[HN Gopher] Listerine Mouthwash Royalties ___________________________________________________________________ Listerine Mouthwash Royalties Author : hodder Score : 136 points Date : 2022-04-21 17:23 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (auctions.royaltyexchange.com) (TXT) w3m dump (auctions.royaltyexchange.com) | ddod wrote: | 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) | rvba wrote: | Maybe someone who brushes teeth regularly also studies | regularly, while someone who uses mouthwash cuts corners? | | Or the alcohol / other chemicals. | kurupt213 wrote: | It's been a while since I've used listerine, but anecdotally, | the only option that left a seemingly cleaner mouth was the | 'original' formula/flavor. I doubt it's actually original. It | also has the worst flavor. | snikeris wrote: | Maybe alcohol absorbed sublingually? | Scoundreller wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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. | Covzire wrote: | I wonder if it's the Sucralose, a chemical completely unrelated | to sucrose(table sugar) and was originally developed as a | pesticide. I used Listerine for many years before I developed a | severe allergy to Sucralose. It started with the skin inside my | mouth peeling slightly, it wasn't painful at all just kind of | weird. Eventually I began getting hives and rashes on my hands | and arms and slowly it kept getting worse and worse. If I use | mouthwash or use toothpaste with Sucralose today I'll have very | bad hives all-over hives that'll persist for a couple days. | Ingesting any via food/snacks means a week of hives and needs a | round of predisone to feel somewhat normal until it's all gone | from my system. | mometsi wrote: | One morning, as Gregor Samsa experienced the pesticidal | effects of a sweetener used in his mouthwash, he discovered | that he had been changed into a monstrous verminous bug. | Covzire wrote: | I had to look up that reference to Gregor Samsa, lol. Btw, | I ordered the complete Far side in hardcover immaculate | condition that came in 2 giant books for around $50 a few | years ago from someone on ebay. For any Gary Larson fans | it's a great library addition though it's more like $75-100 | these days, and I imagine they'll only get more expensive. | david_l_lin wrote: | Might be related, but mouthwash use is correlated with a drop | in systemic nitric oxide levels due to the negative impact on | the oral microbiome. You can find a review here: | | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35081826/ | | At Bristle (oral microbiome testing) we advocate against broad | antimicrobial mouthrinses as they can negatively impact your | oral health similar to how antibiotics cause dysbiosis in the | gut. | TheDong wrote: | > The mouthwash group did worse than the control group for some | reason. | | I give it higher odds that the study's results were based on | bad statistics, or an insufficient sample size, than that | there's an actual notable difference here. | | The reproducibility crisis has made this, I think, a reasonable | default assumption for old studies of this sort. | prepend wrote: | 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 wrote: | DCF | tantalor wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annuity#Valuation | ghaff wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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. | bombcar wrote: | DCF still works if you assume 0% inflation, as even without | inflation tomorrow dollars are worth less than today | dollars. | vasco wrote: | It's especially great if you live forever, as in 55 years | you'll triple it and in 73 you'll quadruple it! | eloff wrote: | I don't see how it compounds. It's just a royalty stream? | | It must keep pace with inflation though (I guess through | increasing sale price of Listerine over time?) | syspec wrote: | > 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] | srmarm wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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. | golergka wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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 wrote: | mfringel wrote: | 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. | bombcar wrote: | 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. | ds wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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 wrote: | > 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. | intuitionist wrote: | 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?) | icelancer wrote: | >> It a 5.5% cap with nothing backing it. | | This is not true. Listerine has one of the most famous contract | law cases in the world backing the royalties for life, tested | in court. | | It is almost assuredly the most secure contract of this type | you can possibly acquire. | ars wrote: | > I cant even name a competitor off the top of my head | | Store brands are the competitor. They are exactly the same, but | cost less. | cgriswald wrote: | Also Crest Pro-Health, ACT, and TheraBreath of the top of my | head. I imagine Colgate also has a mouthwash. | reaperducer wrote: | This is what used to be called "passive income." | yakak wrote: | That's a silly comparison. Investors would be comparing this to | some pretty low yield bonds they would buy to mitigate the | risks of being over invested in real estate and stocks. Even in | a recession after a lot of bubbles burst, consumer brands of | household items tend to sell pretty well. | icelancer wrote: | Right. At some point you can't just buy more VTI, houses, or | whatever. It's almost like the term "hedge fund" means | something. | ffhhj wrote: | Stoped used it due to hypogeusia: | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypogeusia | latchkey wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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 wrote: | that's not bad, considering if you want to pass something to | your offspring. | bombcar wrote: | 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. | icelancer wrote: | >> For that amount of money, I can think of better investments. | | The group buying this contract can, too. But that's not the | point of owning a diversified portfolio of assets that are of | varying correlation. | | EG is not the same as EV. | stickydink wrote: | 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! | riskneutral wrote: | This is not a great investment. | | You can earn LIBOR + 7% on a BB rated CLO (Collateralized | Loan Obligation) bond. Since you earning a floating rate | (LIBOR) plus 7%, you would be far better protected against | interest rate increases. The Listerine royalty is a | perpetuity, which means that its value declines very rapidly | when interest rates increase. | | The value of the Listerine royalty has some natural immunity | to inflation because the price of Listerine would increase | with inflation, but it is difficult for manufacturers to pass | on costs when it comes to retail consumer products like | Listerine. The CLO bond is floating rate, so it is also | protected somewhat against inflation. | | You would need to dig into all the details of the Listerine | mouthwash business before investing, and those granular | details are unlikely to be available from the owner (Johnson | & Johnson). The CLO bond will be backed by underwritten loans | to 100+ large, private American companies across all | different industries, so the commercial risk is far lower due | to the diversification benefit of a CLO. The CLO structure | itself also ensures that chances of the CLO BB bond | defaulting are very low. The default risk can be reduced | further by investing in multiple CLOs. You could also | diversify beyond CLOs through other kinds of floating rate | securities that have a similar LIBOR + 7% yield, for example | Mortgage Backed Securities. With $1.5 million, you could | construct a very nice structured credit securities portfolio | for any target yield and risk level that you're looking for. | | By the looks of this auction, the Listerine royalty is not | easy at all to buy or sell. A BB rated CLO bond would be more | liquid than this, and if you can afford to invest $1.5 | million in a mouthwash royalty then you can also get an | investment broker who can help you buy and sell structured | credit bonds and perhaps even lend you money to increase your | leverage if you want to. | | The Listerine royalty belongs in a huge investment portfolio, | such as a pension plan or hedge fund, where they have so much | capital that needs to be deployed that they are forced to | invest in highly obscure things like mouthwash royalties. | fnordpiglet wrote: | Still referencing LIBOR eh? | | Im not sure your perpetuity model fully applies. It's not a | fixed rate perpetuity but adjusts with positive correlation | to, presumably, inflation + growth + idiosyncratic brand | value movement. | howeyc wrote: | Where can one buy these bonds? | riskneutral wrote: | You need a broker and a couple million dollars to invest | for them to take you seriously. The bonds typically sell | in minimum $100,000 pieces. | pc86 wrote: | You seem to need a couple million if you want to buy a | Listerine royalty as well so there's that. | kolbe wrote: | Why are you comparing a BB rated bond to a cash flow from | an American staple of consumption for a hundred years? | Everyone knows more risk comes with higher yield. That fact | doesn't make one or the other inherently better: just a | different position on the risk/yield curve. | riskneutral wrote: | Because the BB bonds are currently yielding LIBOR + 7%. A | royalty stream is similar to a bond in the sense that you | pay a price today to own an asset that will pay an | uncertain stream of future cashflows over time. | Giorgi wrote: | BB bonds are several years max, LISTERINE is forever. | bombcar wrote: | LISTERINE lives on, LIBOR is dead. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor#LIBOR_cessation_and_a | lte... | ghaff wrote: | Depending on which numbers you plug in, the bidders seem to | be evaluating it about where you'd expect. It's presumably | pretty low risk but not risk free, it's presumably fairly | liquid but it's a rather unusual asset, and it presumably | tracks inflation pretty well. Add all that together and I | certainly expect better than essentially risk free, highly | liquid investments but not outrageously so. | latchkey wrote: | I view time as money, so yes. | | I'm not convinced you could flip it for a profit quickly | (taking in capital gains) and like property... there is a | history of sales. You'd have to wait a period of time (>1 | years) before selling it again, you'd never really realize | that 7.5%. | | As a safe counter example, for less money, I bought a condo | in a popular beach community with low inventory and a lot of | short term rentals. In the last year the property value has | increased by a solid 23%. I could have also rented it out for | revenue. | kolbe wrote: | What are the better investments? | latchkey wrote: | Property. | kolbe wrote: | Cap rates in my city are like 2.5%. Where are these juicy | yields? | ricardobayes wrote: | That's why most real estate investors get mortgages. Then | your ROI depends on the money down. Real estate | investments benefit from leverage. | uf00lme wrote: | Stock index? | kevmo314 wrote: | Well, after 13.2 years you'd have broken even and be up one | Listerine royalty. I don't know of any investments that have | dividend yields that high. | cool_dude85 wrote: | 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 wrote: | Please don't. | RivieraKid wrote: | Everyone in the comments seems to know what this is about. Can | anyone explain? | scottlamb wrote: | 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 | | [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33067640/ | jaywalk wrote: | Look at this guy, trying to drive down the selling price. I'm | onto you! | pg_bot wrote: | 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. | webmobdev wrote: | On a slightly different topic - those of you who use Listerine | daily, have your teeth become more sensitive? | snikeris wrote: | I haven't noticed that, but I always rinse w/ water after using | it. | [deleted] | conductr wrote: | 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. | whiddershins wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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 wrote: | A few comments with informational stuff from your company is | fine, but you're taking it too far with the repeated replies. | quags wrote: | 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. | jmbrook wrote: | Interesting angle there for a form of 'insider trading' - | people in tv/film industry could easily buy this up and slide | their assets into their own creations. | | What I don't quite get is why the royalty payers don't start | buying as well, feels like an easy way of boosting profits | (assuming they can finance at a lower rate) | prometheus76 wrote: | "This has also piqued my interest..." | david_l_lin wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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! | KennyBlanken wrote: | 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 | sizzle wrote: | doesn't the alcohol content in listerine increase the risk of | oral cancers I read somewhere? | david_l_lin wrote: | Regular oral hygiene is a decent predictor of oral health. | However this does not explain why the incidence of caries and | irreversible gum disease are so high. Almost half of all | Americans have some form of gum disease, which we can predict | using the oral microbiome, which are the same people that | regularly see a dentist and have "normal" hygiene habits. | | Let's stop normalizing reactive medicine and start thinking | about personalized preventive approaches to health. There is | no one size fits all approach to your systemic health, and | the same applies to oral health. | plasticchris wrote: | I was in my thirties before I was taught to floss halfway | correctly, and since then my gums have sorted themselves | out great. I think we just don't educate people enough on | this. | luckman212 wrote: | Please share the correct way! I didn't realize I'd been | doing it wrong all these years. | ShakataGaNai wrote: | I question the legitimacy of this service. You say that you're | all about oral health but yet the marketing material [1] goes | onto use the fictional condition of halitosis. Which Listerine | basically [2] made up for marketing purposes because it sounded | scientific. So aren't you just playing to peoples fears rather | than actually trying to do so some good education? | | [1] https://assets.website- | files.com/621fba879a7423c6c3a5c77d/62... | | [2] https://dentaldepotarizona.com/history-of-halitosis/ | hodder wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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 :) | phkahler wrote: | >> 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 wrote: | 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. | Scoundreller wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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? | mfringel wrote: | 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. | avs733 wrote: | I'm looking at this and thinking about how to model the cost of | having creating a massive increase in the number of plays of | one of these songs and the resulting Roi | sytelus wrote: | 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. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-04-21 23:00 UTC)