20 ms·

Listerine Mouthwash Royalties

235 points by hodder 4y ago

hodder 4y ago
This is a very interesting asset on an interesting site I just found at an attractive FCF yield assuming current bid gets hit. Does anyone have experience in investing in, or securitizing a royalty stream? Quite fascinating.
- fffobar 4y ago
  Not sure if a P/E of 18.38 is so so attractive, it looks neither cheap nor expensive for something that will at best keep up with the (nominal) GDP growth. Why is it so cheap though in terms of absolute value, is the percentage of revenues claimed by this asset very low? The offer lacks detail. Where's an appropriate SEC form when you need one :)
  - Scoundreller 4y ago
    It’s an auction, so it’ll go up, but there have been auctions before, so it seems like different heirs/successors are selling their stakes sliver by sliver. My fear is that this is a branded product and as the royalty stream gets further and further away from the manufacturer/marketer, they’ll just kill off the product and push royalty-free alternatives.
    - thucydides 4y ago
      To put the wisdom of buying the royalty stream aside for a moment, why would a manufacturer abandon an iconic and profitable brand like Listerine after more than a century just to avoid paying royalties they've been paying during that entire time?
  - phkahler 4y ago
    >> Not sure if a P/E of 18.38 is so so attractive, it looks neither cheap nor expensive for something that will at best keep up with the (nominal) GDP growth P/E is just an indicator (E/P) of what dividends could be. In this case the return is real and is over 5 percent. But it's not quite the same. As others have pointed out there is no physical asset behind the investment. OTOH it appears there is also no way to "cut the dividend" ever, so it's as solid as the brand.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    It's not very tradable on the open market, so you really are buying a revenue stream. However, pensions and endowments are probably quite interested.
  - hodder 4y ago
    I stated it was attractive if the bid gets hit, which as posted was 1.5m. Listerine revenue royalties likely keep pace with inflation while facing no bottom line risk. A 6-7.6% to yield is certainly attractive in my opinion for this asset.
  - Beltalowda 4y ago
    > Why is it so cheap though in terms of absolute value, is the percentage of revenues claimed by this asset very low? It's not a percentage but a fixed dollar amount; the court case from the 50s says the agreement is to pay "six dollars on each & every gross of Listerine & Lithiated Hydrangea manufactured or sold". There was also an agreement for something called "Dugongol & Menthated Camphor", which was 10%, but that hasn't existed in a long time it seems (can't find anything in a quick search). I assume that with a "gross of Listerine" they mean 144 bottles, but this bid isn't the complete contract since they sold other parts before; this 30k/year one sold for $561k in 2020.[1] I'm not an expert on these things at all, but overall seems like a bit of a so-so investment because inflation. [1]: https://auctions.royaltyexchange.com/auctions/sales-royalties-listerine-mouthwash/ https://auctions.royaltyexchange.com/auctions/sales-royaltie...
latchkey 4y ago
At the current highest bid of $1.51m, it would be 13.2 years before breaking even (not counting taxes). For that amount of money, I can think of better investments.
- giarc 4y ago
  The last auction for Listerine royalties ended with a winning bid of $561,000 on $32,040 revenue over past 12 months... or 17.5 year pay back!
  - Giorgi 4y ago
    that's not bad, considering if you want to pass something to your offspring.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    If you had a $700k or so house, you could have mortgaged the house and used the Listerine to pay the mortgage! Probably causes you to become insufferable about other brands, tho.
    - lupire 4y ago
      Yeah, a mouthwash royalty has a side effect of brainwash.
    - giarc 4y ago
      Imagine explaining that to a banker.... scratch that, I'm sure they've heard crazier reasons for taking out a line of credit on a house.
- stickydink 4y ago
  Is that the right way to view it? If you believe Listerine isn't going anywhere, at that price you're making a reliable 7.5% return that should track with inflation. On something you presumably could sell just as easily as you bought. Doesn't sound that bad!
  - 4y ago
webmobdev 4y ago
On a slightly different topic - those of you who use Listerine daily, have your teeth become more sensitive?
- snikeris 4y ago
  I haven't noticed that, but I always rinse w/ water after using it.
  - webmobdev 4y ago
    But the instructions say specifically to not do this: Do not rinse mouth with water or eat or drink for 30 minutes post rinse. ??
    - snikeris 4y ago
      Yeah good point. My concern was that leaving it on my teeth all night would erode the teeth somehow. However, it looks like they did a study about that concern: https://www.listerineprofessional.co.uk/safety-profile/pH https://www.listerineprofessional.co.uk/safety-profile/pH
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- conductr 4y ago
  I’d also look into the “daily” part. All my bones are more sensitive than they once were. I’m in my 40s and starting to think all the days passing has something to do with it.
  - webmobdev 4y ago
    I just started to use it a few weeks backs (I brush and floss daily), and so was wondering if the sudden sensitivity I have been feeling was related to the recent use of Listerine. Hence my query.
    - 4y ago
ddod 4y ago
Related to Listerine: I have a memory of reading a study that had people use mouthwash (possibly Listerine) the night before taking a cognitive test. The mouthwash group did worse than the control group for some reason. I'd really love to find the study again if anyone else knows where it is (my googling is apparently not good enough)
- snikeris 4y ago
  Maybe alcohol absorbed sublingually?
- Scoundreller 4y ago
  Dunno, but most contain alcohol which could have a negative effect, even after the ethanol itself is cleared. Many are re-formulating to alcohol-free formulas, and I think it’s because they fear tobacco-style lawsuits from anyone that gets oral/throat cancers.
  - giarc 4y ago
    Many stores also won't carry it due to shoplifting concerns. I've seen many drug stores with signs posted on the door that they carry only alcohol free Listerine.
    - frankfrankfrank 4y ago
      Well that is quite interesting. I have never seen a store or sign like that. I thought the ethanol has been denatured with various agents to make it unpleasant to consume for that very reason. I guess the consumer has degenerated so much that he is willing to suffer the consequences of its consumption? It strikes me that this cannot really be a good sign for society in general when the degeneration is breaking through even the measures to inhibit degenerative detrimental behaviors. It also appears we are accumulating such conditions at an alarming rate all across the western world in particular, emanating and spreading out from a few specific points.
      - 4y ago
ffhhj 4y ago
Stoped used it due to hypogeusia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypogeusia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypogeusia
quags 4y ago
This also peaked by interest, as well as the general concept or royalty investing. But so far, I haven't found anything that seems worth it. First, none of the royalty are guaranteed, so you could buy something that may or may not get the same returns year in and year out. Some of the royalties are small slices of certain songs, like a small writer credit - so you are not clear on exactly what is being bought with out more research. As an example there have been songs like jcole + kanye west workout / workout plan. There were a bunch of songs, three may be considered well known, but you are getting a small slice from one writer in that case. So you really need to dive into what is being bought. Best case I can see on the songs is that maybe one day some movie or tv show uses the music and you get a nice bump in earnings, or there is some popular cover in the future. 100k a year royalties, not guaranteed might make sense at a million which gets you a 10% return which is decent, but this trades more like a bond. Your resale may not be great if interest wanes in this royalty exchange and you can get more stable returns in the bond market in vanguard (trading actual bonds not etf's). I like to invest in what I understand and what is simple, this just so far is not. I do use Listerine zero (less intense / alcohol free) which I'm not sure counds in this stream. I haven't bought the original in a long time, since it has no flouride.
- prometheus76 4y ago
  "This has also piqued my interest..."
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    "Peaked my interest": caused my interest to increase to a high point before declining. "Piqued my interest": aroused or provoked my interest.
    - prometheus76 4y ago
      I hate to use reddit as a resource, but there's a good discussion here about why "peaked my interest" doesn't make grammatical sense. "Peaked" is not a transitive verb. "Peaked my interest" is a bastardization of the original because people were not familiar with the word "piqued" and guessed at how it was spelled when they heard it. https://www.reddit.com/r/grammar/comments/1n7ezp/why_is_piqued_my_interest_the_correct_phrase_i/ https://www.reddit.com/r/grammar/comments/1n7ezp/why_is_piqu...
prepend 4y ago
How does one value perpetual earning investments? The $2.1M is 18.36 times the annual earnings. So after 18 years you’ve paid off your investment and get $100+/year forever. In 36 years you’ve doubled your money and the return would be 2% using the back of napkin rate divided into 70 doubling time. But over time it just keeps paying off, so the stability is good but likely many other investments would give higher returns.
- rahimnathwani 4y ago
  DCF
- tantalor 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annuity#Valuation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annuity#Valuation
- ghaff 4y ago
  The short answer is Net Present Value or Discounted Cash Flow. Future money is worth less than present money for inflation and other reasons. So you discount any future moneys by some amount per year--doesn't need to be a fixed amount--and eventually you reach a point where that dollar you're receiving in 50 years is worth... not much. Very theoretically stocks are valued in the same way based on future dividend payments. But that's not really how analysts price companies.
  - pc86 4y ago
    But if this is royalties from sales, wouldn't the amount theoretically rise with inflation, especially for a mass market consumer product like Listerine? So I don't see how if you hold on to this royalty (easy to do), and Listerine sales don't tank (out of your control), wouldn't your earnings be more or less constant in real terms?
    - ghaff 4y ago
      I was answering a specific question--how you evaluate. Yes, in this case, I would assume royalties would track roughly with inflation, i.e. future cash flows will increase although there are other reasons to discount beyond that number. Even absent inflation you can earn some money by banking it. And there's also risk of "stuff" happening as you move into the future.
syspec 4y ago
> ABOUT THE ASSET The history of Listerine brand royalties is one of contract law legend. In 1879, Dr. JJ Lawrence invented Listerine and in 1881, licensed the secret formula to J.W. Lambert and Lambert Pharmaceutical Co., ultimately settling on a royalty based on the number of ounces sold, to be paid to him and his “heirs, executors, or assigns” for as long as Listerine was sold. For the next 75 years, the Lawrence family collected these royalties, with the ownership stake splintering between various heirs, some of whom sold portions of their stake to additional owners (such as New York real estate broker John J. Reynolds, who acquired half of the share of these royalties from the Lawrence heirs in 1950). After Lambert Pharmaceutical merged with Warner-Hudnut in 1955, the newly merged management contested the $1.5 million a year they were paying in royalties in court… a case they famously lost in a decision that remains cited in contract law cases and classes today. As a result of this decision, the Listerine royalty payments will remain in force for the lifetime of the brand, paid to whoever owns a share. Today, those entities include not only the heirs of the Lawrence family, but also various pension funds, universities, hospitals, and multiple individuals. This is your chance to be part of this exclusive group.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- frankfrankfrank 4y ago
  Two things that stood out me, reading that too: 1) “This is your chance to be part of this exclusive group.” sets off all kinds of hype and peak bubble flag signals. 2) I have found it extremely difficult to find the actual text of the original agreement. Which is odd, considering that the agreement itself is the actual value based on the IP. That kind of nonchalant mentality towards assets us both too risky for me and also sends up even more peak bubble red flag signals when we are seeing NINJA type investing again.
golergka 4y ago
This kind of asset is exactly what NFTs (backed by real-world contracts) would be ideal for. I'd love to buy 1/100th of that asset just by interacting with a smart contract.
- riskneutral 4y ago
  Securitizing the Listerine royalty would require setting up a Special Purpose Vehicle (basically a legal entity whose sole purpose is to own the Listerine royalty rights). It would require bank accounts to be setup to process the royalty payment. It would be considered security and as such would need to registered and regulated by the SEC in order to be sold. All this would cost a several hundred thousand dollars in legal, administrative and banker fees. This would only make sense if several hundred million dollars worth of Listerine royalties were being securitized, and if there are investors who are willing to buy the hundreds of millions of dollars of resulting securities. None of those securitization processes could be made more efficient, secure or cost effective with an NFT or any other blockchain technology. Introducing cryptocurrency into the securitization process would only be for the purposes of a marketing stunt that would make the process more costly, complex and risky. You say you would love to buy 1/100th of an asset that has a list price of $2 million, so presumably you would be willing to invest $20,000. Well, I have news for you, multi-hundred million dollar securitizations are not done because someone says they would love to "interact" with a "smart contract" and have $20k to invest, they are done because multiple investors have promise to buy tens of millions of dollars of those securities. And those investors are interested in earning dollars, not "interacting" with "smart contracts" for fun and games. So no, NFTs are not ideal for this kind of asset.
- humanistbot 4y ago
- mfringel 4y ago
  So.... let's say that was even possible, and you did that. You pay: $20,000 in $some_coin (ignoring gas fees for the moment) 1/100 of annual royalties is $1,142, taxable at your marginal rate (say 20%), so $913 free-and-clear. Even without doing discounted cash-flow magic, that gets you to an annual 4.5% annual rate of return. Not great, not terrible. BUT, you're doing this all in NFT-land, which means either you hold it (in a cold wallet, ready to be shown once the next royalty agency asks who owns this stuff), some other entity holds it (and you trust them and pay their fees), and no one has stolen your metaphorical apes over the next 21 years, which is just what it would take to make back the investment. Also, making the double-bank-shot bet that courts will recognize NFTs as proof of ownership, and that the NFT itself does not become taxable property, as a security. Short of some kind of presumably inherent joy in interacting with a smart contract, I'm really not sure what you intend to gain, here.
ds 4y ago
It a 5.5% cap with nothing backing it. Il take any random real estate deal (which has tons of tax benefits) over this any day of the week, plenty of which exist at the same cap or higher and come with actual assets (land, building, etc..) Dont get me wrong, Listerine is definitely as strong a brand as there is (I cant even name a competitor off the top of my head) so im not that worried about this going to zero, but that said I would still expect a cap of ~8-10% to have this make sense over other options backed by assets.
- conductr 4y ago
  I wouldn’t mind if it wasn’t priced so high (what isn’t these days). Assets have downsides too. Insurance, taxes, maintenance, and general overhead in the sense that they are significantly less passive. I don’t get the “nothing backing it” part, maybe it’s not tangible but the brand here does have massive value and all but guarantees substantial gross sales year after year.
  - dvt 4y ago
    > I wouldn’t mind if it wasn’t priced so high (what isn’t these days). It's funny, to me it seems extremely cheap. With $2M, you can basically guarantee 100k/yr in perpetuity while being hedged against MMT interest-rate-fiddling, money-printing-induced inflation, a crypto crash, a stock market crash, a housing bubble crash, a tech bubble pop, etc.
    - hodder 4y ago
      This was my thinking. Top line risk on a staple consumer asset that’s been around over a hundred years, and can scale rev with inflation. No margin risk. Seems very cheap. Can prob borrow modestly under the yield and write off the interest on a leveraged version of the asset.
- intuitionist 4y ago
  The brand may not be a hard asset but I’d say it’s likely to hold its value better than plenty of hard assets (is an office building in San Francisco really less risky than Listerine?) and than lots of other royalty-generating intangibles at similar cap rates (will there still be any Neil Diamond fans alive in 20 years?)
scottlamb 4y ago
On the subject of (antiseptic) mouthwash, there have been studies linking it to diabetes in overweight adults [1] and mortality in hospitalized patients [2]. Nothing that conclusively proves causality AFAIK, but it does give one pause... [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/sj.bdj.2018.1020 https://www.nature.com/articles/sj.bdj.2018.1020 [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33067640/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33067640/
- jaywalk 4y ago
  Look at this guy, trying to drive down the selling price. I'm onto you!
- contingencies 4y ago
  In short they seem to be saying "useful when recovering from surgery" / "increasingly looks like it could be a bad idea to use it all the time" / "once per day max" / "brushing and flossing are preferred".
- frankfrankfrank 4y ago
  Someone should do a study to link the quality of studies over time to the implosion of credibility of studies. At this point, because the cancer that has been pervasive in “science” for decades at this point has never been meaningfully addressed, only fools and those personally invested in “the science” take any “study” with anything less than a metric ton of salt. It is a shame, but if “scientists” are unwilling to actually follow the scientific method, maybe they are not scientists at all, but rather just run off the mill con artists. And for those who are not aware, “con artists” is short for “confidence artist“, i.e., a manipulative person committing tricks, i.e., fraud, through their ability to instill confidence in their target that they are knowledgeable or have a credible expertise in a field … confidence tricks.
  - scottlamb 4y ago
    I think your anger is misdirected. Take the diabetes study for example: Scientists didn't publish the headline "Mouthwash twice a day increases diabetes risk by 50%". That was the press. The press are generally the ones who drop all the uncertainty/nuance and add the panic. And the scientifically illiterate public don't question how the headlines represent the studies and think each study contradicts the previous. Switching examples for a moment: does "eggs are bad" -> "eggs good again", etc. sound familiar? Bet you can't find studies that state that so absolutely though... Instead, in the diabetes study the scientists showed a correlation, suggested a mechanism by which it might be true, described limitations of their data and analysis, and proposed areas for further study. And they answered questions from interested parties such as the author of the article I linked. This is real science. It moves slowly. I'm interested to see follow-up studies. In the meantime, we live with uncertainty. A possibility has been raised but neither proven nor disproven, and it's a personal choice how we change our behavior. I think the article I linked had a good take—with the potential downsides, it's wise to look at how much benefit we get from antiseptic mouthwash as opposed to just brushing well and the like. YMMV. > only fools and those personally invested in “the science” take any “study” with anything less than a metric ton of salt. I think the real foolish move is taking a mainstream press article as representative of the study it describes with anything less than a metric ton of salt. You'd be wise to consider if you're doing this...
srmarm 4y ago
Are you getting royalties for use of the Listerine brandname or something in the formula? If they changed the formula to something totally new but kept the Listerine branding are you getting paid? If they kept the formula but gave it a new name would you get paid? Just a new spelling? Also how much has this royalty been subdivided? The numbers and concept seem interesting but the site seems to lack a lot of details.
- ghaff 4y ago
  The original contract was something like a two sentence contract. Presumably the royalty stream has been subdivided a lot. And it's the best selling mouthwash in the US. AFAIK, all the mouthwashes under the brand, including alcohol-free ones, are still covered by the original contract and there have been significant reformulations.
- kingcharles 4y ago
  All the answers are in the lawsuit: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/178/655/1642490/ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/1...
cool_dude85 4y ago
Never seen this kind of thing before, but I wonder if there's a decent way to scam the music side. Invest a few months of return into click farms to buy streams for some of your licensed music, see if any of the algorithms decide it's popular now and you get more money in your pocket.
- 52-6F-62 4y ago
  Please don't.
mfringel 4y ago
Looking at most of the auctions, this looks like: "these are the deals that don't make the hurdle rate of the typical buyers, so let's make some money selling them to the dentists who like the idea of owning a song and won't look too hard at the return." I'd love to be wrong, but I'm not seeing a good alternate explanation.
- sytelus 4y ago
  I think this is great and not often looked way to diversity. They are selling at 20X annual earnings (or 5% annual returns) and have track record of producing earnings for over 100 years. Additionally, royalty is brand dependent (it seems), not whether Listerine actually uses formula. Also, this is regular consumable that is unlikely to get displaced anytime soon. The best thing about it is that it is inflation protected. Not a bad deal to diversity in low-risk, low-return zone.
  - comex 4y ago
    The royalty is actually a fixed dollar amount per X weight of product sold - so not inflation protected.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Is it? The finalized says ten per cent of gross apparently.
      - Rastonbury 4y ago
        Surely they sell more that $1.14m worldwide per year
        bombcar 4y ago
        True, though this is an unspecified fraction of the royalties.
    - missedthecue 4y ago
whiddershins 4y ago
Meanwhile, I believe mouthwash is a scam and actually makes your mouth drier and more prone to halitosis if used over time?
- david_l_lin 4y ago
  This is because of negative impacts that broad antimicrobials have on your oral microbiome. These mouthwashes essentially burn away your microbiome and allow for new species to repopulate the niche. Many times this means that anaerobic species that cause halitosis can come fill in the space.
  - icelancer 4y ago
    A few comments with informational stuff from your company is fine, but you're taking it too far with the repeated replies.
    - frankfrankfrank 4y ago
      Would you mind Not trying to control people. It is one thing if it were spam and essentially the same message. It is another thing to be the way too are being, concerning themselves with how often someone wants to provide input on a topic. You really may want to re-examine yourself, because that’s comment alone emanates a deep psychological issue with control. I very much appreciated the reply and input into why the states may be a factor. It is not your place to try to prevent me from hearing/reading what others want to tell me. It is a rather vile and reprehensible personality flaw.
      - lupire 4y ago
        But the same applies to your comment.
      - icelancer 4y ago
        If I need an online therapist who makes grammatical errors, I'll look you up. Otherwise, your suggestion has been lightly read and ignored.
david_l_lin 4y ago
Not directly related, but Listerine and other broad antimicrobial mouthwashes have been shown to have a negative impact on the oral microbiome similar to how antibiotics cause dysbiosis in the gut. At Bristle Health, we advocate for products that foster an environment that supports your oral microbiome rather than destroy it, as it’s crucial to both your oral and systemic health. You can find more about our research here: www.bristlehealth.com
- kingo55 4y ago
  Very interesting... So does that mean avoiding mouthwash altogether and only brushing with very simple fluoride toothpaste? I'm guessing you don't cater to Australia.
  - david_l_lin 4y ago
    Depending on your oral microbiome, there are more specific mouthwashes that primarily target anaerobic species that are implicated in diseases like gum disease and halitosis. Fluoride is highly effective at reducing caries incidence, but some newer ingredients also exist (such as nanohydroxyapatite) with high clinical efficacy if you worry about fluoride overexposure. Additionally, depending on your oral microbiome, and your risk for oral disease, we recommend other products that can reduce your risk of disease and prevent the outgrowth of species implicated in oral disease. Unfortunately we don’t ship to Australia yet! Someday soon I hope!
    - ericd 4y ago
      How do you feel about Closys for targeting anaerobic species?
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
  Brush your teeth regularly, eat decent foods, user a waterpick and/or floss a couple times a week, and get a dental cleaning periodically. You can find out more about my theories here: www.stopfallingforshittybiomestartups.com
bombcar 4y ago
I wonder why you don't see Johnson and Johnson bidding on it; if they acquire it they are effectively paying themselves at that point.
pg_bot 4y ago
I'm surprised that Johnson and Johnson wouldn't want to immediately snap up any available royalties that they could. Getting rid of perpetual royalties seems like an absolute no brainer to me if I were the CEO of JnJ.
- DwnVoteHoneyPot 4y ago
  Royalties are equivalent to the lump sum cash paid for it. You should be indifferent to holding the cash vs. holding the rights to royalties.
  - Consultant32452 4y ago
    Cash is king, royalties may dry up tomorrow.
  - spoonjim 4y ago
    There is also an administrative cost to auditing and paying these royalties.
    - kingcharles 4y ago
      Right, it's not insignificant. Buying up all the available royalties would reduce this factor to zero for JnJ.
      - spoonjim 4y ago
        There might be so many individual holders that buying up all the royalties would be infeasible and they are not even going to try. I can imagine with inheritances from 1881 the royalty stream might be owned by 100+ different entities by now.
  - Traster 4y ago
    I could be wrong about this, but you, as a third party should be indifferent to holding it vs cash. J&J shouldn't - if they owned this it would change the cost structure of selling the product. Let's say they buy it, they're now paying $x less in cost per unit, which from a static perspective is the same as the cash value of the royalty, but it could allow them to drive more money into advertising, which would yield more sales of the product. Previously this would've increased the value of the royalty (which they don't own) but now they capture that value instead.
RivieraKid 4y ago
Everyone in the comments seems to know what this is about. Can anyone explain?
- frankfrankfrank 4y ago
  A fool and his money are soon parted
  - dazc 4y ago
    Jack and the Beanstalk
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
refurb 4y ago
It's a little different, but buying royalty rights has a very healthy market in healthcare. DRI Capital has done very well. https://dricapital.com/ https://dricapital.com/ It's different than this royalty setup in that most of DRI's royalties are linked to a patent, but since many academic centers will get part ownership of a patent, it's easier for them to sell it off for cash today. You can see who they purchased from: https://dricapital.com/our-assets/ https://dricapital.com/our-assets/
nojs 4y ago
If this is a good investment, and it’s only $2m, why doesn’t the company that sells Listerine just buy it? They would have more information than anyone.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Considering how many bids are exactly 1.4 million or so I suspect that’s closer to the real value.
  - moron4hire 4y ago
    It's it just me or do those counterbids from both parties look passive-aggressive?
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Very. I suspect we’re looking into a community that has very well known members and the regular bids are coming from people trying to snipe it cheapish and the owner is responding trying to get a new sucker to bite.
gadders 4y ago
I've just seen some of the pop music royalties - I hope someone doesn't think buying royalties for singer X and then bumping them off is a good way to boost their earnings.

235 points by hodder 4y ago

This is a very interesting asset on an interesting site I just found at an attractive FCF yield assuming current bid gets hit. Does anyone have experience in investing in, or securitizing a royalty stream? Quite fascinating.

fffobar 4y ago
Not sure if a P/E of 18.38 is so so attractive, it looks neither cheap nor expensive for something that will at best keep up with the (nominal) GDP growth. Why is it so cheap though in terms of absolute value, is the percentage of revenues claimed by this asset very low? The offer lacks detail. Where's an appropriate SEC form when you need one :)
- Scoundreller 4y ago
  It’s an auction, so it’ll go up, but there have been auctions before, so it seems like different heirs/successors are selling their stakes sliver by sliver. My fear is that this is a branded product and as the royalty stream gets further and further away from the manufacturer/marketer, they’ll just kill off the product and push royalty-free alternatives.
  - thucydides 4y ago
    To put the wisdom of buying the royalty stream aside for a moment, why would a manufacturer abandon an iconic and profitable brand like Listerine after more than a century just to avoid paying royalties they've been paying during that entire time?
- phkahler 4y ago
  >> Not sure if a P/E of 18.38 is so so attractive, it looks neither cheap nor expensive for something that will at best keep up with the (nominal) GDP growth P/E is just an indicator (E/P) of what dividends could be. In this case the return is real and is over 5 percent. But it's not quite the same. As others have pointed out there is no physical asset behind the investment. OTOH it appears there is also no way to "cut the dividend" ever, so it's as solid as the brand.
- bombcar 4y ago
  It's not very tradable on the open market, so you really are buying a revenue stream. However, pensions and endowments are probably quite interested.
- hodder 4y ago
  I stated it was attractive if the bid gets hit, which as posted was 1.5m. Listerine revenue royalties likely keep pace with inflation while facing no bottom line risk. A 6-7.6% to yield is certainly attractive in my opinion for this asset.
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  > Why is it so cheap though in terms of absolute value, is the percentage of revenues claimed by this asset very low? It's not a percentage but a fixed dollar amount; the court case from the 50s says the agreement is to pay "six dollars on each & every gross of Listerine & Lithiated Hydrangea manufactured or sold". There was also an agreement for something called "Dugongol & Menthated Camphor", which was 10%, but that hasn't existed in a long time it seems (can't find anything in a quick search). I assume that with a "gross of Listerine" they mean 144 bottles, but this bid isn't the complete contract since they sold other parts before; this 30k/year one sold for $561k in 2020.[1] I'm not an expert on these things at all, but overall seems like a bit of a so-so investment because inflation. [1]: https://auctions.royaltyexchange.com/auctions/sales-royalties-listerine-mouthwash/ https://auctions.royaltyexchange.com/auctions/sales-royaltie...

latchkey 4y ago

At the current highest bid of $1.51m, it would be 13.2 years before breaking even (not counting taxes). For that amount of money, I can think of better investments.

giarc 4y ago
The last auction for Listerine royalties ended with a winning bid of $561,000 on $32,040 revenue over past 12 months... or 17.5 year pay back!
- Giorgi 4y ago
  that's not bad, considering if you want to pass something to your offspring.
- bombcar 4y ago
  If you had a $700k or so house, you could have mortgaged the house and used the Listerine to pay the mortgage! Probably causes you to become insufferable about other brands, tho.
  - lupire 4y ago
    Yeah, a mouthwash royalty has a side effect of brainwash.
  - giarc 4y ago
    Imagine explaining that to a banker.... scratch that, I'm sure they've heard crazier reasons for taking out a line of credit on a house.
stickydink 4y ago
Is that the right way to view it? If you believe Listerine isn't going anywhere, at that price you're making a reliable 7.5% return that should track with inflation. On something you presumably could sell just as easily as you bought. Doesn't sound that bad!
- 4y ago

webmobdev 4y ago

On a slightly different topic - those of you who use Listerine daily, have your teeth become more sensitive?

snikeris 4y ago
I haven't noticed that, but I always rinse w/ water after using it.
- webmobdev 4y ago
  But the instructions say specifically to not do this: Do not rinse mouth with water or eat or drink for 30 minutes post rinse. ??
  - snikeris 4y ago
    Yeah good point. My concern was that leaving it on my teeth all night would erode the teeth somehow. However, it looks like they did a study about that concern: https://www.listerineprofessional.co.uk/safety-profile/pH https://www.listerineprofessional.co.uk/safety-profile/pH
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
conductr 4y ago
I’d also look into the “daily” part. All my bones are more sensitive than they once were. I’m in my 40s and starting to think all the days passing has something to do with it.
- webmobdev 4y ago
  I just started to use it a few weeks backs (I brush and floss daily), and so was wondering if the sudden sensitivity I have been feeling was related to the recent use of Listerine. Hence my query.
  - 4y ago

ddod 4y ago

Related to Listerine: I have a memory of reading a study that had people use mouthwash (possibly Listerine) the night before taking a cognitive test. The mouthwash group did worse than the control group for some reason. I'd really love to find the study again if anyone else knows where it is (my googling is apparently not good enough)

snikeris 4y ago
Maybe alcohol absorbed sublingually?
Scoundreller 4y ago
Dunno, but most contain alcohol which could have a negative effect, even after the ethanol itself is cleared. Many are re-formulating to alcohol-free formulas, and I think it’s because they fear tobacco-style lawsuits from anyone that gets oral/throat cancers.
- giarc 4y ago
  Many stores also won't carry it due to shoplifting concerns. I've seen many drug stores with signs posted on the door that they carry only alcohol free Listerine.
  - frankfrankfrank 4y ago
    Well that is quite interesting. I have never seen a store or sign like that. I thought the ethanol has been denatured with various agents to make it unpleasant to consume for that very reason. I guess the consumer has degenerated so much that he is willing to suffer the consequences of its consumption? It strikes me that this cannot really be a good sign for society in general when the degeneration is breaking through even the measures to inhibit degenerative detrimental behaviors. It also appears we are accumulating such conditions at an alarming rate all across the western world in particular, emanating and spreading out from a few specific points.
    - 4y ago

ffhhj 4y ago

Stoped used it due to hypogeusia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypogeusia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypogeusia

quags 4y ago

This also peaked by interest, as well as the general concept or royalty investing. But so far, I haven't found anything that seems worth it. First, none of the royalty are guaranteed, so you could buy something that may or may not get the same returns year in and year out. Some of the royalties are small slices of certain songs, like a small writer credit - so you are not clear on exactly what is being bought with out more research. As an example there have been songs like jcole + kanye west workout / workout plan. There were a bunch of songs, three may be considered well known, but you are getting a small slice from one writer in that case. So you really need to dive into what is being bought. Best case I can see on the songs is that maybe one day some movie or tv show uses the music and you get a nice bump in earnings, or there is some popular cover in the future. 100k a year royalties, not guaranteed might make sense at a million which gets you a 10% return which is decent, but this trades more like a bond. Your resale may not be great if interest wanes in this royalty exchange and you can get more stable returns in the bond market in vanguard (trading actual bonds not etf's). I like to invest in what I understand and what is simple, this just so far is not. I do use Listerine zero (less intense / alcohol free) which I'm not sure counds in this stream. I haven't bought the original in a long time, since it has no flouride.

prometheus76 4y ago
"This has also piqued my interest..."
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  "Peaked my interest": caused my interest to increase to a high point before declining. "Piqued my interest": aroused or provoked my interest.
  - prometheus76 4y ago
    I hate to use reddit as a resource, but there's a good discussion here about why "peaked my interest" doesn't make grammatical sense. "Peaked" is not a transitive verb. "Peaked my interest" is a bastardization of the original because people were not familiar with the word "piqued" and guessed at how it was spelled when they heard it. https://www.reddit.com/r/grammar/comments/1n7ezp/why_is_piqued_my_interest_the_correct_phrase_i/ https://www.reddit.com/r/grammar/comments/1n7ezp/why_is_piqu...

prepend 4y ago

How does one value perpetual earning investments? The $2.1M is 18.36 times the annual earnings. So after 18 years you’ve paid off your investment and get $100+/year forever. In 36 years you’ve doubled your money and the return would be 2% using the back of napkin rate divided into 70 doubling time. But over time it just keeps paying off, so the stability is good but likely many other investments would give higher returns.

rahimnathwani 4y ago
DCF
tantalor 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annuity#Valuation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annuity#Valuation
ghaff 4y ago
The short answer is Net Present Value or Discounted Cash Flow. Future money is worth less than present money for inflation and other reasons. So you discount any future moneys by some amount per year--doesn't need to be a fixed amount--and eventually you reach a point where that dollar you're receiving in 50 years is worth... not much. Very theoretically stocks are valued in the same way based on future dividend payments. But that's not really how analysts price companies.
- pc86 4y ago
  But if this is royalties from sales, wouldn't the amount theoretically rise with inflation, especially for a mass market consumer product like Listerine? So I don't see how if you hold on to this royalty (easy to do), and Listerine sales don't tank (out of your control), wouldn't your earnings be more or less constant in real terms?
  - ghaff 4y ago
    I was answering a specific question--how you evaluate. Yes, in this case, I would assume royalties would track roughly with inflation, i.e. future cash flows will increase although there are other reasons to discount beyond that number. Even absent inflation you can earn some money by banking it. And there's also risk of "stuff" happening as you move into the future.

syspec 4y ago

> ABOUT THE ASSET The history of Listerine brand royalties is one of contract law legend. In 1879, Dr. JJ Lawrence invented Listerine and in 1881, licensed the secret formula to J.W. Lambert and Lambert Pharmaceutical Co., ultimately settling on a royalty based on the number of ounces sold, to be paid to him and his “heirs, executors, or assigns” for as long as Listerine was sold. For the next 75 years, the Lawrence family collected these royalties, with the ownership stake splintering between various heirs, some of whom sold portions of their stake to additional owners (such as New York real estate broker John J. Reynolds, who acquired half of the share of these royalties from the Lawrence heirs in 1950). After Lambert Pharmaceutical merged with Warner-Hudnut in 1955, the newly merged management contested the $1.5 million a year they were paying in royalties in court… a case they famously lost in a decision that remains cited in contract law cases and classes today. As a result of this decision, the Listerine royalty payments will remain in force for the lifetime of the brand, paid to whoever owns a share. Today, those entities include not only the heirs of the Lawrence family, but also various pension funds, universities, hospitals, and multiple individuals. This is your chance to be part of this exclusive group.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
frankfrankfrank 4y ago
Two things that stood out me, reading that too: 1) “This is your chance to be part of this exclusive group.” sets off all kinds of hype and peak bubble flag signals. 2) I have found it extremely difficult to find the actual text of the original agreement. Which is odd, considering that the agreement itself is the actual value based on the IP. That kind of nonchalant mentality towards assets us both too risky for me and also sends up even more peak bubble red flag signals when we are seeing NINJA type investing again.

golergka 4y ago

This kind of asset is exactly what NFTs (backed by real-world contracts) would be ideal for. I'd love to buy 1/100th of that asset just by interacting with a smart contract.

riskneutral 4y ago
Securitizing the Listerine royalty would require setting up a Special Purpose Vehicle (basically a legal entity whose sole purpose is to own the Listerine royalty rights). It would require bank accounts to be setup to process the royalty payment. It would be considered security and as such would need to registered and regulated by the SEC in order to be sold. All this would cost a several hundred thousand dollars in legal, administrative and banker fees. This would only make sense if several hundred million dollars worth of Listerine royalties were being securitized, and if there are investors who are willing to buy the hundreds of millions of dollars of resulting securities. None of those securitization processes could be made more efficient, secure or cost effective with an NFT or any other blockchain technology. Introducing cryptocurrency into the securitization process would only be for the purposes of a marketing stunt that would make the process more costly, complex and risky. You say you would love to buy 1/100th of an asset that has a list price of $2 million, so presumably you would be willing to invest $20,000. Well, I have news for you, multi-hundred million dollar securitizations are not done because someone says they would love to "interact" with a "smart contract" and have $20k to invest, they are done because multiple investors have promise to buy tens of millions of dollars of those securities. And those investors are interested in earning dollars, not "interacting" with "smart contracts" for fun and games. So no, NFTs are not ideal for this kind of asset.
humanistbot 4y ago
mfringel 4y ago
So.... let's say that was even possible, and you did that. You pay: $20,000 in $some_coin (ignoring gas fees for the moment) 1/100 of annual royalties is $1,142, taxable at your marginal rate (say 20%), so $913 free-and-clear. Even without doing discounted cash-flow magic, that gets you to an annual 4.5% annual rate of return. Not great, not terrible. BUT, you're doing this all in NFT-land, which means either you hold it (in a cold wallet, ready to be shown once the next royalty agency asks who owns this stuff), some other entity holds it (and you trust them and pay their fees), and no one has stolen your metaphorical apes over the next 21 years, which is just what it would take to make back the investment. Also, making the double-bank-shot bet that courts will recognize NFTs as proof of ownership, and that the NFT itself does not become taxable property, as a security. Short of some kind of presumably inherent joy in interacting with a smart contract, I'm really not sure what you intend to gain, here.

ds 4y ago

It a 5.5% cap with nothing backing it. Il take any random real estate deal (which has tons of tax benefits) over this any day of the week, plenty of which exist at the same cap or higher and come with actual assets (land, building, etc..) Dont get me wrong, Listerine is definitely as strong a brand as there is (I cant even name a competitor off the top of my head) so im not that worried about this going to zero, but that said I would still expect a cap of ~8-10% to have this make sense over other options backed by assets.

conductr 4y ago
I wouldn’t mind if it wasn’t priced so high (what isn’t these days). Assets have downsides too. Insurance, taxes, maintenance, and general overhead in the sense that they are significantly less passive. I don’t get the “nothing backing it” part, maybe it’s not tangible but the brand here does have massive value and all but guarantees substantial gross sales year after year.
- dvt 4y ago
  > I wouldn’t mind if it wasn’t priced so high (what isn’t these days). It's funny, to me it seems extremely cheap. With $2M, you can basically guarantee 100k/yr in perpetuity while being hedged against MMT interest-rate-fiddling, money-printing-induced inflation, a crypto crash, a stock market crash, a housing bubble crash, a tech bubble pop, etc.
  - hodder 4y ago
    This was my thinking. Top line risk on a staple consumer asset that’s been around over a hundred years, and can scale rev with inflation. No margin risk. Seems very cheap. Can prob borrow modestly under the yield and write off the interest on a leveraged version of the asset.
intuitionist 4y ago
The brand may not be a hard asset but I’d say it’s likely to hold its value better than plenty of hard assets (is an office building in San Francisco really less risky than Listerine?) and than lots of other royalty-generating intangibles at similar cap rates (will there still be any Neil Diamond fans alive in 20 years?)

scottlamb 4y ago

On the subject of (antiseptic) mouthwash, there have been studies linking it to diabetes in overweight adults [1] and mortality in hospitalized patients [2]. Nothing that conclusively proves causality AFAIK, but it does give one pause... [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/sj.bdj.2018.1020 https://www.nature.com/articles/sj.bdj.2018.1020 [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33067640/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33067640/

jaywalk 4y ago
Look at this guy, trying to drive down the selling price. I'm onto you!
contingencies 4y ago
In short they seem to be saying "useful when recovering from surgery" / "increasingly looks like it could be a bad idea to use it all the time" / "once per day max" / "brushing and flossing are preferred".
frankfrankfrank 4y ago
Someone should do a study to link the quality of studies over time to the implosion of credibility of studies. At this point, because the cancer that has been pervasive in “science” for decades at this point has never been meaningfully addressed, only fools and those personally invested in “the science” take any “study” with anything less than a metric ton of salt. It is a shame, but if “scientists” are unwilling to actually follow the scientific method, maybe they are not scientists at all, but rather just run off the mill con artists. And for those who are not aware, “con artists” is short for “confidence artist“, i.e., a manipulative person committing tricks, i.e., fraud, through their ability to instill confidence in their target that they are knowledgeable or have a credible expertise in a field … confidence tricks.
- scottlamb 4y ago
  I think your anger is misdirected. Take the diabetes study for example: Scientists didn't publish the headline "Mouthwash twice a day increases diabetes risk by 50%". That was the press. The press are generally the ones who drop all the uncertainty/nuance and add the panic. And the scientifically illiterate public don't question how the headlines represent the studies and think each study contradicts the previous. Switching examples for a moment: does "eggs are bad" -> "eggs good again", etc. sound familiar? Bet you can't find studies that state that so absolutely though... Instead, in the diabetes study the scientists showed a correlation, suggested a mechanism by which it might be true, described limitations of their data and analysis, and proposed areas for further study. And they answered questions from interested parties such as the author of the article I linked. This is real science. It moves slowly. I'm interested to see follow-up studies. In the meantime, we live with uncertainty. A possibility has been raised but neither proven nor disproven, and it's a personal choice how we change our behavior. I think the article I linked had a good take—with the potential downsides, it's wise to look at how much benefit we get from antiseptic mouthwash as opposed to just brushing well and the like. YMMV. > only fools and those personally invested in “the science” take any “study” with anything less than a metric ton of salt. I think the real foolish move is taking a mainstream press article as representative of the study it describes with anything less than a metric ton of salt. You'd be wise to consider if you're doing this...

srmarm 4y ago

Are you getting royalties for use of the Listerine brandname or something in the formula? If they changed the formula to something totally new but kept the Listerine branding are you getting paid? If they kept the formula but gave it a new name would you get paid? Just a new spelling? Also how much has this royalty been subdivided? The numbers and concept seem interesting but the site seems to lack a lot of details.

ghaff 4y ago
The original contract was something like a two sentence contract. Presumably the royalty stream has been subdivided a lot. And it's the best selling mouthwash in the US. AFAIK, all the mouthwashes under the brand, including alcohol-free ones, are still covered by the original contract and there have been significant reformulations.
kingcharles 4y ago
All the answers are in the lawsuit: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/178/655/1642490/ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/1...

cool_dude85 4y ago

Never seen this kind of thing before, but I wonder if there's a decent way to scam the music side. Invest a few months of return into click farms to buy streams for some of your licensed music, see if any of the algorithms decide it's popular now and you get more money in your pocket.

52-6F-62 4y ago
Please don't.

mfringel 4y ago

Looking at most of the auctions, this looks like: "these are the deals that don't make the hurdle rate of the typical buyers, so let's make some money selling them to the dentists who like the idea of owning a song and won't look too hard at the return." I'd love to be wrong, but I'm not seeing a good alternate explanation.

sytelus 4y ago
I think this is great and not often looked way to diversity. They are selling at 20X annual earnings (or 5% annual returns) and have track record of producing earnings for over 100 years. Additionally, royalty is brand dependent (it seems), not whether Listerine actually uses formula. Also, this is regular consumable that is unlikely to get displaced anytime soon. The best thing about it is that it is inflation protected. Not a bad deal to diversity in low-risk, low-return zone.
- comex 4y ago
  The royalty is actually a fixed dollar amount per X weight of product sold - so not inflation protected.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Is it? The finalized says ten per cent of gross apparently.
    - Rastonbury 4y ago
      Surely they sell more that $1.14m worldwide per year
      - bombcar 4y ago
        True, though this is an unspecified fraction of the royalties.
  - missedthecue 4y ago

whiddershins 4y ago

Meanwhile, I believe mouthwash is a scam and actually makes your mouth drier and more prone to halitosis if used over time?

david_l_lin 4y ago
This is because of negative impacts that broad antimicrobials have on your oral microbiome. These mouthwashes essentially burn away your microbiome and allow for new species to repopulate the niche. Many times this means that anaerobic species that cause halitosis can come fill in the space.
- icelancer 4y ago
  A few comments with informational stuff from your company is fine, but you're taking it too far with the repeated replies.
  - frankfrankfrank 4y ago
    Would you mind Not trying to control people. It is one thing if it were spam and essentially the same message. It is another thing to be the way too are being, concerning themselves with how often someone wants to provide input on a topic. You really may want to re-examine yourself, because that’s comment alone emanates a deep psychological issue with control. I very much appreciated the reply and input into why the states may be a factor. It is not your place to try to prevent me from hearing/reading what others want to tell me. It is a rather vile and reprehensible personality flaw.
    - lupire 4y ago
      But the same applies to your comment.
    - icelancer 4y ago
      If I need an online therapist who makes grammatical errors, I'll look you up. Otherwise, your suggestion has been lightly read and ignored.

david_l_lin 4y ago

Not directly related, but Listerine and other broad antimicrobial mouthwashes have been shown to have a negative impact on the oral microbiome similar to how antibiotics cause dysbiosis in the gut. At Bristle Health, we advocate for products that foster an environment that supports your oral microbiome rather than destroy it, as it’s crucial to both your oral and systemic health. You can find more about our research here: www.bristlehealth.com

kingo55 4y ago
Very interesting... So does that mean avoiding mouthwash altogether and only brushing with very simple fluoride toothpaste? I'm guessing you don't cater to Australia.
- david_l_lin 4y ago
  Depending on your oral microbiome, there are more specific mouthwashes that primarily target anaerobic species that are implicated in diseases like gum disease and halitosis. Fluoride is highly effective at reducing caries incidence, but some newer ingredients also exist (such as nanohydroxyapatite) with high clinical efficacy if you worry about fluoride overexposure. Additionally, depending on your oral microbiome, and your risk for oral disease, we recommend other products that can reduce your risk of disease and prevent the outgrowth of species implicated in oral disease. Unfortunately we don’t ship to Australia yet! Someday soon I hope!
  - ericd 4y ago
    How do you feel about Closys for targeting anaerobic species?
KennyBlanken 4y ago
Brush your teeth regularly, eat decent foods, user a waterpick and/or floss a couple times a week, and get a dental cleaning periodically. You can find out more about my theories here: www.stopfallingforshittybiomestartups.com

bombcar 4y ago

I wonder why you don't see Johnson and Johnson bidding on it; if they acquire it they are effectively paying themselves at that point.

pg_bot 4y ago

I'm surprised that Johnson and Johnson wouldn't want to immediately snap up any available royalties that they could. Getting rid of perpetual royalties seems like an absolute no brainer to me if I were the CEO of JnJ.

DwnVoteHoneyPot 4y ago
Royalties are equivalent to the lump sum cash paid for it. You should be indifferent to holding the cash vs. holding the rights to royalties.
- Consultant32452 4y ago
  Cash is king, royalties may dry up tomorrow.
- spoonjim 4y ago
  There is also an administrative cost to auditing and paying these royalties.
  - kingcharles 4y ago
    Right, it's not insignificant. Buying up all the available royalties would reduce this factor to zero for JnJ.
    - spoonjim 4y ago
      There might be so many individual holders that buying up all the royalties would be infeasible and they are not even going to try. I can imagine with inheritances from 1881 the royalty stream might be owned by 100+ different entities by now.
- Traster 4y ago
  I could be wrong about this, but you, as a third party should be indifferent to holding it vs cash. J&J shouldn't - if they owned this it would change the cost structure of selling the product. Let's say they buy it, they're now paying $x less in cost per unit, which from a static perspective is the same as the cash value of the royalty, but it could allow them to drive more money into advertising, which would yield more sales of the product. Previously this would've increased the value of the royalty (which they don't own) but now they capture that value instead.

RivieraKid 4y ago

Everyone in the comments seems to know what this is about. Can anyone explain?

frankfrankfrank 4y ago
A fool and his money are soon parted
- dazc 4y ago
  Jack and the Beanstalk

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

refurb 4y ago

It's a little different, but buying royalty rights has a very healthy market in healthcare. DRI Capital has done very well. https://dricapital.com/ https://dricapital.com/ It's different than this royalty setup in that most of DRI's royalties are linked to a patent, but since many academic centers will get part ownership of a patent, it's easier for them to sell it off for cash today. You can see who they purchased from: https://dricapital.com/our-assets/ https://dricapital.com/our-assets/

nojs 4y ago

If this is a good investment, and it’s only $2m, why doesn’t the company that sells Listerine just buy it? They would have more information than anyone.

bombcar 4y ago
Considering how many bids are exactly 1.4 million or so I suspect that’s closer to the real value.
- moron4hire 4y ago
  It's it just me or do those counterbids from both parties look passive-aggressive?
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Very. I suspect we’re looking into a community that has very well known members and the regular bids are coming from people trying to snipe it cheapish and the owner is responding trying to get a new sucker to bite.

gadders 4y ago

I've just seen some of the pop music royalties - I hope someone doesn't think buying royalties for singer X and then bumping them off is a good way to boost their earnings.