Latest stock exchange news - kabu, Oyakata transfers, etc.

[Muhomatsu 224]

7 minutes ago, Yubinhaad said:

No way to know for sure but personally I doubt it, more likely the five year recommendation period starts at 65 and runs concurrently with the sanyo's consultancy contract. (It would be absurd to have them still having a say up to the age of 75!)

It is not that they can stay - merely that they still can own the share for another three years before it HAS to be sold/reassigned.  They can rent it out within the three years (as is the case with Dekiyama and Kiriyama) while the original owner still owns the kabu.  After three-years, it must have a new owner - even if it is the NSK (Sanoyama, Furiwake).

[Asashosakari 18,786]

Yeah, the three years was a thing before the Kyokai's government-enforced organizational restructuring about 10 years back. I think the change to five years was slipped in without much public attention at the time; at least I recall not finding out personally until years later. Come to think, I'm actually not even sure if it happened at that exact time or was changed a bit later. (The sanyo introduction would indeed make sense for the timing, which would mean late 2014 instead of late 2013's organizational revisions.)

That being said, ever since the Toyonoshima ordeal where it was publicly (if not officially) acknowledged that he paid instalments on the Nishikijima share for years without getting anything tangible in return, which absolutely shouldn't be possible under today's "transparent" rules for kabu ownership transfers, I'm not inclined to believe that anything that's officially on the books about kabu is actually being enforced.

[Muhomatsu 224]

12 hours ago, Asashosakari said:

Yeah, the three years was a thing before the Kyokai's government-enforced organizational restructuring about 10 years back. I think the change to five years was slipped in without much public attention at the time; at least I recall not finding out personally until years later. Come to think, I'm actually not even sure if it happened at that exact time or was changed a bit later. (The sanyo introduction would indeed make sense for the timing, which would mean late 2014 instead of late 2013's organizational revisions.)

That being said, ever since the Toyonoshima ordeal where it was publicly (if not officially) acknowledged that he paid instalments on the Nishikijima share for years without getting anything tangible in return, which absolutely shouldn't be possible under today's "transparent" rules for kabu ownership transfers, I'm not inclined to believe that anything that's officially on the books about kabu is actually being enforced.

That is my assessment, too.  There are de jure rules, and de facto (and unwritten) rules when it comes to kabu.  I figured this may have been cleaned up when the corporate status changed - but it seems as opaque as ever.

[Akinomaki 39,797]

On 26/01/2023 at 21:54, Yubinhaad said:

as of today Otowayama-oyakata (former Maegashira Tenkaiho) has switched to the vacant Sanoyama myoseki, still as a borrower.

Tabloid Asahi Geinou has some interesting rumors about the Otowayama kabu. Apparently Kakuryu has obtained it and now has money problems after raising the sum in the hundred million yen range for it: ticket sales for his danpatsu-shiki are sluggish, the main event to get funds - only the good seats are sold, masu B and C and chair B and C are still available in large quantity https://t.pia.jp/pia/event/event.do?eventBundleCd=b2341804

One reason for Ichinojo to quit the NSK apparently also was the competition for Otowayama - he had tried to get it via Minato, but abandoned the quest when he learned that Kakuryu had it, the bad relation with the shisho on top, including money trouble, which may result in a lawsuit to get it back from the shisho

- that part is the least convincing in the article: http://www.asagei.com/excerpt/260741

looks like there will be a 2nd part of it

Edited May 26, 2023 by Akinomaki

[Muhomatsu 224]

21 minutes ago, Akinomaki said:

Tabloid Asahi Geinou has some interesting rumors about the Otowayama kabu. Apparently Kakuryu has obtained it and now has money problems after raising the sum of hundreds of million yen for it: ticket sales for his danpatsu-shiki are sluggish, the main event to get funds - only the good seats are sold, masu B and C and chair B and C are still available in large quantity https://t.pia.jp/pia/event/event.do?eventBundleCd=b2341804

One reason for Ichinojo to quit the NSK apparently also was the competition for Otowayama - he had tried to get it via Minato, but abandoned the quest when he learned that Kakuryu had it, the bad relation with the shisho on top, including money trouble, which may result in a lawsuit to get it back from the shisho

- that part is the least convincing in the article: http://www.asagei.com/excerpt/260741

looks like there will be a 2nd part of it

Interesting - the wiki page listing Oyakata has the Otowayama share linked to Ōnoshō.  https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/現役年寄一覧

[WAKATAKE 2,631]

17 hours ago, Muhomatsu said:

Interesting - the wiki page listing Oyakata has the Otowayama share linked to Ōnoshō.  https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/現役年寄一覧

They also have Izutsu listed as vacant

[Muhomatsu 224]

8 hours ago, WAKATAKE said:

They also have Izutsu listed as vacant

The share has been vacant since Toyonoshima's departure from the NSK.  The site lists the owner of the kabu certificate as the inheritors/beneficiaries of former Izutsu's estate (his family). 
所有者：福薗好昭（元・逆鉾）の遺族

 

[Akinomaki 39,797]

On 23/05/2023 at 22:36, Akinomaki said:

Asahi Geinou has some interesting rumors about the Otowayama kabu. Apparently Kakuryu has obtained it

Variation of the story in DailyShincho, another tabloid: Michinoku is trying to get it, to have one for the 5 years after reaching retirement age: he wants to hand Michinoku-beya over to Kakuryu then.

Also details about Ichinojo trying to get Otowayama and the money dispute with Minato, he wanted the kabu at first, but when the relation with Minato deteriorated in Feb. 2022, after getting scolded by the oyakata with "this way you won't become oyakata" he told him "Then I don't want the kabu" and when the oyakata didn't return the money he told others in April that year that the oyakata had spent his money, the oyakata claims he returned the whole amount in November. http://www.dailyshincho.jp/article/2023/05251057/?all=1&page=3

The article is initially about the violence at Michinoku-beya

Edited May 25, 2023 by Akinomaki

[Chartorenji 235]

9 hours ago, Akinomaki said:

Variation of the story in DailyShincho, another tabloid: Michinoku is trying to get it, to have one for the 5 years after reaching retirement age: he wants to hand Michinoku-beya over to Kakuryu then.

Also details about Ichinojo trying to get Otowayama and the money dispute with Minato, he wanted the kabu at first, but when the relation with Minato deteriorated in Feb. 2022, after getting scolded by the oyakata with "this way you won't become oyakata" he told him "Then I don't want the kabu" and when the oyakata didn't return the money he told others in April that year that the oyakata had spent his money, the oyakata claims he returned the whole amount in November. http://www.dailyshincho.jp/article/2023/05251057/?all=1&page=3

The article is initially about the violence at Michinoku-beya

Interesting behind the scene dynamics at hand here. Would be interesting to see a recent Yokozuna try to bring Kiribayama over the barrier,

[Akinomaki 39,797]

On 23/05/2023 at 22:36, Akinomaki said:

Apparently Kakuryu has obtained it and now has money problems after raising the sum in the hundred million yen range for it

Asahi puts the current price for as kabu to 120 million yen o - it looks like this

[Asapedroryu 227]

36 minutes ago, Akinomaki said:

Asahi puts the current price for as kabu to 120 million yen o - it looks like this

That's 800 000 Euros. How long would it take Kakuryu or other to make the money back as an Oyakata with or without it's own stable?

[Yarimotsu 522]

2 hours ago, Asapedroryu said:

That's 800 000 Euros. How long would it take Kakuryu or other to make the money back as an Oyakata with or without it's own stable?

I strongly get the feeling that with many kabu, the retirement plan is to make that money back when you sell the kabu at the end of your tenure. I deal with loans all day and it sounds like it should be similar to an interest-only commercial property loan.

Edit to explain that a little more: Often someone will buy a property on interest-only terms and never really pay down the debt, just service the interest by renting it out. When they look to retire they sell the property and the price it fetches should clear that debt with a sizeable amount left over if prices have increased. Of course it's a little different with kabu because what got the kyokai in trouble in the first place was exactly that - people using kabu as collateral. So loans are no doubt on worse terms and the purchaser is under more initial financial strain as a result.

Edited May 27, 2023 by Yarimotsu

[Gurowake 3,922]

24 minutes ago, Yarimotsu said:

I strongly get the feeling that with many kabu, the retirement plan is to make that money back when you sell the kabu at the end of your tenure. I deal with loans all day and it sounds like it should be similar to an interest-only commercial property loan.

Which is why they can't really get rid of the idea of selling it.  Most of the current holders invested a lot of money in theirs, and they really want to get that money back out when they retire.

[Asashosakari 18,786]

2 hours ago, Gurowake said:

Which is why they can't really get rid of the idea of selling it.  Most of the current holders invested a lot of money in theirs, and they really want to get that money back out when they retire.

The idea a decade ago when it looked like the government might force them to clean up their act was that the Kyokai would be paying a "fair" price to retiring oyakata to bring the shares under central ownership, so it would have been a decades-long process, but one with a clearly defined goal. The notion that kabu are to be centrally managed somehow made it into the new rules anyway, but anything related to a possible buyback scheme was quickly and quietly dropped, in lieu of some wink-wink-nudge-nudge nonsense about how a current holder may pay his predecessor a "consultancy fee" - essentially an officially sanctioned kickback for having recommended the successor to the Kyokai in the first place. But even that seems to be getting flaunted with impunity, seeing as how Toyonoshima was clearly paying long before he was ever going to be actually acknowledged as the successor, which obviously contravened the publicly stated notion that all shares are meant to be "controlled" by the organization nowadays.

I'm assuming that, after Toyonoshima dropped to makushita and was unable to keep paying, Asasekiryu stepped in and paid off both Toyonoshima (for some partial share of the kabu's rights) and the actual holder of the certificate, because the alternative that Toyonoshima just lost the money entirely would make it an even bigger pile of crap.

The only possible excuse might be that the arrangement in question may have started before the current rules were brought in, but even so I'd find it incredible that nobody stepped in on Toyonoshima's behalf, at the very least to protect the Association's face since the whole thing was so obviously not how things are supposed to happen since 2013 (at minimum in the way the government looks at it).

Also, it was an open secret in the old days that borrowing a kabu for active use usually required a fairly hefty monthly rental fee paid to the owner. That's not permitted at all nowadays as far as I know, but I would be shocked if the practice has actually been discontinued.

In any case, now Corona has sent the Kyokai's finances into the toilet, so any hope for serious reform is probably misplaced for at least the next several decades.

Edited May 27, 2023 by Asashosakari

[Yamanashi 3,726]

1 hour ago, Asashosakari said:

The idea a decade ago when it looked like the government might force them to clean up their act was that the Kyokai would be paying a "fair" price to retiring oyakata to bring the shares under central ownership, so it would have been a decades-long process, but one with a clearly defined goal. The notion that kabu are to be centrally managed somehow made it into the new rules anyway, but anything related to a possible buyback scheme was quickly and quietly dropped, in lieu of some wink-wink-nudge-nudge nonsense about how a current holder may pay his predecessor a "consultancy fee" - essentially an officially sanctioned kickback for having recommended the successor to the Kyokai in the first place. But even that seems to be getting flaunted with impunity, seeing as how Toyonoshima was clearly paying long before he was ever going to be actually acknowledged as the successor, which obviously contravened the publicly stated notion that all shares are meant to be "controlled" by the organization nowadays.

I'm assuming that, after Toyonoshima dropped to makushita and was unable to keep paying, Asasekiryu stepped in and paid off both Toyonoshima (for some partial share of the kabu's rights) and the actual holder of the certificate, because the alternative that Toyonoshima just lost the money entirely would make it an even bigger pile of crap.

The only possible excuse might be that the arrangement in question may have started before the current rules were brought in, but even so I'd find it incredible that nobody stepped in on Toyonoshima's behalf, at the very least to protect the Association's face since the whole thing was so obviously not how things are supposed to happen since 2013 (at minimum in the way the government looks at it).

Also, it was an open secret in the old days that borrowing a kabu for active use usually required a fairly hefty monthly rental fee paid to the owner. That's not permitted at all nowadays as far as I know, but I would be shocked if the practice has actually been discontinued.

In any case, now Corona has sent the Kyokai's finances into the toilet, so any hope for serious reform is probably misplaced for at least the next several decades.

This deserves a "thanks" emoji and a "sad" emoji.

[Ryoshishokunin 261]

3 hours ago, Asashosakari said:

I'm assuming that, after Toyonoshima dropped to makushita and was unable to keep paying, Asasekiryu stepped in and paid off both Toyonoshima (for some partial share of the kabu's rights) and the actual holder of the certificate, because the alternative that Toyonoshima just lost the money entirely would make it an even bigger pile of crap.

My assumption was always the latter.   He's certainly gotten royally buggered by the whole thing.

[Flyric 94]

15 hours ago, Asashosakari said:

The idea a decade ago when it looked like the government might force them to clean up their act was that the Kyokai would be paying a "fair" price to retiring oyakata to bring the shares under central ownership, so it would have been a decades-long process, but one with a clearly defined goal. The notion that kabu are to be centrally managed somehow made it into the new rules anyway, but anything related to a possible buyback scheme was quickly and quietly dropped, in lieu of some wink-wink-nudge-nudge nonsense about how a current holder may pay his predecessor a "consultancy fee" - essentially an officially sanctioned kickback for having recommended the successor to the Kyokai in the first place. But even that seems to be getting flaunted with impunity, seeing as how Toyonoshima was clearly paying long before he was ever going to be actually acknowledged as the successor, which obviously contravened the publicly stated notion that all shares are meant to be "controlled" by the organization nowadays.

I'm assuming that, after Toyonoshima dropped to makushita and was unable to keep paying, Asasekiryu stepped in and paid off both Toyonoshima (for some partial share of the kabu's rights) and the actual holder of the certificate, because the alternative that Toyonoshima just lost the money entirely would make it an even bigger pile of crap.

The only possible excuse might be that the arrangement in question may have started before the current rules were brought in, but even so I'd find it incredible that nobody stepped in on Toyonoshima's behalf, at the very least to protect the Association's face since the whole thing was so obviously not how things are supposed to happen since 2013 (at minimum in the way the government looks at it).

Also, it was an open secret in the old days that borrowing a kabu for active use usually required a fairly hefty monthly rental fee paid to the owner. That's not permitted at all nowadays as far as I know, but I would be shocked if the practice has actually been discontinued.

In any case, now Corona has sent the Kyokai's finances into the toilet, so any hope for serious reform is probably misplaced for at least the next several decades.

I appreciate the insight. So the Kyokai is trying to get to a point where they own all the Kabu and current Kabu-holders would suggest a successor to the Kyokai instead of selling it for money?

Seems like a good system, but might be tough to enforce. And agreed, pricey to buyout all the Oyakata who already paid for theirs.

[Tsuchinoninjin 1,248]

15 hours ago, Flyric said:

I appreciate the insight. So the Kyokai is trying to get to a point where they own all the Kabu and current Kabu-holders would suggest a successor to the Kyokai instead of selling it for money?

Seems like a good system, but might be tough to enforce. And agreed, pricey to buyout all the Oyakata who already paid for theirs.

There's the current rules and guidance which resulted from the NSK moving to a different NPO classification a few years ago, and then there is what is actually happening. It can be only inferred what is happening from old kabu owners not getting super upset that their net worth has been destroyed due to the rules being enforced.

There are probably some forum members that have actual knowledge/insight but considering this is about private loan agreements between private parties (and sometimes inevitably involving some koenkai, who can be powerful), they will never say anything about it. Not faulting them, its just how it is.

The kabu situation is by far the most difficult thing to understand in sumo, its a very opaque process. Not to mention kabu ownership also comes with an assumed name making it more difficult to follow. I've read a lot and honestly have zero idea what actually goes on and completely depend on analysis from others.

[Asashosakari 18,786]

18 hours ago, Flyric said:

I appreciate the insight. So the Kyokai is trying to get to a point where they own all the Kabu and current Kabu-holders would suggest a successor to the Kyokai instead of selling it for money?

The successor-proposing is part of the current rules, although who knows how much that means in practice, since we've yet to hear about the Kyokai rejecting any proposed candidate (without that it's not a proposal, it's a selection). The centralized buyback scheme never got instituted. IIRC the unofficial word out of the Kyokai was that they felt they simply couldn't afford it. The idea has gone around a few times...in the mid-1990s ex-Sadanoyama (then Sakaigawa-oyakata) lost his chairman post after his kabu reform plans were rejected by the membership, but IIRC it had been suggested at least once even earlier than that. It seemed like it only gained traction again briefly in the early 2010s because the government was taking an especially close look at the organization while it was working on the mentioned not-for-profit organizational re-classification (combined with the effect of all the scandals between about 2006 and 2011).

Technically that means that kabu are supposed to be handed over for free since 2014, except for the aforementioned permitted "consultancy fees". My impression is that these are kind of meant to be a throwback to the old days, when kabu were often given to rikishi who married an oyakata's daughter, or who were adopted by the oyakata, with the son(-in-law) then responsible for financially supporting his new family. So it's basically the Kyokai saying, "if B is receiving a kabu from A, then it's okay if there's an agreement by which B is financially taking care of the now kabu-less A". The unspoken/unwritten part would be that such agreements should be mutually beneficial and preferably be between parties who have a deeper reason for the kabu transfer (shisho->deshi relationship, etc.), but all that goes out of the window when kabu just get traded to the highest bidder - which is almost definitely what we have again now, but even more under the radar than it was before 2014.

Personally I suspect it's less that the money wasn't there to finance a buyback scheme (although that's a problem now), but that nobody could agree how to value kabu in a way that's fair to everyone. As mentioned, a buyback would have taken decades, but this "long time" issue also applies the other way around - if we look at who was oyakata in the early 2010s, then you had everything from guys who got their shares in the late 1970s to early 1980s when they were still cheap to have (probably for a couple of ¥ 10 million, if even that), to other guys who had to buy theirs in the financial frenzy of the mid-1990s (prices supposedly ¥ 300+ million at one point), to newbies who had only just joined the ranks in the expectation that what they had purchased would retain an appreciable value. And all that in a totally intransparent market where no authority had ever logged any transaction details. Probably any possible buyback price would have totally screwed some guys over, while it would have given a massive windfall profit to others. So it's not surprising that the idea failed both in the 1990s and again in the 2010s.

[Yamanashi 3,726]

I guess if you peg your hat on the idea of "national sport, steeped in the Samurai tradition", you're going to have to settle for a few weird features like arranged marriages to get a kabu [ yet I know it's still "a thing" in some Japanese companies].

[Kamitsuumi 384]

Myōgiryū acquired the Furiwake kabu, for much less than ¥100M, according to this interview with Ushiomaru's widow: https://www.news-postseven.com/archives/20230530_1873621.html?DETAIL
 

[Asashosakari 18,786]

5 hours ago, Kamitsuumi said:

Myōgiryū acquired the Furiwake kabu, for much less than ¥100M, according to this interview with Ushiomaru's widow: https://www.news-postseven.com/archives/20230530_1873621.html?DETAIL

Probably a very good outcome for current holder ex-Hochiyama, being in the same heya as Myogiryu and the latter not looking anywhere near finished yet even at age 36. Or if not for Hochiyama, then at least for more accomplished stablemate ex-Sadanofuji who's also borrowing.

Another kabu going across ichimon lines, in any case. The article claims that Kokonoe (ex-Chiyotaikai) was also trying unsuccessfully to secure the share for Chiyotairyu (who supposedly wasn't all that interested himself, though), which would have kept it in Takasago-ichimon.

And apropos the previous discussions, the article somewhat mysteriously confirms the existence of the 5-year rule to find a successor but claims that bereaved families only get a deadline of "two or three years". Considering we're already at three and a half years since Ushiomaru's untimely death, and that I don't recall any transfer of a family-held kabu that happened this late back when the official rule was still 3 years, I'm not quite inclined to believe that any such shorter deadline is being meaningfully enforced if it exists at all. Of course, "lack of meaningful enforcement" is arguably the name of the game concerning kabu.

At any rate, this Shukan Post article hits pretty much all the same notes we played here in recent days: Kyokai articles of incorporation say "no money to obtain a kabu or secure a successor recommendation", the tacitly allowed 指導料 consultancy / guidance fees are really just backdoor payments to facilitate exactly that, Kyokai offers no comment when asked about the apparent discrepancy between rule and practice.

The article also still casually refers to Onosho's supposed ownership of the Otowayama share, which runs counter to the previously mentioned fresh rumours by other tabloids that attached efforts to purchase it to Kakuryu and even now-gone Ichinojo. Just as casually it mentions Hokutofuji as the active owner of the Oyama kabu - did I miss something or is that news to us? At least that one does make sense, as the previous owner spent his last few sanyo years attached to Hakkaku-beya. Oyama is currently loaned out to ex-Chiyootori, which again makes me wonder who the heck is owning the Sanoyama share which we'd spent years believing was Chiyootori's, until he retired from the dohyo and it wasn't. It seems unlikely that the owner is anyone attached to Kokonoe-beya considering the apparent interest in obtaining Furiwake...

Edited May 30, 2023 by Asashosakari

[Hankegami 412]

33 minutes ago, Asashosakari said:

The article also still casually refers to Onosho's supposed ownership of the Otowayama share, which runs counter to the previously mentioned fresh rumours by other tabloids that attached efforts to purchase it to Kakuryu and even now-gone Ichinojo. Just as casually it mentions Hokutofuji as the active owner of the Oyama kabu - did I miss something or is that news to us? At least that one does make sense, as the previous owner spent his last few sanyo years attached to Hakkaku-beya. Oyama is currently loaned out to ex-Chiyootori, which again makes me wonder who the heck is owning the Sanoyama share which we'd spent years believing was Chiyootori's, until he retired from the dohyo and it wasn't. It seems unlikely that the owner is anyone attached to Kokonoe-beya considering the apparent interest in obtaining Furiwake...

I am not very knowledgeable about kabu politics, but it has been a while since Sanoyama is defined as property of the NSK in the japanese wikipedia (kabu list). I understood that, de jure, since 2011 kabu should be reverted to the NSK as part of a new (never really enforced) policy. It is even possible that they managed to get hold of Sanoyama?

[Ryoshishokunin 261]

1 hour ago, Hankegami said:

It is even possible that they managed to get hold of Sanoyama?

Not a chance.  At least not in any way that matters: de jure perhaps.  

Japanese cultures are so hard to change, and this is just another example of it.  It doesn't really matter what you change on paper, because the paper isn't part of the culture.  Nor is the law.  And so now we have black market dealing in something that in principle isn't owned.

[Asashosakari 18,786]

1 hour ago, Hankegami said:

I am not very knowledgeable about kabu politics, but it has been a while since Sanoyama is defined as property of the NSK in the japanese wikipedia (kabu list).

That got added there a couple of weeks after Chiyootori became Sanoyama. Prior to that it was the same as our understanding around here: Chiyootori listed as the active-rikishi owner, then (for those two weeks) as the owner and holder of the kabu. Pretty sure it was just a desperate attempt by a fan / wiki editor to reconcile the fact that Chiyootori turned out to be a borrower with the lack of new information about the actual owner.

In any case, there's no way the share would have gone to not just one, but two (Chiyootori and Tenkaiho) rikishi as an acknowledged loan if it was an actual case of central kabu management. Lack of enforcement of many things notwithstanding, that has been an official position for several decades now: Loaning is a practice that is tolerated at best, and is not intended to co-exist equally with ownership. The Kyokai brass would have named a permanent Sanoyama if it was within their power.