4 ms·

As George Carlin said, “it’s a big club, and you’re not in it.” Capitalism is not for the little guy, or at least not the version we’ve built.

by roughly 8mo ago

carl_dr 8mo ago
… they’ve built.
- AndrewKemendo 8mo ago
  Are you living in a separate system that’s not associated with capitalism? If so I’d love to know what that is so I can go there.
daedrdev 8mo ago
No equity holders get anything here, regardless if they had common stock or not
ericmay 8mo ago
It's a good quote, but it is misapplied here. Nothing is stopping you from investing in a company, or putting your money into a stock or other investment. If anything, over the years the club has become a lot less exclusive. When did Carlin say that? Think about how much more access any given person, at least in the United States, has to financial products.
- pwdisswordfishy 8mo ago
  ... it's from 2005, at the height of such access, so much so that a glut of "toxic assets" led to a worldwide recession.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - ericmay 8mo ago
    This is factually incorrect. 2005 was not the height of access to financial markets. You have much more access to financial markets and investment vehicles today than you ever have had and that continues to expand.
- roughly 8mo ago
  Right, just like all of those people who put their money into Brewdog and then got nothing for it, while the larger investors potentially got made whole. It's almost like there's two classes of investors or something - common people, and then another smaller set - a club, say - that the common people are not part of. You do not have access to the investments or financial instruments that the ultrawealthy do. Your investments are not like their investments, your returns are not their returns, the rules and regulations you face are not the ones they face. They are playing a different game than you, even when they're doing it with your money.
  - derriz 8mo ago
    No equity holders got anything out of the liquidation - whether big or small [1]. Preference shares are just as worthless as common stock if there isn’t enough money to cover debt, tax bills, employee statuary entitlements/outstanding pay, bank loans, etc. [1] https://littlelaw.co.uk/p/the-1-billion-brewdog-deal-that-left-everyone-empty-handed https://littlelaw.co.uk/p/the-1-billion-brewdog-deal-that-le...
    - roughly 8mo ago
      > No equity holders got anything out of the liquidation - whether big or small This statement is not supported by the link you posted, nor any other reporting I've seen on the matter. What I have seen is that TSG is senior to all of the other equity holders, so if there's money to be had, they're getting it before the small holders. Also from your link: > TSG was promised an 18% compound return on its investment (which means the amount they’re owed grows by 18% each year, with each year building on the last). > TSG’s preference shares entitle it to an 18% compound return on its £213 million investment. That return has snowballed over time. By 2024, it had grown to around £801 million. I can't say for sure, but I don't believe those terms were available to the average investor.
      - rcxdude 8mo ago
        Yeah, but TSG paid in 213 million and is (at max, assuming there are no creditors to pay, which seems unlikely) getting 33 million out. That's them cutting their losses, not making a profit. They could be getting about 15% of their money back instead of zero, but either way they aren't winning here, just losing slightly less hard than everyone else (though it sounds like the founders made out pretty well). (and realistically, it was probably obviously a very risky bet if the company was not able to get a better deal: these kinds of deals are generally a sign that things are already bad and getting worse, and someone is hoping to try to pull something from the wreckage: the deal obviously meant that if brewdog did manage to turn things around, the value would largely be sucked up by the preferred investors).

As George Carlin said, “it’s a big club, and you’re not in it.” Capitalism is not for the little guy, or at least not the version we’ve built.

by roughly 8mo ago

As George Carlin said, “it’s a big club, and you’re not in it.” Capitalism is not for the little guy, or at least not the version we’ve built.

carl_dr 8mo ago

… they’ve built.

AndrewKemendo 8mo ago
Are you living in a separate system that’s not associated with capitalism? If so I’d love to know what that is so I can go there.

daedrdev 8mo ago

No equity holders get anything here, regardless if they had common stock or not

ericmay 8mo ago

It's a good quote, but it is misapplied here. Nothing is stopping you from investing in a company, or putting your money into a stock or other investment. If anything, over the years the club has become a lot less exclusive. When did Carlin say that? Think about how much more access any given person, at least in the United States, has to financial products.

pwdisswordfishy 8mo ago
... it's from 2005, at the height of such access, so much so that a glut of "toxic assets" led to a worldwide recession.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- ericmay 8mo ago
  This is factually incorrect. 2005 was not the height of access to financial markets. You have much more access to financial markets and investment vehicles today than you ever have had and that continues to expand.
roughly 8mo ago
Right, just like all of those people who put their money into Brewdog and then got nothing for it, while the larger investors potentially got made whole. It's almost like there's two classes of investors or something - common people, and then another smaller set - a club, say - that the common people are not part of. You do not have access to the investments or financial instruments that the ultrawealthy do. Your investments are not like their investments, your returns are not their returns, the rules and regulations you face are not the ones they face. They are playing a different game than you, even when they're doing it with your money.
- derriz 8mo ago
  No equity holders got anything out of the liquidation - whether big or small [1]. Preference shares are just as worthless as common stock if there isn’t enough money to cover debt, tax bills, employee statuary entitlements/outstanding pay, bank loans, etc. [1] https://littlelaw.co.uk/p/the-1-billion-brewdog-deal-that-left-everyone-empty-handed https://littlelaw.co.uk/p/the-1-billion-brewdog-deal-that-le...
  - roughly 8mo ago
    > No equity holders got anything out of the liquidation - whether big or small This statement is not supported by the link you posted, nor any other reporting I've seen on the matter. What I have seen is that TSG is senior to all of the other equity holders, so if there's money to be had, they're getting it before the small holders. Also from your link: > TSG was promised an 18% compound return on its investment (which means the amount they’re owed grows by 18% each year, with each year building on the last). > TSG’s preference shares entitle it to an 18% compound return on its £213 million investment. That return has snowballed over time. By 2024, it had grown to around £801 million. I can't say for sure, but I don't believe those terms were available to the average investor.
    - rcxdude 8mo ago
      Yeah, but TSG paid in 213 million and is (at max, assuming there are no creditors to pay, which seems unlikely) getting 33 million out. That's them cutting their losses, not making a profit. They could be getting about 15% of their money back instead of zero, but either way they aren't winning here, just losing slightly less hard than everyone else (though it sounds like the founders made out pretty well). (and realistically, it was probably obviously a very risky bet if the company was not able to get a better deal: these kinds of deals are generally a sign that things are already bad and getting worse, and someone is hoping to try to pull something from the wreckage: the deal obviously meant that if brewdog did manage to turn things around, the value would largely be sucked up by the preferred investors).