- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 13,905
- Reaction Score
- 25,921
Pudge I’ve done them where the private entity is the “owner” for tax purposes. He can take depreciation and so forth. It has been a few years so my command of the details is hazy but there were benefits that went to the project from doing it that wAy. I was working for the public entity in that deal so didn’t do a ton of research into details either. Tax counsel said it was ok and the analysis showed it made sense.Third post
Reading the University PR
I suspect he is wrong. Why would you have a Private Developer OWN the facility.
There’s a significant Basis Point penalty not to have a University Entity own this. Bond markets LOVE that the Institution is the owner. Not some third party. Remember - 50-75 bps on Bond Constant is significant amount of dollar proceeds you don’t fund.
It doesn’t make sense for anything but a related party to own. EVEN if it’s a Shell - let’s call it the Jim Calhoun Bruce Marshall UConn Hockey Foundation (a sub of UCONN Foundation) with ZERO assets, bond market will love that more than some schmuck private developer. Then. The thought is the UNIVERSITY will never renege on the bond P&I on their land. And there will be a Letter of Credit to cover any unforeseen liquidity issues in the market or stuff (think insurance or act of God).
I simply don’t believe the Courant or this PR guy talked to the Investment Banker.
(). On campus arena is very nice. 3,000 seats, all chairbacks, big student section, and a few luxury boxes. Really angers me that our new arena couldn’t have these amemities, even though it’s smaller.