This. It's weird how most of the top tech companies are all morphing into amorphous blobs that want to get into everything and are indistinguishable from each other.
Or ‘why every large public company tends to suck the same ways in the US eventually’
Since financial engineering is in many ways more essential than the actual business. His best example was a chain hotel. In the majority of cases, a typical hotel is a tax vehicle that happens to rent rooms. So no wonder everything becomes a bank. :)
The franchisee typically pays 10% to 20% royalty to the franchisor (the aforementioned companies). Otherwise, they rent hotel rooms and pay staff to clean them and rent them again.
What is the tax play? That the hotel owner can 1031 into bigger and better hotels? Anyone who owns real estate can do that.
Hotel owner (aka franchisee) puts in capital in a specific way under license, gets help operating it, in exchange for the 10-20% licensing fee paid back to the main corporation.
In many cases, the owner/operator is nearly turnkey, and it’s an effective way of setting up a defacto managed business investment, almost like a LP. Many of the franchised hotels are actually owned/operated by LPs setup for the purpose.
Also in many of these cases, the franchiser provides contacts for financing, may directly facilitate/recruit Capital, and may even provide loans to the franchisee directly.
For most of these larger hotels, the actual act of renting out rooms, etc. is pretty much all automated/managed through the central system anyway, and the majority of the operating costs are structured in such a way as to minimize tax liability.
Is it clearer now?
> a typical hotel is a tax vehicle that happens to rent rooms.
>In many cases, the owner/operator is nearly turnkey,
What does this even mean? Hotels can be turnkey, which in industry terminology means that everything is working sufficiently well such that you can start renting rooms immediately. An owner/operator being turnkey makes no sense.
> setting up a defacto managed business investment
Also makes no sense.
>Also in many of these cases, the franchiser provides contacts for financing, may directly facilitate/recruit Capital, and may even provide loans to the franchisee directly.
Even if true, what does this have to do with taxes?
>For most of these larger hotels, the actual act of renting out rooms, etc. is pretty much all automated/managed through the central system anyway,
No, the actual out of renting out rooms involves housekeepers, maintenance staff, guest service agents, cooks, and management making sure rooms are clean and habitable. Reserving a hotel room is mostly automated, but even that requires a person to manage conflicts of reservations (e.g. unexpectedly needing to extend a stay causing overbooking, changing room types, room locations, etc.)
>and the majority of the operating costs are structured in such a way as to minimize tax liability.
Who doesn't structure their operating costs to minimize their tax liability? If you file married joint instead of married separate or head of household, are you "structuring" your operating costs as a way to minimize tax liability?
The question of how a hotel is used to gain an tax advantage that would otherwise be unavailable remains unanswered.
And how is a hotel a mix of different asset types?
What does GPs and LPs have anything to do with using a hotel to gain a special tax advantage that is not available to any other commercial real estate?
How stocks and bonds come into play is beyond me, unless I am being trolled.
But to summarize, zero evidence of how a hotel is a “tax vehicle”, nor any clarification on what a tax vehicle even is, nor why any other business wouldn’t be able to use the same strategy (if it even exists).
Do some basic reading so you can ask informed questions from the answers you have already been given, instead of insisting someone is an idiot when they point out you are not asking useful questions.
And frankly, no one owes you these answers.
As far as I understand, becoming a bank is inviting a ton of overhead with little profit potential.
Which is the core premise of a bank, even if the business doesn’t say ‘Bank’ on the side of the building.
That these two “inevitable endpoint things” would happen to be linguistically closely related was unlikely.
It's a fun image, but just as Facebook isn't becoming Apple, and Amazon won't become OpenAI, evolution phenomenons are more complex than "everything becomes X"
The two strategies for plants are to grow super tall to absorb the sun, or super wide (and small) to.... absorb the sun.
Tall needs wood or other 'strong' polymer to support height. Short and wide is perhaps weak from an individual level but far more efficient.
And trees and grass respectively have such genetic diversity that it's clear that none of these damn plants are of the same genetic line.
Trees, on the other hand, are a growth habit, exhibited by species in a wide variety of plant families, even grasses (e.g palm trees).
It was common in the post wwii era in America and its Asian allies like Korea with its chaebols and Japan with its somethings I can’t remember the name of. The Asian countries forms were normally based around a single family, we’ll need more time with the current US form to see if they are also dynastic
We are all addicted to growth - everyone is chasing the hockey stick curve which means a business that provides a stable business and grows modestly is seen as a failure in some parts