4 ms·
I assume you're trying to make the point that they are well-intentioned when they decide to saddle the company with debt because it's part of a turnaround effor
by staticautomatic 8y ago
I assume you're trying to make the point that they are well-intentioned when they decide to saddle the company with debt because it's part of a turnaround effort. Empirically, that is not categorically true.
- airstrike 8y agoI assume you don't know what you're talking about, because taking on debt isn't inherently ill-intentioned.
- staticautomatic 8y agoYou've also missed the point. I'm not saying it's categorically I'll-intentioned, but it certainly is not categorically well-intentioned either.
- airstrike 8y agoIt is most certainly well-intentioned. Managers take on debt with the intention of creating, not destroying value.
- staticautomatic 8y agoIf you read about some of the more spectacular company collapses involving debt in LBO deals you will find that is not even close to being universally true.
- airstrike 8y agoInvestors in those LBOs aren't better off with the collapse of those companies. Even sophisticated investors sometimes make terrible judgement calls. Failure was not their objective. The notion that that investors don't want their investments to spectacularly fail should really be self-evident.