If he's offering $70K for 45% ($1555 per 1%), would he accept $86K from you for his 55% (a smidge more per share)?
That's one way partnerships can deal with a situation where one or the other partner wants out or to go solo: have a put-up-or-shut-up binding bidding process, where whoever offers more per share gets to -- and indeed has to -- buy the other out. (The payment could be in installments out of future revenues.) Sometimes this is written into operating/partnership agreements from the get-go.
Even granting that you would prefer to be in another business, if you owned it 100% for another $86K, could you then sell the whole thing free and clear for more than $156K? (If not, it's hard to argue your 45% share is already worth more than $70K.)
Or, could you hire staff and become a four-hour-workweek owner collecting an acceptable return on your >$156K investment?
That's the analysis that counts in tiny, closely-held businesses. There's no liquid market in their ownership and their value is often tightly bound with the owner/managers.
That's one way partnerships can deal with a situation where one or the other partner wants out or to go solo: have a put-up-or-shut-up binding bidding process, where whoever offers more per share gets to -- and indeed has to -- buy the other out. (The payment could be in installments out of future revenues.) Sometimes this is written into operating/partnership agreements from the get-go.
Even granting that you would prefer to be in another business, if you owned it 100% for another $86K, could you then sell the whole thing free and clear for more than $156K? (If not, it's hard to argue your 45% share is already worth more than $70K.)
Or, could you hire staff and become a four-hour-workweek owner collecting an acceptable return on your >$156K investment?
That's the analysis that counts in tiny, closely-held businesses. There's no liquid market in their ownership and their value is often tightly bound with the owner/managers.