Ray:
No it is not wholly owned; majority, possibly; controlling voting rights
likely. When you take on $1.6 B of other people’s money you cannot retain
whole ownership.
They have visibly taken more than $1.6B from Abu Dhahi and Arabia Saudia
and others as you can verify by asking Mr. Google; they do not have sole
ownership.
Bill
On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 8:21 PM Ray Rocket <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
You keep talking of VG investors. Isn't VG wholly owned by the Virgin
Group?
If so, it probably isn't a significant expense for the parent company.
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 4/6/18, William Claybaugh <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Subject: [AR] Re: VSS Unity powered flight
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Friday, April 6, 2018, 8:50 PM
Henry:
I generally use the 10 year treasury
rate at the time of investment for discounting; that is the
lowest risk alternative investment. Corporate investors
often use their cost of capital, which is always much higher
than the treasury rate.
That said, VG’s investors would be
better off today if they had put their money in a
non-interest bearing checking account; they would only have
lost 1-2% per year....
Bill
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at
8:36 PM Henry Vanderbilt <hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Meanwhile, the competition for a
prudent investor includes 10-year
T-bills at around 2.8%, and a very volatile stock market at
an average
P/E over the last year of 23.5 and over the last 10 31.7.
IOW, ~3-4%
earnings, plus of course any potential cap gains (currently
extremely
uncertain over the medium term.)
Which is mainly to question some of your detail assumptions,
not your
overall methodology. The investment benchmarks to beat
aren't currently
(or likely in the medium-term) nearly as high as the
longer-term numbers
you indicate.
Even so, yes, VG having spent something north of $600m to
achieve its
limited results to date is not encouraging.
Entirely aside from that, I'm inclined to question VG as
an investment
based on their dogged pursuit of large nitrous hybrids in
the face of
still-after-ten-years unresolved technical uncertainties.
At least until I see uncut video of a full-duration flight
burn with no
obvious evidence of serious roughness or instability.
(Possibly they've
solved all that, mind, and I do wish them the best. But
viable
full-performance propulsion hasn't been publicly
demonstrated yet.)
Henry
On 4/6/2018 6:01 PM, William Claybaugh wrote:
> Please read more carefully: *in the long run* 10 year
treasury bills
> yield 7% *on average*.
>
> A prudent investor buys when they are above average and
holds to
> maturity; I fondly remember the 17% t-bills of the late
1970’s....
>
> Bill
>
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 6:55 PM Paul Mueller <paul.mueller.iii@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:paul.mueller.iii@xxxxxxxxx>>
wrote:
>
> I thought T-bills were about 4% and equities
about 7% (and hardly
> safe). Those banks and mortgage companies must
be pretty dumb to
> loan for 30 years at 4.5% (and have to deal with
the occasional
> foreclosure) if they could get 7% guaranteed
from T-bills in only 10
> years. Doesn't pass the sniff test to me. We
are both talking APRs,
> right?
>
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 5:45 PM, William
Claybaugh
> <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxx>>
wrote:
>
> Paul:
>
> In the long run, ten year treasury bonds
average 7%. Equities
> average 11-12%.
>
> It is way past too late for the investors
in VG to get there
> money back; that is just math that you can
do yourself: some
> things are knowable in advance.
>
> Bill
>
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 3:25 PM Paul
Mueller
> <paul.mueller.iii@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:paul.mueller.iii@xxxxxxxxx>>
> wrote:
>
> I'm aware of the concept of time
value of money. 7% is a
> pretty good return, especially for
"safe" investments (even
> after interest rates finally went up
recently after about a
> decade of being paltry). I guess we
should all buy houses
> and get mortgages at 4.5% interest,
rent them out, and then
> take the rent money and invest it at
7%. Pretty sweet deal!
>
> It took 7 years for Amazon to
generate a profit, and it's
> doing OK from what I hear. I'm
not saying that VG will be
> commercially successful, just saying
it's still too early to
> KNOW that it will fail.
>
> Changing out fuel grains can be more
of a hassle than
> loading liquid propellants, but not
necessarily. They will
> probably need some flight-line
infrastructure to do it,
> similar to what the AF uses to load
2000-lb bombs (and
> bigger) onto aircraft. I don't
see that as a show-stopper
> but it will probably take some time
to develop a mature
> operational process. Liquid
propellants also have hassles of
> their own...ground infrastructure or
tanker trucks (limited
> to smaller vehicles). Nitrous can be
more of a hassle than
> LOX, but at least it can be stored
and transported without
> loss. Once again, a good operational
process may take some
> time to develop.
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 2:15 PM,
Henry Spencer
> <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2018, Paul
Mueller wrote:
>
> I'm also not clear
on what is inherently wrong with
> their
> concept...horizontal
launch, reusable first stage
> (WhiteKnight),
suborbital
> only, hybrid propulsion,
nitrous oxide oxidizer,
> feathering,
horizontal
> runway landing? Or a
combination of these? Or
> something else
entirely?
>
>
> I can't speak for Rand,
but I would guess it's hybrid
> propulsion, with a side order
of nitrous oxide oxidizer.
> :-) The rationale for the
choice of propulsion system
> was weak from the start, got
weaker with a fatal nitrous
> accident, got weaker still
with all the fuel
> difficulties they've been
having, and definitely isn't
> going to hold up well in
sustained use.
>
> A nitrous hybrid might
perhaps, arguably, have been the
> preferred way to win the
X-Prize. But anybody's who's
> got to load a new multi-ton
fuel grain into the vehicle
> for every flight is not
planning for a serious flight
> rate. To make money, you
*want* a serious flight rate,
> and that puts a *big* premium
on a vehicle design whose
> only consumables are liquids
you pour into tanks.
>
> There are some other issues
with things like CG
> management, but the sheer
awkwardness of refueling is
> probably at the top of the
"why big hybrids are a bad
> idea for reusables"
list.
>
> Henry
>
>
>