Schoop locks in early pay-day for future earnings

[UpstateNYfan]

So, as a stockholder of player X, do I have a vote to on his becoming a FA, accepting a QO, or to what team he goes to if the stockholders agree to him becoming a FA?

[Frobby]

So, as a stockholder of player X, do I have a vote to on his becoming a FA, accepting a QO, or to what team he goes to if the stockholders agree to him becoming a FA?

No, but you get to vote on whether he plays when his knee is sore.

[Ohfan67]

Vatech-I think you are correct, unless they retain shares that they can sell at peak prices like corporations with their own stock. It's a fun concept whatever the deatails.

[BohKnowsBmore]

The stock would have to be issued with a specific number of shares available right? Along with the inability to be diluted in future days. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense.

So, if they offered 4.9M shares, "par value" would be $1 per share at the IPO but the price could go up or down from there depending on whether people thought he was a good investment or not. If 490K shares, than par would be $10 per share. And so on. The share price could go up or down depending on whether the price was looking promising or not but ultimately the payments for the shares would have to basically be dividends earned from salary drawn over many years. If someone wanted to sell their shares, it would be based on the future earning power at that moment. Ultimately, the value will

go to zero because the future dividends will be zero, but that could take 50 or more years.

If they can re-offer shares and/or change the dividend structure of how the shareholders receive their pro-rated distributions of the earnings, it wouldn't make sense to me. I suppose it is possible the company has some sort of profit built in how many shares are offered by inflating them slightly against par value, but that wouldn't necessarily work. Buyers could just discount and not buy until the share cost reached par at IPO. I'd guess the host company is making their profit from a service fee at dividend distribution time. In other words, 1M gets released to the shareholders, the company takes 3-5% (or who knows I am guessing) and distributes the rest equitably amongst the shareholders. I'd also guess this is spelled out in the fine print. Am I missing something or does everyone agree?

Well the concept of par value doesn't work like that exactly but you're close.

[Filmstudy]

Can one buy short options?

You think like me. So many times I've wanted to do that on a futures wager where only 1 side is available.

I can also recall thinking the same thing about a number of rookie cards when those were the rage in the 1980s. I recall wanting shorts on Pete Incaviglia and Pat Dodson. That said, I still have 800 Stan Javier cards sitting in my closet that will be part of my estate.

[Filmstudy]

The stock would have to be issued with a specific number of shares available right? Along with the inability to be diluted in future days. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense.

So, if they offered 4.9M shares, "par value" would be $1 per share at the IPO but the price could go up or down from there depending on whether people thought he was a good investment or not. If 490K shares, than par would be $10 per share. And so on. The share price could go up or down depending on whether the price was looking promising or not but ultimately the payments for the shares would have to basically be dividends earned from salary drawn over many years. If someone wanted to sell their shares, it would be based on the future earning power at that moment. Ultimately, the value will

go to zero because the future dividends will be zero, but that could take 50 or more years.

If they can re-offer shares and/or change the dividend structure of how the shareholders receive their pro-rated distributions of the earnings, it wouldn't make sense to me. I suppose it is possible the company has some sort of profit built in how many shares are offered by inflating them slightly against par value, but that wouldn't necessarily work. Buyers could just discount and not buy until the share cost reached par at IPO. I'd guess the host company is making their profit from a service fee at dividend distribution time. In other words, 1M gets released to the shareholders, the company takes 3-5% (or who knows I am guessing) and distributes the rest equitably amongst the shareholders. I'd also guess this is spelled out in the fine print. Am I missing something or does everyone agree?

I come from an actuarial pricing background, not a securities background, but the interesting inputs/assumptions are:

--derivation method for the future valuations and cash flows

--discount rate

--tax treatment of player income and dividends (is there double taxation)

--Method by which Fantex can make money, including any elements that are not guaranteed

--covenants and recourse of the investors

--Who is the guarantor in the event Fantex fails?

If anyone has access to "fine print" I would love to review.

[atomic]

So, would you invest in the proposition that $4.91 mm is less than 10% of Schoop's future earnings? FWIW, Ian Kinsler will make at least $104 mm in his career, Dan Uggla has made $75 mm, Brandon Phillips will make at least $99 mm, and Howie Kendrick will make at least $58 mm. I'm leaving out guys like Cano, Utley and Pedroia who have made or will make more than that.

Schoop has a career OBP of .267 and OPS of .673. Those are utility infielder numbers. You are comparing him to All-Star second basemen.

[MurphDogg]

Schoop has a career OBP of .267 and OPS of .673. Those are utility infielder numbers. You are comparing him to All-Star second basemen.

He is 24 and had an OPS of .788 last year. But sure, stick to those career numbers.

[atomic]

He is 24 and had an OPS of .788 last year. But sure, stick to those career numbers.

Well what is his OPS this year? I am stating it is a bad bet. I would say with his OBP so low most likely they won't get their money back. But go ahead in invest if you think he will.

[MurphDogg]

Well what is his OPS this year? I am stating it is a bad bet. I would say with his OBP so low most likely they won't get their money back. But go ahead in invest if you think he will.

Relying on 75 plate appearances over a full season is foolish. Schoop will probavly be fine. Looking forward to bumping this post.

[atomic]

Relying on 75 plate appearances over a full season is foolish. Schoop will probavly be fine. Looking forward to bumping this post.

Bump it when he goes over 50 million in career earnings.

[MurphDogg]

Bump it when he goes over 50 million in career earnings.

Will do.

[DrungoHazewood]

Schoop has a career OBP of .267 and OPS of .673. Those are utility infielder numbers. You are comparing him to All-Star second basemen.

When you start sorting players on criteria like "second basemen with .150+ ISO through age 24" you get a lot of all stars.

[Ohfan67]

Thanks. I'd love to know.

It cracked me up watching people salivate over the fantasy football stuff like DraftKings. Simple math told you that the vig for what they were doing was INSANE. Also, simple statistics told you that, since they didn't limit the number of entries per person, the big money covering the statistical permutations was going to take the big prizes. Every week was a math problem with finite optimized solutions that only required enough cash to basically guarantee a win/payday. I thought about running the simulations to "solve" the math, but I wasn't going to front the money so I never did.

Yeah, I find this thing very fascinating/fun, but I wouldn't invest a penny of my money in it.

[sportsfan8703]

This thread title is terrible and I hope it dies in the mlb section. I, like most people, thought this meant we locked Schoop up long term. #dumbthread