The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-22-2012, 01:24 PM   #1
Happy Monkey
I think this line's mostly filler.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45 View Post
Also, I am aware of how they would sometimes basically make money off a dying company but how often would that be? I'm guessing it couldn't happen all the time or else why would anyone allow them to buy them?
Companies aren't usually owned by the rank and file employees. If the owners were offered a tidy sum, they might take it, and console themselves over the destruction of their company with piles of money.

Or there are hostile takeovers.
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]
Happy Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2012, 01:27 PM   #2
Griff
still says videotape
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,813
I have no idea either, but companies usually stick close to a business model and we've seen some of Bain's work.
__________________
If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you.
- Louis D. Brandeis
Griff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 06:57 AM   #3
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
The concept of mergers and acquisitions (leveraged buyouts) can go either way. If the purpose of an M&A company is only to make a profit, then companies are disassembled because its pieces are worth more than the company's stock value. That occurs when a company's management is bad (ie General Motors, Chrysler, Kodak).

If the purpose of an M&A company is to make better products and companies, then companies are either disassembled or reorganized to make the economy productive. In this case, profits are a reward; not the objective.

The movie Working Girl (Harrison Ford, Melanie Griffith, Sigourney Weaver) demonstrated leveraged buyouts rechanneled into a productive concluson. What would be a destructive M&A redirected into creating a healthier organization.

KKR (Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) used high yield capital markets to merge RJR and Nabisco into one company. Then sell off parts to repay the debt. IOW KKR did nothing to make the economy or either company prosper. Simply earned massive profits by moving capital around. Incurring massive debt meant liquidity used to enrich the new management while mortaging future profits. Playing money games on a popular myth - a big company is more productive when made even bigger. In reality, a bigger company only ends up with more layers of management. And a massive debt where none existed. IOW how to print money.

Some examples of the resulting destruction include Regal movie theaters, Denny's, Toys-R-Us, and Harmon stereo. Most were profitable for the M&A investment firm. Were either destructive or did nothing for the targetted companies.

Kohlberg eventually had a fallout with Kravis and Roberts because KKR was making money at the expense of large companies (ie RJR Nabisco). And was not earning profits by merging small firms that could profit from being merged with a compatible firm. Mergers and aquisitions can do good for small, existing firms by doing what venture capital does for startups. M&A gets a bad reputation when it mortgages companies (incurs long term debt) for the short term benefit of investors.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
adak is teh whack


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:00 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.