Posts: 5
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation:
0
If I may add, k1 Management sees Guggenheim as the natural buyer of their interest, given the illiquid nature of the investment. The intention is to negotiate directly with Guggenheim management on the fair value of k1's interest in Guggenheim. I believe this to be the best approach given the long term relationship between the two parties. A failure to come to terms will then result in a more tedious process involving third party valuers. The discussion is still at a "fact-finding" stage.
As for valuation, in my opinion, given the lack of information available on Guggenheim, the simplest approach would be based on AUM and applying a % on it. In this case, this gives rises to a wide range of values. Note however that Guggenheim appears to be more of a diversified financial services company than a pure-play investment firm. But, there is now a narrower range on k1's equity share, I believe that it is fair to assume a 3.5-4.5% stake.
The other point on KUE was that k1 Management believes that they are much closer to a conclusion with KUE then Guggenheim. This said, k1 is keen to see the return of capital on both their investments as soon as practically possible.
Posts: 10
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation:
0
@Jacmar, care to give a try to estimating the value of the KUE stake (assuming 30% leverage) and remaining cash balance post expenses. Thank you
Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
Posts: 10
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation:
0
Thank you!
Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk