21–30 of 349 posts
I don't understand why we don't just ban private equity. Seems like zero value-add to the actual real economy.
I don't understand why we don't just ban private equity. Seems like zero value-add to the actual real economy.
Ban companies from owning other companies? How would that work exactly? Private equity is a convenient whipping boy for ignorant, low-information HN users who don't understand the basics of how finance works. You can certainly find examples of destructive or unethical behavior if you dig deep enough. What you don't see in the news are all the cases where PE saved companies that would have otherwise gone bankrupt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has happened many times throughout the 20th century. It requires mass fear so many people withdraw at the same time.
Pretty sure the first ETF was from around 1993, so I'm not sure how it is possible to happen "many times throughout the 20th century"
I can't believe I'm about to say something that could be construed as a defense of Larry Summers, but here goes: bank depositors are not engaging in risky behavior, they are putting cash in a bank. SVB did not get bailed out, it failed.
And as some of who supports the student loan forgiveness, yes, it is slightly inflationary but I think the benefits out weigh the inflationary effects.
Combine this with the "need" for nuclear (a perfectly cromulent but excessively expensive power source which has cheaper zero-carbon options), in the first paragraph, these comments that are not about the main topic severely undermine my ability to trust the rest of the essay.
The lesson to myself is to be narrow when I write, so as not to bring in a bunch of other positions that also need to be defended.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has happened many times throughout the 20th century. It requires mass fear so many people withdraw at the same time.
Pretty sure the first ETF was from around 1993, so I'm not sure how it is possible to happen "many times throughout the 20th century"
I do wonder when some unforeseen 2008 like crash someone crashes ETFs. I can't really see how it would happen and that I suppose is part of the fun.
CalPers, the largest public employee retirement system in the US was not getting the kind of returns that they needed. They were restricted from purchasing stocks in certain industries, such as oil, weapons, etc.. However, they recently switched to investing in private equity funds and now they are getting much better returns, without all the pesky moral issues involved with it.
That's not recent at all. They've, for a long time, had large allocations to PE funds.
I don't understand why we don't just ban private equity. Seems like zero value-add to the actual real economy.
Banning people from owning business? This is just a boogie man media term. There are good owners/investors and bad.
PE is finalisation of business, its ownership is far more similar to a mortgagee than an owner in every sense of the word.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Private equity is capitalism. That's the capitalism part of the economy.
Im gonna speculate they were referring to the part of private equity where you buy businesses to load them up with debt to buy more businesses ad nauseum
Restricting a previously purchased business from taking out debt feels harder to regulate, but someone smart could probably figure out a few good rules to stop the majority of abuses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ban companies from owning other companies? How would that work exactly? Private equity is a convenient whipping boy for ignorant, low-information HN users who don't understand the basics of how finance works. You can certainly find examples of destructive or unethical behavior if you dig deep enough. What you don't see in the news are all the cases where PE saved companies that would have otherwise gone bankrupt.
You, presumably, have examples of these cases. Could you show them to us, please? (Given your understanding of the evidence available to us "ignorant, low-information HN users", you know you're making a bold claim, which creates a corresponding burden of proof.)