The Truth about venture Capitalism you wont hear from the far left media.

Quote from OccupyThis:

Can a white person show get on BET?
More...
No. You would have to go to the WET. Oh, wait, there isn't one. The Feds would shut it down as racist.
 
Quote from pspr:

No. You would have to go to the WET. Oh, wait, there isn't one. The Feds would shut it down as racist.
More...
Almost everything other than BET is effectively WET for all intents and purposes, dipstick. That not quite enough for you?
 
Quote from Epic:

I should point out that while I respect the idea of free markets, under the current crony-capitalist manipulated market, I'm of the opinion that a PE firm should not be able to use the assets of the acquired company as collateral against the debt used to purchase it.

This aspect of the PE arena is the one area that I think rewards excessive risk taking and invites manipulated valuations. If the PE firm has access to enough capital using its own assets as collateral, then so be it.

OTOH, it could be argued that target company assets and PE firm internal assets are largely fungible. But I still think it offers a certain degree of protection against manipulation of value and pump-&-dump schemes.

The main point of this argument is that the PE firm should be held liable for excessive risk taking and overloaded debt, and not the target company. [/QUOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(SNIP)

"The real reason that we should be concerned about private equity’s expanding power lies in the way these firms have become increasingly adept at using financial gimmicks to line their pockets, deriving enormous wealth not from management or investing skills but, rather, from the way the U.S. tax system works. Indeed, for an industry that’s often held up as an exemplar of free-market capitalism, private equity is surprisingly dependent on government subsidies for its profits. Financial engineering has always been central to leveraged buyouts. In a typical deal, a private-equity firm buys a company, using some of its own money and some borrowed money. It then tries to improve the performance of the acquired company, with an eye toward cashing out by selling it or taking it public. The key to this strategy is debt: the model encourages firms to borrow as much as possible, since, just as with a mortgage, the less money you put down, the bigger your potential return on investment. The rewards can be extraordinary: when Romney was at Bain, it supposedly earned eighty-eight per cent a year for its investors. But piles of debt also increase the risk that companies will go bust."

(SNIP)

but historically private-equity firms have in principle had a powerful incentive to make companies perform better. In the past decade, though, that calculus changed. Having already piled companies high with debt in order to buy them, many private-equity funds had their companies borrow even more, and then used that money to pay themselves huge “special dividends.” This allowed them to recoup their initial investment while keeping the same ownership stake. Before 2000, big special dividends were not that common. But between 2003 and 2007 private-equity funds took more than seventy billion dollars out of their companies. These dividends created no economic value—they just redistributed money from the company to the private-equity investors.

(SNIP)

"The people who ran Harry and David into the ground have a defense: economic conditions changed in unforeseeable ways. But that’s precisely why loading firms with debt in order to reap short-term benefits is bad. It leaves companies unable to weather tough times, and allows private-equity firms to make money even if things go wrong.

As if this weren’t galling enough, taxpayers are left on the hook. Interest payments on all that debt are tax-deductible; when pensions are dumped, a federal agency called the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation picks up the tab; and the money that the dealmakers earn is taxed at a much lower rate than normal income would be, thanks to the so-called “carried interest” loophole. The money that Mitt Romney made when he was at Bain Capital was compensation for his (apparently excellent) work, but, instead of being taxed as income, it was taxed as a capital gain. It’s a very cozy arrangement.

If private-equity firms are as good at remaking companies as they claim, they don’t need tax loopholes to make money. If we capped the deductibility of corporate debt, and closed the carried-interest loophole, it would not prevent private-equity firms from buying companies or improving corporate performance. But it would reduce the incentives for financial gimmickry and save taxpayers billions every year. Private-equity firms are excellent at gaming the rules. Time to change them. ♦"


http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2012/01/30/120130ta_talk_surowiecki
More...
 
Just out of curiousity RCG...does an employed, tax paying African-American such as yourself live in a white neighborhood or predominantly black neighborhood? If you were transferred to Chicago, would you look for rentals in Englewood, Bronzeville, Lawndale or would you be more inclined to live in Lincoln Park?

After all, you express alot of solidarity for the cause, I just want to see if you really believe in it...
 
Quote from denner:

Just out of curiousity RCG...does an employed, tax paying African-American such as yourself live in a white neighborhood or predominantly black neighborhood? If you were transferred to Chicago, would you look for rentals in Englewood, Bronzeville, Lawndale or would you be more inclined to live in Lincoln Park?

After all, you express alot of solidarity for the cause, I just want to see if you really believe in it...
More...

He's already told me he would never live in the city of Chicago which is 40% black. I believe the reason he cited was the high crime. Go figure. He lives in Peoria, which is 70% white.
 
Quote from RCG Trader:

That joke needs some work if you are going to make the Angry White Man comedy tour, Mav.

But just so you know, here is klanspeak for you.

Small government
States Right
Constitutionalist

Those are the big three. Why? Because as tref mentioned on another thread, these so called states right people want to take us backwards in time to place where we were SOCIALLY.

It amazes me that some people will wrap themselves in the Constitution, and then try to forget that ONLY property owning white men could vote. Slavery was in effect, and any other kind of non-white minority were in fear of their lives.

Except, they did not forget, they know full well what the agenda is.

It is the reason why the founder of Stromfront calls Ron Paul their "king". Think that is an accident:D

Nobody else does either:)
More...

Supporting the constitution is racist? Making government smaller when we are 15 trillion dollars in debt and over 70 trillion in the hole with entitlements is racist? Really? Really? You can't be serious.
 
Quote from Maverick74:

He's already told me he would never live in the city of Chicago which is 40% black. I believe the reason he cited was the high crime. Go figure. He lives in Peoria, which is 70% white.
More...

Sounds like "Ron" is a fraud.

Maybe, we can get some ET members to put together a documentary "Ron in Englewood". Let him put all his bullshit theories on race to the test. Have him spend a month in a slum amongst his "people" and give the viewers an idea of just what a load of shit all his pet theories really are...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top