Disagree. Market you don't know if it goes up or down and also the market is leveraged to one big trade. With Lakers you have more certainty it goes up she to scarcity and brand value so I argue the risk adjusted returns are better. Also his leveraged return will be much higher, especially if somehow he skates by on the inter party loans which I am sure one donation to the Trump family can cure.
I understand your logic and disagree essentially on mirror logic. On an initial fact-check, I've only seen sources note a October 2025 as the purchase date which puts the sale date as less than 10 months. Unless there was some period a year or so in advance where his capital was effectively tied up for the prospective purchase (or some post announcement period before cashing out). But all accounts say that his purchase happened on almost as fast a lightning track as the Iger/Kushner deal. So that's 25% in less than a year.
I've seen endless finance and investing commentators make the point about IRR or relative market returns. Walter got to place $10B to work in a single investment at a single point in time with as close to as you can get to having zero risk of principal loss. Little to no operational needs from Walter. All the ownership benefits of being the guy who owns the Lakers. Not to mention zero noise (from the investment itself) in the interim. No volatility (if you ascribe any headache to that). Just write the check, walk away, and show up a couple quarters later to sell. If you ignore the legal stuff (not easily ignorable), he had a pretty good run. Even if I'm wrong and it's an 18 month instead of a 9 month hold period, the absence of any principal risk and the imputed value from owning the Lakers would be worth a below market return.
According to Google Gemini, the Buss family investment of $67.5 million in 1979 to $10 billion in 2025 was about the same IRR, 11.7,% as the S&P 500 with dividends reinvested. 1979 was a great time to make a 46 year investment in a premier sports franchise as the NBA began to show its true media value and likewise as was the stock market just before a generational decline in interest rates was about to begin. Of course, if only they bought Apple stock in 1980 instead, they would have made 212 billion on an IRR of 19.3%.
Asking whether a trophy asset was really a winner is the value tell — returns hide in the cash-on-cash, not the highlight reel.
Disagree. Market you don't know if it goes up or down and also the market is leveraged to one big trade. With Lakers you have more certainty it goes up she to scarcity and brand value so I argue the risk adjusted returns are better. Also his leveraged return will be much higher, especially if somehow he skates by on the inter party loans which I am sure one donation to the Trump family can cure.
I understand your logic and disagree essentially on mirror logic. On an initial fact-check, I've only seen sources note a October 2025 as the purchase date which puts the sale date as less than 10 months. Unless there was some period a year or so in advance where his capital was effectively tied up for the prospective purchase (or some post announcement period before cashing out). But all accounts say that his purchase happened on almost as fast a lightning track as the Iger/Kushner deal. So that's 25% in less than a year.
I've seen endless finance and investing commentators make the point about IRR or relative market returns. Walter got to place $10B to work in a single investment at a single point in time with as close to as you can get to having zero risk of principal loss. Little to no operational needs from Walter. All the ownership benefits of being the guy who owns the Lakers. Not to mention zero noise (from the investment itself) in the interim. No volatility (if you ascribe any headache to that). Just write the check, walk away, and show up a couple quarters later to sell. If you ignore the legal stuff (not easily ignorable), he had a pretty good run. Even if I'm wrong and it's an 18 month instead of a 9 month hold period, the absence of any principal risk and the imputed value from owning the Lakers would be worth a below market return.
what about all liquidations? outperform?
subtract tbp (trump based pardon) if needed to minimize prison\fines.
According to Google Gemini, the Buss family investment of $67.5 million in 1979 to $10 billion in 2025 was about the same IRR, 11.7,% as the S&P 500 with dividends reinvested. 1979 was a great time to make a 46 year investment in a premier sports franchise as the NBA began to show its true media value and likewise as was the stock market just before a generational decline in interest rates was about to begin. Of course, if only they bought Apple stock in 1980 instead, they would have made 212 billion on an IRR of 19.3%.