3 ms·
> Do you think losing the equity portion of the investment means no risk? It's not fully debt financed. To quote the bandana-clad bard of Venice, CA, Mike Muir
by lenerdenator 5mo ago
> Do you think losing the equity portion of the investment means no risk? It's not fully debt financed.
To quote the bandana-clad bard of Venice, CA, Mike Muir: "it's the difference between a Porsche and a Rolls Royce".
If you're playing the LBO game at the level where you're looking at buying up chunks of a community's essential services, you are unlikely to be doing business in a way that presents meaningful risk to your personal financial situation.
- airstrike 5mo agoYou don't have to take meaningful risk to your personal financial situation for an investment to be risky. The CEO of Coca-Cola also takes no meaningful risk to their personal situation. Should we forbid CEO roles?
- lenerdenator 5mo ago> You don't have to take meaningful risk to your personal financial situation for an investment to be risky According to "high risk, high reward", yes, you do. > Should we forbid CEO roles? The current model of it? Absolutely. It's built upon the pretense that these people are the most competent available for the job and that they have a stronger-than-average innate drive to see the business succeed in a way that serves the most good to interested parties. This gets proven false on an almost daily basis in very demonstrable ways these days. I was unlucky enough to spend four years under empty suit CEOs at a former employer. Neither of those men were worth a penny of their contracts. They majorly damaged the company, its customers (hospitals), the workers' finances, and the local economy. Would a "one share, one vote" system of corporate governance have done worse? Probably not.