Digital download. All sales are final: no refunds or returns. Each format can be downloaded 3 times, and the links stay valid for 30 days. If you need more, reply to your confirmation email and we will sort it out.
A regulator, a court, or a legislature has told you what it wants before it will let you have what you asked for, and the demand arrives with a deadline that belongs to somebody else. You can give it, fight it, or leave. Most rooms skip the pricing and classify the demand as unacceptable, because a deal is valued as a whole and the piece an authority wants was never priced separately, and because nobody is paid to write the plan for not closing. This pack turns it into three subtractions. What conceding is worth is the permission, less the demanded piece as it is worth to you, plus what you receive for it, less what separating it costs and the months to close. What fighting is worth is the permission if you win and the fallback less the break fee if you lose, weighted by the odds, less every month to a ruling and the counsel, paid whichever way it goes. What walking is worth is the fallback less the fee. Set the three beside each other and the decision reduces to the break-even concession, the most the concession can cost before fighting or walking is cheaper, and the break-even odds, the chance of winning at which a fight beats the give. One test runs through every file: is the thing being demanded separable from the reason you wanted the permission? Microsoft could give away fifteen years of cloud streaming because cloud streaming was not why it was buying Activision. Nvidia could not concede being Nvidia. It stops on two halts: the demanded piece has never been priced on its own, and nobody has written down what the company holds the day after it walks.
What is the Regulatory Concession Strategy Pack
The Regulatory Concession Strategy Pack is a complete decision-support kit for one question: an authority has told you what it wants before it will say yes, so what do you concede, and what must you keep? It is built around one organizing claim: a demand is priced against the reason you wanted the permission, not against the deal, and the piece that is separable from the reason has a price that can be paid. Sixteen files carry it: the foundations, a concept deck, a scored decision wizard, a concession model blank and worked, the moves at each position, nine sourced decisions, a fit worksheet, a roadmap template, a practitioner manual, a field checklist, and an orientation page.
The test that runs through every file
Whether the thing being demanded is separable from the reason you wanted the permission. It is the argument in the deck, it becomes the wizard’s axes, it drives the model’s inputs, and it reappears as lines on the checklist. That is what makes 16 files a product rather than 16 documents.
The model resolves to one number you can negotiate with: The break-even concession — the most a concession can cost before fighting or walking is cheaper. It ships blank and worked, and every input is a named cell rather than a figure buried inside a formula, so the number arrives with its assumptions attached rather than on its own authority.
Why the price of a regulatory remedy negotiation is missing
Not because anybody is hiding it. Because it takes two figures that no one is paid to produce. What the demanded piece is worth on its own is not in the deal case, because a deal is valued as a whole and the piece an authority wants was never priced separately — so the room argues about whether the demand is acceptable, which is a feeling.
What the company holds the day after it walks is not in the deal file either. The deal team is paid to close, and no one is paid to write the plan for not closing, so the fallback is a slogan. A room that has the demand and neither of those figures compares a word with a deadline, and reaches a conclusion anyway.
This pack turns that into arithmetic. What conceding is worth is the permission, less the piece as it is worth to you, plus what you receive for it, less what separating it costs and the months to close. What fighting is worth is the permission if you win and the fallback less the fee if you lose, weighted by the odds, less every month to a ruling and the counsel. What walking is worth is the fallback less the fee. Then the whole decision reduces to one figure: the break-even concession, which is the most the concession can cost before fighting or walking is cheaper. Every demand is entered in the concession ledger against the thing it protects.
What is in the Regulatory Concession Strategy Pack
- Foundations. The framework: why a demand is priced against the reason for the permission, the arithmetic of three branches, the four positions, and the halts.
- Concept deck. Twenty-two slides for a board or a remedy meeting, with nine sourced decisions and what each does not establish.
- Decision wizard. Eight scored questions returning the band, the weakest answer, and either of the two halt conditions.
- Concession model. Eleven candidate odds of winning across the columns, the three branches priced, and the break-even concession that decides it.
- Strategies and tactics. The moves at each of the four positions, what to do when the model halts, and four ways to make the next demand cheaper to judge.
- Case studies. Nine sourced decisions — four conceded, two fought and won, two walked, and one was stopped in court.
- Fit worksheet. The single page of record: what the permission is for, what is demanded, what the piece is worth alone, what the fight costs, and what walking leaves you.
- Roadmap template. Five phases with gates and owners, the assumptions register, a reporting change and a periodic review line.
- Practitioner manual. What the permission is for, pricing the piece, testing the remedy, costing the fallback, pricing the fight, the board paper, six failure modes.
- Field checklist. The one-pager that survives outside the binder.
- About the package. What each file does and the order in which to run them.
Who the Regulatory Concession Strategy Pack is for
A chief executive with a remedy that has been called unacceptable for two quarters and priced for none of them; a chief financial officer being asked to fund a fight against a number no one has produced; a general counsel who knows the odds were supplied by the people who want to fight; a corporate development director carrying a deal case that was never decomposed; a board member reading a demand with no price beside it; a private equity deal partner whose exit or add-on sits in front of an authority; and the adviser who would otherwise start from a blank page. It is worth buying when a real demand is in front of you. It is not worth buying to read.
An honest note on fit
This is a kit for running a decision, not a research report and not legal advice. Worked examples use an explicitly fictional company with numbers tuned to teach rather than to flatter. In the worked case a demanded piece the room called half the deal is 42.8 percent of the permission when priced alone, the concession costs $440m, and conceding is still the cheapest branch by $355.3m over the fight, because the fight costs $124m before anybody rules and only wins at odds of 78 percent. That is the opposite of where the room started, and it is the finding this pack most often produces.
Four limits are stated on the page rather than worked around. The model does not estimate the odds — that figure is your own judgment, and the Model tab sweeps it precisely because no one can settle it in advance. It prices a single demand from a single authority, and where two want different things it should be run twice. It does not price what a public fight does to the next permission from the same authority. And it says nothing about what a concession does to the counterparty's next demand, which two of the nine cases learned. The framework content is the larger share of the pack, and each page marks which is which.
Questions about the Regulatory Concession Strategy Pack
- What numbers does the model produce?
- Two headlines and twelve supporting rows. The break-even concession, which is the most the concession can cost before fighting or walking is cheaper, and the break-even odds, the chance of winning at which fighting beats conceding. Around them: what the concession costs and the distance between it and the break-even, the demanded piece as a share of the permission, what conceding, fighting, and walking are each worth, what the fight costs even when it wins, the cheapest branch, the concession and the break fee in years of profit, the permission against revenue, and the months a fight adds. The Model tab sweeps the odds from zero to certain, and one row turns from Yes to No at the point where fighting starts to beat the give.
- The regulator's demand is unreasonable. Should we fight it?
- Not on that fact alone, and that is the whole point of the pack. Whether the demand is reasonable changes nothing about the authority's deadline. In the worked case a concession the room called unacceptable costs $440m, conceding is worth $986m, and the fight is worth $630.8m at the 55 percent odds counsel wrote down, because fourteen months and $40m of counsel are paid in full even when it is won. The fight only beats the concession at odds of 78 percent.
- We do not know what the demanded piece is worth on its own.
- Most companies do not, because the deal was valued whole. It is a week with the people who built the deal case, and the manual sets out the four places the value hides. Until it exists the conversation runs on a share of the deal somebody said out loud.
- Does this only apply to merger clearances?
- No. It applies wherever a body that can withhold a permission has named its price: a merger remedy, a license condition, a court order, a settlement with a regulator, a law the company is being asked to accept. Three of the nine cases are not mergers, and two of those were fights that were won.
- Are the case studies real companies?
- Yes. Nine sourced decisions: Microsoft and Activision Blizzard, Kroger and Albertsons, Nvidia and Arm, Adobe and Figma, HSBC and Midland Bank, Apple and the FBI, John Deere and the right to repair, Live Nation and the Department of Justice, and American Express and the anti-steering rules. Each is dated, read through what was demanded and what the company did, and each states what its evidence does not establish. Apple and American Express are in the set to hold the other end: both refused an inseparable demand and won, and the narrowness of each result is stated. The worked model, wizard, and worksheet use an explicitly fictional company, labeled as such on every file.
- Is this a subscription?
- No. One payment, one download, sixteen files, yours to keep and to use inside your organization under the license included in the pack.
- What is the Regulatory Concession Strategy Pack?
- The Regulatory Concession Strategy Pack is a decision-support kit for one question: What do you concede, and what must you keep? It contains 16 files — foundations, concept deck, decision wizard, concession model, strategies and tactics, case studies, fit worksheet, roadmap template, practitioner manual, field checklist, about the package — built around a single organizing test: whether the thing being demanded is separable from the reason you wanted the permission. It is what a leadership team uses to run the decision and leave a record of what they assumed, rather than a report about the topic.
- Who is the Regulatory Concession Strategy Pack for?
- Anyone who has to make this call and answer for it: an operator or owner facing the decision, the executive team running it, the board or investor testing the reasoning, or an adviser who would otherwise build the framework from a blank page. It is worth buying when a real decision is in front of you. It is not worth buying to read.
- What is in the Regulatory Concession Strategy Pack?
- 16 files in Word, PDF, PowerPoint and Excel: Foundations (Word + PDF) — The framework: why a demand is priced against the reason for the permission, the arithmetic of three branches, the four positions, and the halts. Concept deck (PowerPoint + PDF) — Twenty-two slides for a board or a remedy meeting, with nine sourced decisions and what each does not establish. Decision wizard (Excel) — Eight scored questions returning the band, the weakest answer, and either of the two halt conditions. Concession model (Excel, blank and worked) — Eleven candidate odds of winning across the columns, the three branches priced, and the break-even concession that decides it. Strategies and tactics (Word) — The moves at each of the four positions, what to do when the model halts, and four ways to make the next demand cheaper to judge. Case studies (Word) — Nine sourced decisions — four conceded, two fought and won, two walked, and one was stopped in court. Fit worksheet (Word, blank and worked) — The single page of record: what the permission is for, what is demanded, what the piece is worth alone, what the fight costs, and what walking leaves you. Roadmap template (Word) — Five phases with gates and owners, the assumptions register, a reporting change and a periodic review line. Practitioner manual (Word + PDF) — What the permission is for, pricing the piece, testing the remedy, costing the fallback, pricing the fight, the board paper, six failure modes. Field checklist (PDF) — The one-pager that survives outside the binder. About the package (PDF) — What each file does and the order in which to run them.
- How is the Regulatory Concession Strategy Pack delivered?
- As a single download of all 16 files, immediately after payment, with the same link sent by email. It can be downloaded 3 times and the link is valid for 30 days. There is nothing to install and no account to keep.