from Hacker News

A Land of Monopolists: From Portable Toilets to Mixed Martial Arts

by jayliew on 7/13/20, 2:05 PM with 48 comments

  • by ideals on 7/13/20, 2:19 PM

    2 things I got out of this, first is how I see the same names showing up multiple times. KKR and Platinum Equity seem to have a niche for obscure monopolies. And also that is seems to be a viable strategy to start a port-a-john business to be acquired by Platinum Equity's United Site Services port-a-john empire.

    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

    Like so many articles in this space, there is a lot of assumption, claims without evidence and vague assertions. The author doesn't seem to know what Predatory Pricing is. He also dismisses economics of scale as an accounting fiddle.

    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

    >"He observed that “68% of private equity buyouts are add-ons from previous acquisitions,” which is to say that most acquisitions by private equity firms are attempts to expand market power for companies they already own. A quarter of these acquisitions, in fact, are “tied to an investment with at least five add-ons.” Given that there are thousands of private equity firms making transactions every year, that’s a lot of attempts to increase market power."

    [...]

    "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

    I worry about something like this happening with housing. PE firms are sitting on a bunch of cash currently and I can imagine a scenario in which the recent damage coronavirus + lockdowns have done to the economy leads to a bunch of foreclosures. If PE firms step in to buy these homes and to manage them at scale that will just lead to further concentration of housing wealth.
  • by hash872 on 7/13/20, 3:29 PM

    It's not really the UFC's fault that multiple MMA promotions have also been attempted, and failed as businesses. No non-UFC promotion (Bellator, ONE, Rizin, KSW, Cage Warriors, LFA, etc.) has turned even a dime in profits in the last decade. And Bellator has signed multiple famous UFC fighters (former champs like Benson Henderson), including some (Phil Davis, Ryan Bader) at the height of their career. I don't think their ratings even budge a bit when these ex-UFC fighters are on.

    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

    While monopolies are bad, I don't see what's listed in this article as monopolies. I see a series of small businesses that are more profitable when economies of scale are utilized. So, the small businesses are being bought up by a few larger players.

    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

    It's the paradox of capitalism. Just ask yourself. Why in the world would a business want to compete with another business? They don't, it's not profitable. And only X amount of businesses can exist within a given radius before profits margins decline to the point of nonexistence. It's all a zero sum game. That's why established monopolies are protected by the system.
  • by dumbfoundded on 7/13/20, 4:54 PM

    It seems like the only solution to these types of rollouts happening in every industry may be based in law. The economics of rollouts make it impossible to compete in any other way.
  • by Apocryphon on 7/13/20, 5:07 PM

    WashPo: "The End of Small Business"

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23815212

  • by ghufran_syed on 7/13/20, 5:21 PM

    “private equity” is not a company, its an industry - so its not clear to me why only one private equity company at a tine would try to cash in on this opportunity? And if several such companies are trying to do the same thing, then its unlikely that any of them will become a monopoly.

    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

    Matt Stoller's posts on monopoly remind of this aphorism:

    "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

    >But [a bunch of accusations against a hedge fund] show all the fancy nonsense about economic efficiency and capital market fluidity is just that
  • by clairity on 7/13/20, 5:33 PM

    > "It would also help if it were much easier to bring and win private antitrust suits, so that we don’t have to rely on inept government enforcers."

    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.