Because a PE fund is at most a seven year timeline, and everybody knows it. There is absolutely no incentive to add value beyond the next sale, and often you only need to add the perception of value. To quote my CTO of a PE owned company: "we want to make it look like we're on the road to <big investment in strategic roadmap>", not actually accomplish it

▲

JumpCrisscross a day ago | parent [-]

> Because a PE fund is at most a seven year timeline

Berkshire Hathaway is a PE fund with permanent capital.

Broadly speaking, making generalisatios about PE is almost impossible because it's an asset class which is, essentially, all non-public business. Instead, it's more useful to think about which element private equity touches you're specifically complaining about: capitalism in general, financial transparency, leverage and liability.

▲

delfinom a day ago | parent [-]

The problem with PE is only the hyper aggressive and generally terrible ones make the news.

The quiet ones that simply run business well, don't make the news.

There are PE firms that specialize in rescuing distressed companies with potential and turning them around. In many cases not firing anyone and holding onto the form they acquired for a long time.

	▲	JumpCrisscross a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> quiet ones that simply run business well, don't make the news And don’t call themselves PE. They’re a diversified family business. Or a VC fund. Or whatever the fuck the Ellison’s are doing to Paramount.
	▲	a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]