4 ms·

I fail to see how the decision was anything less than decisive prudence. Your cited article makes it abundantly clear that the provenance of said $17 million c

I fail to see how the decision was anything less than decisive prudence. Your cited article makes it abundantly clear that the provenance of said $17 million claim was a default clause entitling Miami-Dade County to three years worth of naming-rights fees. They sold that speculative claim for $5 million cash---effectively recovering that year's otherwise uncollectible receivables---then immediately turned around and locked in a 17-year, $117.4 million agreement with Kaseya[1]; back-of-the-envelope says that's an implied ~$5.4 million (2023 dollars) per year with 3% annual inflation adjustment baked in. Call me naive, but I imagine that if you're in the business of running a multi-purpose arena with real opex, you've gotta be the dumbest risk manager in South Florida to allocate expensive legal resources in chase of speculative claims when a mutual opportunity to repair a gapping hole in your balance sheet presents itself and you have a willing long-term replacement suitor lined up. [1] https://www.miamidade.gov/global/news-item.page?Mduid_news=news1684416610680546 https://www.miamidade.gov/global/news-item.page?Mduid_news=n...

Scoundreller 2y ago
The overarching question is: why should the County have thought the hedge funds are overpaying for the claim and to take the money and run? Usually when you have several suitors that purely have profit in mind, you're the mark. Doubly so when their cost of capital is higher than your own. > to allocate expensive legal resources in chase of speculative claims On a claim this big, the bankruptcy trustee takes care of that for you. They're literally a fiduciary. The cost would be reading whatever gets mailed to you, but at the end of the day, there isn't much control you have over the ultimate outcome. And uhhh, in terms of credit worthiness, Kaseya has an interesting history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaseya_VSA_ransomware_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaseya_VSA_ransomware_attack .
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  They don't have to be overpaying. It was a win win. The way I read it the county got more money this way than if they held it. They they sold the stake ultimately worth 17 million, but they got their rights back, which they resold for 16 million. As long as they sold their stake for 1 million or more, they are in the green.
  - Scoundreller 2y ago
    The rights were back to them at the time of default. It was independent of the claim sale. (They won on the reselling of the naming rights too by leasing them out for more per year than ftx)
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Thanks for the clarification. I thought the two were tied
- kelnos 2y ago
  Overpaying or underpaying was irrelevant: the dollar amount they got was what mattered, and they were satisfied with that amount.

Scoundreller 2y ago

The overarching question is: why should the County have thought the hedge funds are overpaying for the claim and to take the money and run? Usually when you have several suitors that purely have profit in mind, you're the mark. Doubly so when their cost of capital is higher than your own. > to allocate expensive legal resources in chase of speculative claims On a claim this big, the bankruptcy trustee takes care of that for you. They're literally a fiduciary. The cost would be reading whatever gets mailed to you, but at the end of the day, there isn't much control you have over the ultimate outcome. And uhhh, in terms of credit worthiness, Kaseya has an interesting history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaseya_VSA_ransomware_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaseya_VSA_ransomware_attack .

s1artibartfast 2y ago
They don't have to be overpaying. It was a win win. The way I read it the county got more money this way than if they held it. They they sold the stake ultimately worth 17 million, but they got their rights back, which they resold for 16 million. As long as they sold their stake for 1 million or more, they are in the green.
- Scoundreller 2y ago
  The rights were back to them at the time of default. It was independent of the claim sale. (They won on the reselling of the naming rights too by leasing them out for more per year than ftx)
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Thanks for the clarification. I thought the two were tied
kelnos 2y ago
Overpaying or underpaying was irrelevant: the dollar amount they got was what mattered, and they were satisfied with that amount.