 SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | reply to Linklist
Re: Without investors money to expand evapoporates Companies this large shouldn't need investors. They should buy back the stock and go private. |
|
 56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2 | said by SLD:Companies this large shouldn't need investors. How do you think they get that large? Spontaneous creation? Where do you think the money comes from to get the company going?
said by SLD: They should buy back the stock and go private. Who do you think then owns the company? A company can't own itself...the owners are the investors and they demand a return on that investment. Going private just means the stock is not publicly traded, not that there are no investors. In fact, many public companies which are turned private are done so by vulture capital firms whose plan has nothing to do with improving service or innovation, and you'll have zero public information about what goes on behind closed doors.
How can someone so completely misunderstand how this all works?  |
|
SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
3 edits | I fully understand how it works. It was implicit that the company would grow large with public investors, but that truly interested parties should buy out the public stock to become a closely held or private company, once they become this size. |
|
|
|
56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2 | No you still don't get it. Why would the interested parties buy out the public stock if there is no return on the investment? What changes from public to private except for a dramatic reduction in publicly available financial and operating information?
Why would private owners suddenly decide to make it a non-profit entity?
Why is private ownership better? |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | said by 56403739:No you still don't get it. Why would the interested parties buy out the public stock if there is no return on the investment? What changes from public to private except for a dramatic reduction in publicly available financial and operating information? Why would private owners suddenly decide to make it a non-profit entity? Why is private ownership better? I think his theory is that private investors would look more to long term results and not only look at the short term and live and die by quarterly results. We know that isn't usually true. A prime example: When Cerberus took over Chrysler and took it private, things got MUCH worse and not better.
The sharks who take public companies private are usually a rapacious mgt team that does a leveraged buyout. They sell off everything they can and then dump the mess in an IPO before people wise up to what they did.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | TK gets it, on both sides. Riblet is stuck on quarterly profits that drives the sociopathic nature of large corporations. |
|
56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2 | Stuck? No. You did not read the second paragraph TK posted. THAT's what I am talking about.
You answered none of my questions. |
|
SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | Sorry, TK's post seemed to cover it, but I can be more concise. I had originally responded to TKs first post:
said by Linklist:"Ignore the need of investors to earn an adequate return and the investors disappear." My response was implying that these corps are too large to be held by shareholders - they become headless beasts. If the proper people purchase the corps and make them private, they can turn higher profits for their owners (no shareholders to pay) if properly run, and *less* sociopathic.
As to the comment about stripping companies, it is very true. But I don't agree it is the best process. |
|
| reply to Linklist
said by Linklist:said by 56403739:No you still don't get it. Why would the interested parties buy out the public stock if there is no return on the investment? What changes from public to private except for a dramatic reduction in publicly available financial and operating information? Why would private owners suddenly decide to make it a non-profit entity? Why is private ownership better? I think his theory is that private investors would look more to long term results and not only look at the short term and live and die by quarterly results. We know that isn't usually true. A prime example: When Cerberus took over Chrysler and took it private, things got MUCH worse and not better. The sharks who take public companies private are usually a rapacious mgt team that does a leveraged buyout. They sell off everything they can and then dump the mess in an IPO before people wise up to what they did. Sorta like Vonage did. LOL! |
|
