I’ve been getting re-educated on what it takes to make a movie in the 21st Century, and came across this guy who has the only accredited IR firm in Vegas, which I think is pretty cool.
The logical follow up question is, I’ve been developing a package of films for the last ten plus years, with what I would consider to be no actual development money, however, my life can be documented, therefore the question is, should I give up control of more than half of my company? It’s a scary thought to be sure. Please leave a comment after you read the article, and the comments at the site. PS, most of them are spam, except for mine. There probably should be an asterisk somewhere…. š
Finance topics, trends, & specific term sheets
(see * at bottom when finished reading guestās post)<
For WHAT REASON do people not think if 1 INVESTOR spending 100% of FUNDING on XĀ then why would they not want MAJORITY (51%+) OWNERship + 25% REVENUE? (ROI)?
Donāt want high ownership dilution or high cost of VC and short on time? ā¦then quit asking for equity based securities that donāt exist or donāt have any quantifiable or monetizable market value. (like PPMās).Ā Asking for equity 1st is like pulling the cart before the horse.
ā ā ā ā ā ā
Hedge Private Equity and Private Film Financing http://www.linkedin.com/
Quote from Dave Gregory, film producer
āJust watched that segment of SHARK TANK online. I donāt take anything I see on reality shows too seriously, but I do like the ācastā of investors on that show.
Mark Cuban was instantly out because the filmmakers only offered 30 or 35% of theā¦
View original post 342 more words
See last paragraph on post: Giving up 51% of a company in exchange for 100% of some 30 different types of film capital is not a choice for borrowers to make. If it is that important to the borrower, than it’s not logical to gravitate towards some 24 kinds of equity capital. Especially when there are cheaper and more expedient alternatives.
LikeLike