MovieChat Forums > The Little Foxes (1941) Discussion > The numbers don't add up

The numbers don't add up

posted 10 years ago by theoctobercountry
4 replies | jump to latest

This may be a stupid question, however...

William Marshal was going to contribute $400,000 in startup capital, in return for a 49% share in the new business. The Giddens family was going to contribute the rest, for a controlling 51% share in the business. This means they would have had to come up with a bit over $416,000 to get their 51%, correct?

I understood each of the three siblings would split the cost evenly, with each getting a one-third share in their part of the business. Doesn't that mean that they each would have had to come up with somewhere around $139,000 apiece?

If that's the case, why did Regina only need to find $75,000 to buy into the business? That surely would be much less than a one-third share.

This seems WAY too obvious to be a mistake on the part of the writer, so I'm wondering if there's some factor that I'm not taking into account as to why only $75,000 worth of bonds were necessary to complete the transaction.

[–] TopFrog 10 years ago

William Marshal was going to contribute $400,000 in startup capital, in return for a 49% share in the new business. The Giddens family was going to contribute the rest, for a controlling 51% share in the business. This means they would have had to come up with a bit over $416,000 to get their 51%, correct?

I don't remember the numbers from the film, but the ownership share of a business is often not proportional to the amount of capital put in. One party (Marshall, say) may put in a higher share of the capital, while another party (the family, for instance) may put in less capital put provide other things, such as expertise in securing the right location for the business, and overseeing construction of the plant and day-to-day management of the operation.

[–] theoctobercountry 10 years ago

Thanks for your input!

Yes, that's the only I can figure it so that the numbers make sense. The Giddens family did do all the work in getting the business all set up (obtaining necessary rights to natural resources, etc.), so I suppose in return they didn't have to provide as large a percentage of the start-up funds as their partner.

[–] 398 9 years ago

I think it is an excellent question.

As the other two responses indicated, I think Marshall provided more cash, but the Hubbards provided land, access to water power from the Governor (mentioned in the text of the play, but skimmed over in the movie) and would probably run it day to day. Marshall is only interested in a good return on his investment, not in overseeing a business in Alabama.

[–] moosefeathers 8 years ago

^this.

Regina's husband was to have one third (this was stated to Regina by Ben, I think), and the brothers split one third between them, and Regina was totally cut out.

Swing away, Merrill....Merrill, swing away...