 2016 Bloomberg.com reports that the Federal Reserve bank cautioned Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. over debt risks in a deal it arranged to fund the $4 billion purchase of the UFC. Goldman Sachs was hired to market the debt to purchase the UFC this past July. Regulators have criticized deals that push a company’s debt load to more than six times its earnings. “Add-backs,” which estimate a company’s future profitability after an acquisition or buyout were used to double projected cash flow for the UFC. The concern is that the projections may be too optimistic for the companies that are purchased. This could lead to a default which is the reason why the Federal Reserve cautions deals where the debt load looks to be more than the projected earnings. According to the Bloomberg story, prospective investors were shown estimates that EBITDA would more than double from $142M to $298M. Per the article, the adjustments had the effect of lowering UFC’s leverage to 6 times EBITDA. The UFC raised a total of $1.8 billion of debt which included $1.4 billion in first lien loans and another $425 million in second lien loans. Based on the current EBITDA of $142M this would have the company leveraged at approximately 12x EBITDA. Payout Perspective: Notably, the Bloomberg report states that the UFC’s EBITDA as of June 30th was $142 million. A previous SBJ report had the EBITDA at $180 million although that did not have “as of” date. The obvious goal of the Fed is to reduce the risk of default in acquisitions. While the deal may never reach critical mass in terms of a default on the debt, the deal is considered high risk. The MMA fanboys are going to hurt you for posting this.... #knowledge