pull down to refresh

They got an 11.5% compound annual growth rate over the 46 years. To be honest seems kind of light considering it is one of the premier sports assets in the world. Around the same return as holding Coca Cola stock over that time period.
It's probably fair to say that they've managed it less well over the past decade than Coke.
reply
Easier to own Coke. More fun to own the Lakers.
reply
The real returns were the friends they made along the way.
reply
Don’t sell your bitcoin to buy an NBA team.
reply
I probably would if I had enough. Maybe that's my "there will be signs".
reply
Here is my buddy’s conspiracy theory. “Now the Luka deal makes sense. NBA probably knew lakers were up for sale and the team is worth more with 2 franchise players. If the team sells for more, that drives the value of all the teams.”
40 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 21h
Cocaine is a better investment than Cola
reply
31 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 21h
reply
Does that include all the profits taken by the family over the years, though?
Still, even in terms of just buy/sale price, it seems pretty low all things considered.
reply
110 sats \ 1 reply \ @Cje95 OP 18 Jun
My understanding is this is a $10 bil at market value right now so you ignore the 46 previous years. Plus the Lakers Buss only spent $16 mil on... $33.5 for the Forum and $8 mil for the LA Kings
reply
in 1979
reply
No just market value. Coke would have paid out dividends too but probably not as much.
reply
Well and actually the Lakers themselves were bought for just $16 million. When Buss bought them it was 33.5 for the Forum 16 for the Lakers and 8 for the Kings
reply
That’s a good deal then.
reply
I would assume that this doesnt include all the profits over the years they have been able to take. Plus if it is just the team then the family still owns the arena....
reply