The problem is if companies are bought by credit. Companies bind a lot of money (in assets but also less concrete goods like people and expertise). If you buy

The problem is if companies are bought by credit. Companies bind a lot of money (in assets but also less concrete goods like people and expertise). If you buy a company you need to pay for all of that even including _"potential"_ even if realizing that potential also would likely destroy the company. So if you pay for it with liquidity that would "just" bind liquidity. But if you pay for it with credit you now have to _pay of the credit_ or at least pay the interests. So if the company made 100x€ profit every month but you have to pay 200x€ in interests every month to pay it of after 20 years then the investor loses 100x€ every month. Now that is the investor not the company and after 20 years they would make 100x€ profit, but for most investors that would be a major losing deal (I mean ignoring interests on interest, inflation etc. that would be 40€ until crossing even!). In such situation the investor has a few choices, one paying of the additional 100€ with profit from a different company bought before where any interests are payed of. But humans only life so long, which brings us to the other solution: Forcefully raise the profit from 100x to 200x to pay of interests squeezing out the company, then either resell a "now more profitable company" for more money or if the value of the company falls have some shenanigans ready to tax write of the loss in value.... Worse similar to a mortgage you can take on a house you can (at least in the US) make a contract where you get a credit you have to use to buy a company (or more like the lender directly pays a part of the cost) and the insurance for the credit is the company itself leading to a situation where the company basically now has to itself pay the 200x interests instead of the buyer. (example Twitter). Now I'm gross oversimplifying things, but basically our financial system is so messed up that if a sustainable company gets bought there is a good chance it gets fucked up soon afterwards in one way or another. This in turn is not sustainable for the industry as a whole. Now you might argue what has that to do with this case as not a person but another journalistic outlet bought them, well that other outlet is for profit and is likely to act as much as described above as a person. Buy, squeeze, resell or buy gut-out and write of is as much a case there then if a unrelated 3rd party would have bought it, and gut-out works much better if the buyer is from the same industry branch.