Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

America’s Oldest Gun Maker Went Bankrupt: A Financial Engineering Mystery

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 314 posts

Re: America’s Oldest Gun Maker Went Bankrupt: A Financial Engineering Mystery

#261

Post by ericd »

iamnothere wrote: post #220
malandrew wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you died rich and have a family to leave the wealth to and the state isn't set up to steal your wealth by taxing you a second time, you've won at life. A big part of life is spreading your genes and making sure that your offspring are well set up to continue spreading your genes. This either requires heirs and wealth at death or at least making sure you transfer wealth to your heirs before you die.

> A big part of life is spreading your genes and making sure that your offspring are well set up to continue spreading your genes. According to some. Or, you can opt out of this and enjoy your life anyway. It's troubling to see so many people in this thread concerned with "winning" at life. In the end we all die, then it's game over. Any high score is quickly forgotten. Life is brief, treasure it while you still draw…

The main drive/purpose of life is to continue and spread itself, that’s just fundamental biology. You’re free to opt out of that and define your own goals (it sounds like enjoying yourself is your goal), but without another generation to pass it on to, everything that every human has ever done will have been pointless, because the purpose of most of what we do is to help humans. And what we collectively leave them with is the “score” that will be remembered for as long as there are people to remember it. But sure, your individual score is unlikely to be remembered for very long, except by your direct descendants.

Re: America’s Oldest Gun Maker Went Bankrupt: A Financial Engineering Mystery

#263

Post by brainfeed0 »

boshomi wrote: post #141

the finitude of being Companies are man made so the have a limited live span. There is no exception, every man made organisation will end. While this is sad for every single case, the finitnes is a good thing at all. Thinking on finitnes of companies, stock market indexes have a mathematical limit.

They are living things. But also, greedy bastards can take living, thriving businesses into the embassy in Istanbul, chop them up and sell the pieces for profit.

Re: America’s Oldest Gun Maker Went Bankrupt: A Financial Engineering Mystery

#264

Post by ericd »

WorldMaker wrote: post #104
paganel wrote: post #36

> Because private-equity firms appear frequently as villains in the press, many people assume that they cater mostly to the superrich, earning high returns on investments for billionaire clients. They do. But by far the most important piece of their business — 48 percent, according to the data-analytics firm Preqin — is investing capital for American pension funds. This doesn't get mentioned often enough when talking…

> This doesn't get mentioned often enough when talking about the "1-percenters" and the wealth gap in Western countries, i.e. that most of the capital behind all of the current economic and social system is directly or indirectly held by part of the general populace itself. I think the keyword there is indirectly . It's still easy to blame the 1-percenters for the proportional lion's share of the blame when the major…

There are good 401ks and bad 401ks. Many of them offer Vanguard funds, which have almost non-existent fees. And you’re doing it completely wrong if it’s as much work as you’re describing.

Pensions are often formed with unsustainably optimistic assumptions, and many of them will be insolvent at some point in the future. The temptation to mortgage the future for the benefit of the present is too tempting for people. Pensions do have a very nice set of attributes, but guaranteed benefits are hard to guarantee without being extremely conservative, which people have a hard time with.

Re: America’s Oldest Gun Maker Went Bankrupt: A Financial Engineering Mystery

#265

Post by brainfeed0 »

walshemj wrote: post #206
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost all snipers in the US military today are still using a some Remington 700. The Mk13 which is expected to replace the Marine's scout snipers M40 is 700-pattern, just not built by Remington. You're going to be right soon, just not yet. Likewise, "The Military" is still using Rem 870 and Mossberg 500 shotguns. The "other military" that is, the IRS, Deptartments of Interior, Energy, Education, and everything else;…

They haven't switched to Accuracy International sniper specific rifels - the classic British two guys in a shed company.

It's a miracle the AWP got into Counter Strike. Either the design is so striking that it advertises itself or people-in-the-know recommended it. You'd think they'd use a Barrett as the "big ol' rifle" 3D model.

Re: America’s Oldest Gun Maker Went Bankrupt: A Financial Engineering Mystery

#266

Post by DuskStar »

wl wrote: post #248
DuskStar wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't help that a lot of the "fun shit" is restricted to those older guns, since they've been grandfathered in during the US's various prunings of gun rights. So a 50 year old gun might be legitimately superior to one manufactured this year, which causes all manner of weirdness.

What kind of "fun shit" are you thinking of? Select fire is rare and expensive. Open bolt semiautomatics? Eh, some people are into collecting such things, but closed bolts are just as fun to shoot. Just about the only somewhat reasonably priced grandfathered "fun shit" are pistols that can take stocks and not be NFA SBRs.

Select fire is rare and expensive for legislative, not practical, reasons. And it is VERY fun, if not particularly useful. It's a large part of what I was thinking of.

Why would the price matter?

Re: America’s Oldest Gun Maker Went Bankrupt: A Financial Engineering Mystery

#267

Post by ericd »

irrational wrote: post #194
Shivetya wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

many want the trappings of success out of the gate and keep ignoring many of their bosses and superiors at work have a lot of time invested and earnings already. they also confuse what they seen TV for real life. tell, who doesn't have people in the lower rungs of their IT group with more expensive cars or outfits than you would feel comfortable with at twice their salary? then top off the people who eat out every da…

I tell this to my college age kids. One of them is off touring Europe right now. I asked her how she is paying for it (and pointed out that I've never been to Europe because I can't afford it). She says she is going into debt to do it, but it is okay because experiences are more important than money. She is studying anthropology and non-profit management. I've pointed out that there aren't very well paying jobs with…

How is she planning on living afterwards with debt and no earnings potential? If it’s to rely on you, you might want to disabuse her of that notion so that she starts taking life a bit more seriously.

Re: America’s Oldest Gun Maker Went Bankrupt: A Financial Engineering Mystery

#268

Post by ericd »

mschuster91 wrote: post #240
UnFleshedOne wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh, there is a difference between not having much to your name and having a fat debt collector sitting on your neck. "sure, there is no way you can walk over that pile of broken glass without cutting your feet, so fuck it, lets get naked and roll around in it, at least you'll feel the breeze gently waving your nether parts for the first half of the process"

She's one medical emergency or expensive treatment (cancer) away from bankruptcy anyway, which can wipe out her savings in an instant. No matter what, there will always be debt collectors looming over her head.

Insurance is a thing... you do have to build up enough savings to survive while not working, but that’s doable if you don’t blow everything on traveling and other luxuries.

Re: America’s Oldest Gun Maker Went Bankrupt: A Financial Engineering Mystery

#269

Post by sigstoat »

CalChris wrote: post #252
sigstoat wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then Remington borrowed $225M which it transferred to S which then bought back its stock X from Cerberus. hmm. so, who is willing to loan Remington $225M in that situation? it seems like "recently bought by private equity company known for shenigans" would discourage banks and prospective bond purchasers?

the holding company offered a generous interest rate of around 11 percent. When the interest payments were due, the holding company paid them not in cash but with paid-in-kind notes, that is, with more debt. Who could refuse such a deal?

> In 2010, Cerberus had the holding company borrow $225 million from an undisclosed group of lenders, most likely hedge funds. [...]

ah, thank you for pointing that out.

but then:

> In April 2012, Cerberus did something fateful, which probably seemed smart at the time. It had Remington borrow hundreds of millions of dollars and use it to buy the holding company’s debt

hm so the first set of lenders were paid off. did the second set get similar terms?

Re: America’s Oldest Gun Maker Went Bankrupt: A Financial Engineering Mystery

#270

Post by perl4ever »

mwfunk wrote: post #203
nickelcitymario wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, thought experiment: John lives in extreme poverty. He's debt free, but is unable to adequately feed himself or his family. Several of his children have died from malnutrition. Marc lives in a nice suburban home, has 3 square meals a day, so does everyone in his family. However, his debts (including his mortgage, car payments, student loans) exceed his savings. If our intuition is wrong, then John is winning. He…

They’re both screwed. I’d rather have crippling debt than children dying from malnutrition, but obviously both Marc and John are completely screwed in different ways. They’re both losers in this scenario, there are no winners.

Debt is just other peoples' money. Being poor isn't just about what you own, it's about what you have access to that you don't own.
Post reply on HN