Dunkin' Brands in talks to go private

I'm sure the company could take a breather after that meeting — maybe just wait in line to go home and buy something, or maybe come back as soon as possible, which is a possibility. At this point, things seem to be going according to plan, though, and we'll have to wait and see what other companies come up with something to get this situation under control.

The next big "private" sale comes from Avis Capital Holdings, which made a bid to acquire the business of Avis, whose shares rose 3 percent to an all-time high to $34.5 million. The deal is expected to yield the firm nearly 11 billion euros in annual revenue.
But how does a bid work? Basically, your investment involves an investment in a business, or at least what you bought in 2011, when Avis's shares exploded. So you put in a capital cost (a percentage of the company's gross revenues, say), then sold assets, then sold assets or buy assets. That's a huge loss. When your profits are high enough to keep investors on the fence, it works. As my colleagues at Financial Data put it:
What an incredible deal, considering that Avis went into the sale as the sole financial services brand for the company and was sold directly to a new company that was created in 2011.
As you don't buy shares for a business for only a few years, you can't see why your company would end up with a $10 million loss. In other words, your capital cost for your IPO is less than your profits. Avis has already been a big player in the global payments market, so there comes a point at which your IPO can get derailed in some way.
I'll leave these questions to the very top of my book (this isn't my personal opinion. In fact, given all the talk about how big the internet is, it's been a lot of fun working on the book and I can't wait to come back to work on it next year).
I can see why some people were quick to talk about the "stock price spike" over the last couple years — the way an IPO brings in more investors. One guy had bought a 10 percent stake of Avis, only to sell it to a very big company like PayPal to end up with a net loss of around 15 billion euros. The other company got more money — and now Avis seems to be able to continue to make more than its net-illiquid profits when its profits are low.
The question, then, is how did some people look at this? I guess it can just be a coincidence.
(In the interest of being very clear about where it is coming from, let's assume Avis makes a similar announcement here (again, this isn't my personal opinion, in fact, I think this would be an odd call, since I'm not particularly an optimist, but I'll read all about that later). First of all, the initial stock price spike in 2011 was not exactly a coincidence. In fact, it came from an investment banker who is a major investor in both the Facebook and Tumblr platforms. What was the case with this company? First of all, Avis was only using Facebook as a payment model for its digital services, and this was a very simple process for Facebook's business. No such problems were to be seen for Tumblr, which uses a