The video discusses a strategic approach to deal-making that prioritizes control and optionality over traditional ownership percentages. The speaker argues that focusing on ownership can be less effective than securing control rights, even with a smaller equity stake or no equity at all. An example is given of a founder owning 51% but having their power negated by a veto right granted to the 49% owner. A more advantageous deal structure is proposed: zero equity but with management rights, board control, and a significant share of distributions (40% until a consulting fee is tripled). This structure minimizes capital risk, as there's no capital loss if the venture fails, but offers substantial rewards if it succeeds, including being the first to receive capital upon sale. The core principle highlighted is aligning interests without accepting risk and getting paid for performance without paying for equity. The speaker encourages viewers to consider whether they need to own a company or simply control its outcomes when structuring their next deal, suggesting that multiple such deals with no capital at risk and full operational control could yield over $23 million annually in distributions.

Roland Frasier

Optionality over ownership control. Five companies own 0% make more than owning 100% of any one of them. Everybody's obsessed with ownership percentages. Smart dealmakers obsess over control rights. Here's why this matters.

Take a founder that owned 51% of a company, but the operating agreement gave the 49% owner veto power over key decisions. That minority then meant nothing. The better approach structure for control without equity.

An example deal, zero equity, but management rights, board control, 40% of distributions until three times consulting fee is paid. If it fails, there's no capital loss. If it succeeds, millions and distributions. If it sells, first money out. Better than ownership. It's optionality.

The structure works across multiple deals. No capital at risk. Full operational control. Distributions from just five such deals can exceed $23 million a year every year. Our principle, our northstar principle here is that we want to align interests without accepting risk. We want to get paid for performance without paying for equity.

So this week in the next deal that you structure, ask yourself, do I need to own this or just control the outcomes?

Why I Control 5 Companies Without Owning Any (Making $23M/Year)

Optionality over ownership control. Five
companies own 0% make more than owning
100% of any one of them. Everybody's
obsessed with ownership percentages.
Smart dealmakers obsess over control
rights. Here's why this matters. Take a
founder that owned 51% of a company, but
the operating agreement gave the 49%
owner veto power over key decisions.
That minority then meant nothing. The
better approach structure for control
without equity. An example deal, zero
equity, but management rights, board
control, 40% of distributions until
three times consulting fee is paid. If
it fails, there's no capital loss. If it
succeeds, millions and distributions. If
it sells, first money out. Better than
ownership. It's optionality. The
structure works across multiple deals.
No capital at risk. Full operational
control. Distributions from just five
such deals can exceed $23 million a year
every year. Our principle, our northstar
principle here is that we want to align
interests without accepting risk. We
want to get paid for performance without
paying for equity. So this week in the
next deal that you structure, ask
yourself, do I need to own this or just
control the outcomes?

Get Our Mobile App

Why I Control 5 Companies Without Owning Any (Making $23M/Year)

Transcription