Hey, it's you again! I was wondering if you would pop up in the comments defending private equity as you've done in the past.

Continuing our discussion from last time, can you elaborate on why you think quoting Revlon is sufficient to excuse the practical differences between public and PE companies?

▲

rkhleung 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

I had worked with PE firms for over 6 years from the other side where we would invest in PE funds operating primarily in emerging markets, about 50 or so during my time and reviewed another 50 more that we did not invest in. Most of them are pretty benign. We invested primarily in transportation, energy and infrastructure but also hospitality and industry. There are many many poorly run private companies out there that PE funds buy out and rehabilitate. One major segment for a couple of funds is the purchase of poorly run family businesses where the founder was successful because they had drive and energy and built something at the right time (or sometimes, they knew the right people) but lacked the interest or vision to take it to the next level. Or the founder is getting old and the family has managed to turn the once successful business into a money loser. This is a long about way of saying, the majority of PE firms are benign and have invested in many successful businesses that many of us use. There are bad actors and more so in the US where corporations are allowed to eat the weak. It is not a case of PE bad but much more so that US business laws have relatively weak protections for consumers.

▲

JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Continuing our discussion from last time

I have genuinely no idea who you are or what we were talking about.

> can you elaborate on why you think quoting Revlon is sufficient to excuse the practical differences between public and PE companies?

Revlon duties concern hostile takeovers [1]. You’re confusing orthogonal concepts.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revlon,_Inc._v._MacAndrews_%26....

▲

youarentrightjr 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Revlon duties concern hostile takeovers [1]. You’re confusing orthogonal concepts.

No sir, it was you who were confused - you brought them up here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46186549

> > There is a legal requirement for directors of public companies to act in the financial interests of all shareholders

> No, there isn't. The whole point of Revlon duties is that they trigger "in certain limited circumstances indicating that the 'sale' or 'break-up' of the company is inevitable" [1]. Outside those conditions, "the singular responsibility of the board" is not "to maximize immediate stockholder value by securing the highest price available."

I'll leave it up to you to recontextualize with the remainder of that thread if you want to continue discussing.

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 days ago | parent [-]

> you brought them up here

Within that context, what's confusing you? And where did I argue that "quoting Revlon is sufficient to excuse the practical differences between public and PE companies?"

Revlon duties are a specialised duty that apply in certain circumstances. They don't in others. The other situation is what we were talking about; herego, those special duties don't apply to the other situation, which is part of the general situation. It's an old piece of rhetoric [1].

If you're consistently getting downvoted in a thread, and the other side getting upvoted, try re-reading it instead of presuming sanctity. Especially if you haven't worked in a field, are mixing up terminal and are e.g. citing legal argument about a private company to make arguments about a public one (Ford).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule...

	▲	youarentrightjr 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> If you're consistently getting downvoted in a thread, and the other side getting upvoted, try re-reading it instead of presuming sanctity. Lol, what a humble take. We all know in this VC owned forum that only truth is upvoted, and lies downvoted, especially on topics like private equity. > Revlon duties are a specialised duty that apply in certain circumstances. They don't in others. The other situation is what we were talking about Again you're operating insincerely, because as I told you last time, and this time, Revlon does not relate to what I'm referring to. I even quoted you Dodge v Ford Motor Co as a jump off point for your education, which you refused to acknowledge due to it being "from over 100 years ago". Anyways I'm curious if you'll share your background, and why you're consistently in these discussions about private equity, rabidly playing defense?