Private equity investors include pension funds, including those of public employees

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 3:45 PM GMT
    It is excellent that there is time for folks to understand how private equity organizations including Bain work. First stop should be to look at this article by a professor of corporate law, corporate finance and securities law at Yale Law School.
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2110145

    In coming months we will see examples of how people have been helped by benefitting from the free market system. The retired school teacher who depends on her pension to have some dignity in her retirement is an example.

    Following is from the New York Times:

    http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/wall-st-s-odd-couple-and-their-quest-to-unlock-riches/

    ... pension funds have at times made up more than 50 percent of private equity’s financing. It’s an odd pairing: the millions of working-class Americans who rely on public pensions have invested billions with the private equity industry, which in exchange has made billions for these pension funds.
    ...
    The Teacher Retirement System of Texas, which manages about $107 billion on behalf of Texas teachers, announced in November that K.K.R. and Apollo Global Management would manage $6 billion of its money. It will be invested not only in private equity but also in other asset classes managed by the two firms, including debt.

    Just last week, the New Jersey Division of Investment, the manager of New Jersey’s $66 billion public pension fund, agreed to provide Blackstone with $1.8 billion to manage. Blackstone will also invest the money in private equity as well as other investments.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 11:47 PM GMT
    Another bump for those who think private equity success comes on the back of regular folks, instead of realizing that the success for our market system helps ensure the success of regular folks who depend on a pension.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2012 12:39 AM GMT
    The reason people aren't replying to these threads is that nobody here actually has a problem with Private Equity. It's morally neutral as far as most of us are concerned. I mean, it is a little opaque, in some cases a tax avoidance scheme and it's unclear whether it actually delivers value to the investors... but I don't know many educated people who have a problem with it.

    Perhaps you should direct your desire to educate towards Gingrich and co?

    Frankly, we in Massachusetts really quite like Romney. He gave us the wonderful state healthcare we have here. Quite amazing really.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2012 12:47 AM GMT
    TigerTim saidThe reason people aren't replying to these threads is that nobody here actually has a problem with Private Equity. It's morally neutral as far as most of us are concerned. I mean, it is a little opaque, in some cases a tax avoidance scheme and it's unclear whether it actually delivers value to the investors... but I don't know many educated people who have a problem with it.

    Perhaps you should direct your desire to educate towards Gingrich and co?

    Frankly, we in Massachusetts really quite like Romney. He gave us the wonderful state healthcare we have here. Quite amazing really.

    I think the minimal response is due to some combination of agreement with no comment, and being uninterested in pursuing the subject and becoming more knowledgeable. As far as Gingrich goes, he knows what it is, but decided on a Hail Mary political tactic.

    I'll let the threads drop out of sight, but I was reading such ridiculous and ignorant comments that I wanted to, in a non-confrontational way, put some info out there, but in most cases it will fall on deaf ears.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2012 1:56 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    TigerTim saidThe reason people aren't replying to these threads is that nobody here actually has a problem with Private Equity. It's morally neutral as far as most of us are concerned. I mean, it is a little opaque, in some cases a tax avoidance scheme and it's unclear whether it actually delivers value to the investors... but I don't know many educated people who have a problem with it.

    Perhaps you should direct your desire to educate towards Gingrich and co?

    Frankly, we in Massachusetts really quite like Romney. He gave us the wonderful state healthcare we have here. Quite amazing really.

    I think the minimal response is due to some combination of agreement with no comment, and being uninterested in pursuing the subject and becoming more knowledgeable. As far as Gingrich goes, he knows what it is, but decided on a Hail Mary political tactic.

    I'll let the threads drop out of sight, but I was reading such ridiculous and ignorant comments that I wanted to, in a non-confrontational way, put some info out there, but in most cases it will fall on deaf ears.


    As Tim said, most of us understand it; don't have a problem with it per se, but know that private equity (or leveraged buy outs, as they were known before the necessary rebranding post-Millken), while morally and ethically neutral, is often a tool of a certain unseemly type of operator who wants to bet with other people's money.

    What you're actually seeking is agreement, particularly where Romney is concerned and that's what you're not getting. Like Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, Romney's business record is off-putting to most Americans and he reveals himself to be completely out of touch with the realities of most Americans' lives. That's why he won't be president.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2012 2:09 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidAs Tim said, most of us understand it; don't have a problem with it per se, but know that private equity (or leveraged buy outs, as they were known before the necessary rebranding post-Millken), while morally and ethically neutral, is often a tool of a certain unseemly type of operator who wants to bet with other people's money.

    What you're actually seeking is agreement, particularly where Romney is concerned and that's what you're not getting. Like Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, Romney's business record is off-putting to most Americans and he reveals himself to be completely out of touch with the realities of most Americans' lives. That's why he won't be president.

    I think he will be the next President, but not to belabor that point. So what I get is there is no problem with private equity, per se, but Romney is a bad guy for some reason. That apparently suggests there are differences between private equity practiced at Bain versus private equity practiced at other places. I don't think there is any substantive difference you can point to, other than Bain's business model investing in a slightly higher percentage of distressed companies. I would point others to an article by the Yale Law professor http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2110145, but I won't suggest you revisit that because you labeled him an "ideologue" with absolutely no justification, but it served your need to completely ignore everything he wrote.