Originally Posted by
lowfareair
The more this is discussed, the more it appears Hyatt isn't paying $2.7 billion for 100 resorts. A big portion of this is for the new booking channels you mention.
Sure, they are not just paying for the resorts. This goes back to my earlier point that the acquisition makes Hyatt closer to a travel conglomerate. It remains to be seen if they will be able to compete as such.
Originally Posted by
GUWonder
Long ago, I learned not to take headline prices for an acquisition as being the ultimate price for an acquisition for the shareholders. Add on to it the way things go with US corporate taxes, with US taxes for pass-thru entities and their beneficiaries, with estate planning, and with dirt cheap financing and I would say it’s riskier to jump to a conclusion about this being an “expensive” acquisition than to jump to a conclusion about this not being an “expensive” price under the current circumstances.
Point taken. And I have to admit I'm not really clued up on transfer pricing and similar techniques. Although I believe recent supranational agreements should somehow make these practices less profitable.