4 ms·
Depends on what "worth more" means. From a purely monetary standpoint liquidation that might be true. But giving VCs who are likely already rich more money vs.
by bdavisx 9y ago
Depends on what "worth more" means. From a purely monetary standpoint liquidation that might be true. But giving VCs who are likely already rich more money vs. taking away peoples jobs isn't always the best way to "repurpose" money.
- bko 9y agoPresumably they do something with that wealth like invest it in a more profitable company or one with better prospects. If the company is unprofitable with their resources they’re destroying wealth which doesn’t serve the economy or society.
- bdavisx 9y agoBut the company was profitable before the VCs "restructured" it to basically steal (legally) everything they could. That's how the Vulture Capitalists work, there are other comments detailing this. Just because you can make money doesn't mean you should.
- kaycebasques 9y agoThis narrative about vulture capitalists seems off. The CNN Money article first says: > Its debt was downgraded to junk bond status in January of 2005, at a time when Amazon's sales were just 4% of their current level. And then it says: > A year later the company was taken private by KKR, Bain Capital and real estate firm Vornado. The fact that their bonds were downgraded to junk a year before tells me that Toys R Us was already in trouble by the time private equity stepped in.