4 ms·
I think the point is these media companies are near-worthless, if vulture funds didn't buy them no one else would and they'd just fold.
by zz865 5y ago
I think the point is these media companies are near-worthless, if vulture funds didn't buy them no one else would and they'd just fold.
- human_person 5y agoWhat do you mean by 'near-worthless'? A small radio station that provides connection, information and entertainment to a rural area and a handful of jobs for community members might be "worthless" in the sense that it wont create massive returns for an investor but that doesnt make it worthless to the community it is a part of. The problem is these vultures come in make false promises about supporting the station and then suck it dry. In the end the vultures walk away with a tidy profit and the community is worse off. Just because we cant quantify the value of something in terms of hard currency doesnt make it worthless.
- haneefmubarak 5y agoI believe that by "near-worthless" they mean that a given company is hemorrhaging assets and basically about to fold. A business that continuously runs net negative has to close at some point without an external influx of capital, after all. The alleged theory goes that since without the help of some fund such a company is going to fold anyways, the fund can't really do much worse than the alternative, so might as well let them have a shot at repairing the business and rescuing it. Sometimes they're successful, sometimes they're not.
- zz865 5y agoYeah I mean economically worthless, not socially useful.
- knownjorbist 5y agoShareholder returns aren't the only value these organizations can provide.