[awillen]

This grossly (and incorrectly) oversimplifies an enormous industry with a number of different approaches. Some PE firms absolutely strip the assets out of businesses and maximize their short term profits, while others buy and hold for the long term and others add value to companies they buy then sell them or take them public.

I hate the whole "PE is evil" attitude from people who don't understand it. Often there are headlines about how a PE firm has taken a firm over and fired hundreds or thousands of people, and the connotation is very much that they are evil and greedy for profit at the expense of people's livelihoods, while the reality is the business in its current form was going to fail and take everyone's job with it, and it was necessary to cut jobs in order to save the business (and thus save the jobs that remain).

I know the industry is an easy target because it's a bunch of rich guys and some of them are definitely greedy profiteers, but it's just unhelpful to label the whole industry based on those. If you go by that logic then the whole tech industry is very much evil because it exploits cheap labor (Uber, DoorDash, etc.).

[akira2501]

> while the reality is the business in its current form was going to fail and take everyone's job with it, and it was necessary to cut jobs in order to save the business

As a rate, how many business are actually "saved" by PE firms?

> (and thus save the jobs that remain)

Wouldn't that be simpler with a general bankruptcy? What is gained when a third party, often encumbered with leverage, gets involved?

> but it's just unhelpful to label the whole industry based on those

It's equally unhelpful to expect the minority players in an industry to define that industry.

> the whole tech industry is very much evil because it exploits cheap labor (Uber, DoorDash, etc.).

To engage the hyperbole, the current iteration of it may well be. I expected flying cars and trips to the moon, not face recognition surveillance, deep fakes and manipulative social networks.

Realistically... PE on it's own, and tech on it's own may be neutral concepts, but our current lack of regulation of their specific markets really shows.

[awillen]

You're obviously coming in with an anti-PE bent here, so if you're that interested you can pull up some statistics on PE outcomes and leave them here. My point was that OP's labeling of PE firms is overgeneralized - if you want to talk about percentages of outcomes and what type of PE is the minority then you're welcome to bring that info with you to discuss. I'm not going to do it for you.

[TheCoelacanth]

> Wouldn't that be simpler with a general bankruptcy? What is gained when a third party, often encumbered with leverage, gets involved?

A bankruptcy is getting a third party (a court) involved to redistribute ownership or sell off assets and redistribute the proceeds and to decide how the company will be run while all of that is happening.

That is a good deal more complicated than simply selling the company to someone who wants to run it differently.

[M2Ys4U]

>I know the industry is an easy target because it's a bunch of rich guys and some of them are definitely greedy profiteers, but it's just unhelpful to label the whole industry based on those. If you go by that logic then the whole tech industry is very much evil because it exploits cheap labor (Uber, DoorDash, etc.).

The whole VC-backed tech industry, yes.

[antihero]

> If you go by that logic then the whole tech industry is very much evil because it exploits cheap labor (Uber, DoorDash, etc.).

I mean, a lot of the tech industry really is just focused on extracting value from other people's labour, or replacing them altogether.

[awillen]

I mean that's a lot of most industries in a capitalist system (at least the extraction of value from labor).