 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to 56403739
Re: Without investors money to expand evapoporates 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! |
|
