3 ms·
It's interesting that they were able to use creative assets as collateral but also the creative assets that would be worthless in a scenario where Marvel was un
by mulmen 4y ago
It's interesting that they were able to use creative assets as collateral but also the creative assets that would be worthless in a scenario where Marvel was unable to pay back the line of credit. If the movies do well, no problem. If they tank, who cares about the IP?
This is one of the many reasons I am not in finance.
- WastingMyTime89 4y agoThis is established IP in an adjacent media. Marvel first line of business used to be comics which in turn generated sales for tie-in products. In this context it was probably relatively easy to see how much these IP made every year.
- mulmen 4y agoMakes sense. The value is based on the IP assuming there is no successful movie franchise. Probably with some risk calculation as to the probability that the films would be successful.
- amscanne 4y agoIronically, I was reading about this last night. The loan was collateralized on the movie rights only. But the market had been proven by that point.
- amscanne 4y agoI believe that by this point Sony had Spider-Man and Fox had X-men, both of which had proven to have legs. There was likely little doubt that a collection of other tried-and-true titles were worth a significant amount, even if Marvel Studios themselves failed to make a hit.
- mulmen 4y agoMakes sense. It's just way outside my wheelhouse so I can't imagine taking a 500+ million dollar gamble on, well, anything.
- snickerbockers 4y agoMarvel's IPs have always been successful in comics, cartoons, toys and merchandising.