Originally Posted by pilotstats

Thank you. I'm glad that you agree with my analysis. You and I are quite in agreement that the "devil is in the details". See above from the original scenario posed. Of course it is vital to evaluate the remainder of the deal! I would not state otherwise.

The original was exercise to show that when controlling for other variables, a profit-sharing to pay conversion is just that, a conversion... not a concession.

It will help us all if we are using the same definitions, so let me know if you agree or not with the following in a contractual context:

Concession- the act of removing a contractual provision or protection where either: value is lost, no quid is made, no value is added elsewhere. Party A has a reduced value of their agreement going forward, and Party B has increased it's value within the agreement.

Exchange/Conversion/Trade-When two parties alter a contract where party A reduces the value of a provision or protection, and receives that value elsewhere in an agreement at the expense of party B. Also known as a "quid". Overall value remains the same to parties A and B, but the value is shifted to different areas than before the change.

Improvement/Gains-Where party A is able to increase the value of an agreement above and beyond the status quo. The end result being greater for party A than prior to the modified agreement.

Do you agree with those definitions?