by jayliew on 7/13/20, 2:05 PM with 48 comments
by ideals on 7/13/20, 2:19 PM
Also Dana White hasn't been run out of town yet and everyday I wonder how that is still possible.
by LatteLazy on 7/13/20, 5:18 PM
I sympathetize with his general position (as life gets complex, barriers to entry rise and markets of many small companies are replaced by one's of a few big companies.
But then he gets lost in his own prejudices/conspiracy theories about harvard, financial engineering etc. Not really helpful to his wider point...
by peter_d_sherman on 7/13/20, 5:55 PM
[...]
"Doing a roll-up is designed to take advantage of how capital markets value bigger companies versus small ones, or what is called multiple expansion.
Buying a small family owned business for three to four times its cash flow
(or what is known in annoying accounting-speak as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization, abbreviated as EBITDA), putting it into a conglomerate that financiers then call a ‘platform’ or ‘market leader’, means you can often
sell the much bigger company for eight to ten times that cash flow later on."
My comments:
Buy low, sell high...
Makes sense from a pure business perspective...
by jeffreyrogers on 7/13/20, 3:50 PM
by hash872 on 7/13/20, 3:29 PM
I don't think the UFC should have been allowed to buy Strikeforce, and I think many of their restrictive contract provision should be struck down in court. But it's not the government's fault that none of the UFC's competitors are unable to turn a profit, and I don't really see a role for government there overall. If some business models don't work in practice, they don't work
by tenpoundhammer on 7/13/20, 6:43 PM
When saying this is bad, what is the author optimizing for?
This market consolidation should decrease consumer prices, as long as actual monopolies are not in place and price fixing doesn't occur. At the same time the individual owners are getting buy-outs they are happy with. Seems fine to me.
What am I missing?
by skee0083 on 7/13/20, 5:19 PM
by dumbfoundded on 7/13/20, 4:54 PM
by Apocryphon on 7/13/20, 5:07 PM
by ghufran_syed on 7/13/20, 5:21 PM
Its like worrying about “real estate investors” getting a “monopoly” on the ownership of houses - it’s not going to happen. Real estate investors are part of the market, and having an additional source of demand tends to raise prices, which is bad for new buyers and good for existing homeowners. But there is no monopoly.
by chmaynard on 7/13/20, 10:31 PM
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, it's tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail."
by amadeuspagel on 7/13/20, 8:42 PM
by clairity on 7/13/20, 5:33 PM
the examples enumeration is good information, but to me, this quoted bit would have been a better jumping off point for an article.
what are the precedents and barriers to private antitrust suits?
monopolies are a scourge and a bane to free markets.