Basically, the company had to pay for its own buyout when private equity firms KKL, Vornado, and Bain bought the company for $6.6 billion, mostly with loans.
Because the company then had to pay off those extreme loans, they were forced to sell off their assets and property, which they leased back from the very private equity firms that now owned them.
The same thing happened more recently with Red Lobster and JoAnn Fabrics.
I think Kmart and Sears are in this list, too, along with Bed, Bath, and Beyond and even some hospitals. There’s nothing private equity forms won’t do to make a buck at the expense of a once thriving company or even people’s healthcare.
Often private equity is invested in their competitors. One of the problems of rich people having ungodly sums is they like to “invest” in competitors and sell them for parts so they can raise prices.
Also Red Lobster.
I generally feel like leveraged buyouts for numbers into the billions are just inside jobs for those selling.
Stay with me for a sec.
So the seller makes a closed door deal with the “buyer” to funnel money back to them personally after the sale is done. So in this case, say, they commit 3.6bn to the “buyers” and pocket 3bn for themselves. Almost the entire purchase is leveraged, with the expectation that it will become unsustainable and go bankrupt shortly after the purchase.
The buyers don’t really give a shit, they’ll write it off, collect whatever they can from insurance, etc. They didn’t really want to company anyways, so they let it fold.
The money they took home from the deal with the seller is entirely theirs, the company bears the weight of the debt and the consequences of defaulting on the debt, so the execs that made the move are basically free and clear.
Everyone wins, except, you know, the poors who work at the purchased company, the banks, who don’t give a shit, and insurance people, which… Nobody gives a fuck about them…
At the end of the day, the execs of the purchasing company get rich, the sellers get rich, and that’s the fucking point.
If the sellers instead just closed up shop, they would get maybe a fraction of the money they would from selling it, mainly in selling off assets… It would be a pittance compared to this scheme.
All they need to do is find someone they can buy out the morals of, to complete the deal. This is surprisingly easy in the corpo world.
Ok, but who is providing the loans for the buy out. When they default on the debt someone or some thing is not getting paid. If that were the case eventually no company would loan money for a leveraged but out right?
The banks, and/or the insurance companies.
In the case of the banks, the money isn’t real and never existed in the first place.
The fiat money system is pretty fucked when you understand it.
At worst they take the “loss” and at best, they get bailed out by public dollars.
Pick whatever fits your ideals.
Bear with me for a bit, because i don’t understand these schemes.
If the sellers instead just closed up shop, they would get maybe a fraction of the money they would from selling it, mainly in selling off assets… It would be a pittance compared to this scheme.
How would the sellers get more money from this scheme? Isn’t liquidating company assets are basically what the buyers (the private equity firms) did anyway?
collect whatever they can from insurance
How does the insurance companies keep falling for these? This has happened several times, and insurance companies aren’t known for being charitable.
It keeps working because the insurance/bank systems are evaluating things on the merit of the lender and their business plan. Anyone can make a decent business plan that will pass muster if you fiddle with it long enough. And the individual company/organisation that is defaulting on these are a dime-a-dozen. Since the failure of the loan goes down with the ship (and company), even if the borrower’s ask for more money tomorrow, as long as the request is coming from a different company/organization, the banks evaluate based on the organisation that is requesting the loan, not the leadership’s failed previous attempts from other businesses.
Incorporated companies have limited liability from their owners. While the owners operate as agents of the business, ultimately the business itself is liable for their decisions. They don’t bear any responsibility. So their actions are based on what will get them, personally, the most value extracted from the business, not based on what’s good for the long-term success of the company itself.
deleted by creator
Every time I read something like this, it makes me want to burn money.
Well, money is only as valuable as we think it is, and what goods or services it can be traded for.
The money itself carries very little value itself, only what we assign to it, or associate to it.
If the economic system based on the currency currently in use collapses, the money you have won’t be worth the paper it’s printed on.
Why did they have to pay off the loans that were used to buy them? That’s something the buyer should be responsible for.
Probably because the C suite assholes who negotiated the buyout agreed to place the burden of the loan on their own company and shaft their employees. It’s basic capitalism, really.
Basic? It seems this kind of wizardry only happens to companies who are in their own kind of abomonative category. I’ve never seen this happen to small to large businesses. They are also capitalism, that doesn’t make sense
The exact workings im not familiar with but it’s called “leveraged buyout” where the net worth of the firm which is bought is the collateral.
So … you buy firm A with money you lended. When the sale gors through all belongings of firm A are yours! So you sell them off, you know what? You want to make a profit so you sell EVERYTHING.
Now firm A is but a husk of it’s former self. So now is the time to put it in some holding company or something. Now the husk of firm A is indebted to you.
Oh noes! It goes bankrupt! With your investment firm as the biggest lender to it!
should
Yep.
Back to the good old corporate raiders like Lorenzo. For a while there we kept them on a leash. Now with the Land of No Consequences and leashes becoming meaningless these leeches are free to buy and pillage as they see fit. The housing market is gonna be destroyed next, wait until they start selling the homes off to shell companies and taking loans to pay for the deteriorating properties and property taxes (which trump has floated getting rid of to keep these hoarders afloat even longer).
That’s why the Canadian toys r us is doing great.
Too bad we can’t say the same for Sears
Everything they did was to line their pockets and destroy the company and leave creditors holding the bag. They should ban buying with loans, no taking loans against acquired companies for X years. The sale and leasing of assets back by the same owners stinks.
My first ever job as a high school kid was stocking the shelves at Toys R Us; I have found memories of that place, and those people to this day.
Fuck Mitt Romney, I will never forgive him for this treachery.
Should have paid them back in Geoffrey Dollars.
I highly recommend the book, ‘Bad Company’ by Megan Greenwell, which covers this exact topic. Great read.
This is one of those situations where it once again shows that:
- Private equity stakes in companies are bullshit and at the very least need to be utterly regulated to hell and back.
- More specifically, it should not be allowed to buy a company “on debt”. If you want to buy somebody, you need cash-on-hand to do that. That’s the only allowed form.
Selling property to rent it back should also be super illegal. Is there ever a time this makes sense. If you want to sell land to profit, close the fucking place, there’s no way it’ll suddenly be more profitable while renting.
Not defending PE, but there are situations where this type of thing would make sense. If the rates were low enough a company could cash out it’s property value using something like this and use the cash for an expansion, to make a moonshot investment, or maybe as a last ditch to survive in a downturn.
That’s not what’s happening here, but turning real assets to cash through debt to then invest in the business is a decent tactic.
I see your point, though I don’t know of an example (they’re doing it with Hospitals now too).
Still if you have so many locations that you have enough capital in their land, it seems like closing the locations that you’d sell would make a moonshot more likely to succeed.
Yeah, since I wrote that I’ve been trying to think of a real world example and haven’t come up with one. Perhaps my ramblings are purely hypothetical or maybe pulled directly from my ass.
McLaren did this with their campus location to allow them to restructure (survive)
the government rarely wants to incentivise direct job loss
Wouldn’t using those assets as collateral for a loan achieve the exact same thing though? Conceptually it’s the same principle except you retain your ownership if you don’t default.
I guess selling the asset would bring in slightly more immediate revenue than loaning (at the expense of extreme volatility in long term costs). But I don’t think this justification really makes sense for a company not trying to cook the books. If this kind of move ever becomes a true necessity, entering a bankruptcy procedure is probably a better option for everyone involved lol
It would make sense for me to sell my apartment and rent it back because I get fucked by ODSP if I take a roommate while I’m an owner and I can’t afford to live here alone.
It would make sense for an entity that needs to make use of their equity for other things. Many many individuals and companies mortgage their properties or get secured loans. That’s basically the same thing.
If you’re a business owning a building, maintenance is another thing you have to take care of as well as the business. If you’re not equipped to maintain the building or pay people to do it, then it might be better to rent and have the landlord take care of that stuff.
My union is selling our building because it wasn’t really anybody’s job to keep up on maintenance for the last 30 years. Now people that care are in there and they got estimates and whatnot, and it came to like a $600,000 bill to get it all caught up.
So we’re partnering with a local non-profit and moving our office in to their space with meeting rooms and whatnot that we can share. We have one meeting a month and training sessions already happen elsewhere. All of work is done away from the building aside from 3 people in the office full time, so it makes sense in our situation.
Yeah this makes sense, basically the downsizing I was talking about. Though I was thinking about an org with many branches, rather than underutilized office space.
it should not be allowed to buy a company “on debt”. If you want to buy somebody, you need cash-on-hand to do that. That’s the only allowed form.
A company is not somebody, it’s a thing, like a home or a car that you have no problem getting a loan to pay for. Or maybe it’s special because we’re talking about a means of production? C’mon. Say it. Say “means of production.”
No, no companies are people. Buying and selling them is slavery.
The Supreme Court said corporations are people enough to be protected by the first amendment.
The Supreme Court can say the moon is a person and the sun is God. It can decide what entities it will extend the protection of rights to, but it cannot redefine what a person is outside of its own technical jargon.
Citizens United has entered the chat
The very first words of US law:
1 U.S. Code § 1 - Words denoting number, gender, and so forth
…the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
Okay? That’s a definition that only has scope within that specific document and those it governs. Plus, it’s a definition of two entirely different words.
If we had a strong reform minded government, our leaders could oppose these parasites, and then make examples out of those that mistreat our productive companies. Like which of these private Equity douchebags can’t be hit with a crime for something or another? Not a single one, you can get everyone with the tax evasion charges.
We need leaders that protect us from these monied parasites.
below is a reply to a comment I made below, pasting here as I find it crazy how this went down and is allowed.
For those curious I did a little digging. I’m on mobile so won’t be going in and out to add company names etc.
Basically, the private equity firms got together and said let’s buy Toy R Us for $6.6B but we only want to use say 300M of our own money and get a loan for the rest.
Then they bought Toys R Us but made them sell all assets to equity firms which then leased them back to Toys R Us so they could pay back the loans. This means Toys R Us are paying hundreds of million a year to cover loans and can’t put that money into making a better business.
The private equity firms also made Toys R Us issue dividends in the hundreds of millions so private equity can make money.
In the end private equity walked away with over $1B in profit whilst Toys R Us declared bankruptcy with $5B still left to pay.
What a fucking insane system. Like how many people lost their jobs so these ghouls could make some extra cash off its downfall.
And people think I’m crazy for making my life harder by not shopping at places like Amazon or being a pirate and not giving money to Netflix etc.
I feel I am living in crazy land. Like the Uk has all our pensions and shit tied to the damn stock market, ensuring we can never really leave this system.
Sweet jesus. How is this not some kind of hyper mega ultra fraud?
I have no idea and it seems insane to me.
I was looking for the same thing in my country, UK, thinking we can’t be as bad as America, but nope many of the companies that have died during my life have been due to LBOs. The world is insane and I don’t see how we can change it.
In the UK I learnt that Asda one of our largest supermarkets is in a similar place due to two brothers doing an LBO to buy it. Now it’s saddled with debt meaning it won’t be able to innovate like Tesco or Sainsbury’s and thus will likely just bleed customers. Makes me wonder why these two brothers with more money than God would want to carry on, like I literally can’t comprehend wanting more than you need. Perhaps I have different motivations as I see time as my most precious asset and will earn less money than I could just for the easier life of being able to chill more and do the things I like.
It is insane. You’re not crazy, or at least if you are we can be crazy together because I also think the whole thing is rotten to the core.
It’s pretty disgusting what the borgeousie get up to and away with. The whole world is broken. How we have decided society is going to work and run is all one big collective illusion anyways; we might as well make the mirage nicer for the majority of us humans instead of scrabbling like crabs climbing over one another to get to the top.
Anyways, I think part of the problem is once you see the illusion there isn’t much of anything to do about it as an individual because there’s so much going on out of your control.
I think that’s a big part of why we’re seeing more anxiety and depression than ever - because we know how we live (particularly in the west but really almost everywhere) is not sustainable, destroys the environment and causes suffering on a global scale but we keep dutifully existing quietly in the system as the cogs we are.
I like all the stuff I have, I like my car and house and standard of living but I don’t know if it would be feasible for the whole world to live like me and I’m not even rich or that well off. That’s the real crazy part. I have some privilege, I know I’m at least better off than half of my fellow Americans … But still I am just a proletariat like every other person working for wages.
the primary shareholders of a company can usually do whatever they please (as they should in the case of some proprietorship) as such can sell whatever assets for whatever price.
Because bankers buy politicians and if people complain they buy news coverage to call the naysayers socialists
I’m kind of financially illiterate
what part of the firm’s actions were fraudulent? if they make an offer and toys r us accepts, there’s nothing predatory going on is there?
Many of these are hostile buyouts, which means they use their money to buy a majority of shares in the company and then overthrow the board. I don’t know if the Toys R Us sale was one of those though.
And they’re not saying it is fraudulent. Just that it should be fraudulent.
It’s not hard to use financial trickery to temporarily tank a stock price making it easier to buy up a company. When redditors went after gamestop shortsellers, the shortsellers used tricks to dip the stockprice just low enough just temporarily enough to trigger margin calls and crush the redditors.
It wasn’t fraud but it was poor business decisions based on their hope for massive growth instead of seeing success as steady profitability. They sold off assets (real estate) and then signed up to lease the property back from the new real estate owners. This shifted assets to liabilities. They idea would be to use cash to grow the business. They took too much cash as distributions to investors instead of making sound long term business decisions that would keep ToysRUs operating for the long term.
thank you for the explanation
What I don’t understand about the whole thing is who ends up holding the bag of all that debt?
Like banks that lend them billions must be intelligent enough to know how private equity takeovers like this work. So if they lend them money, they surely would want to get that off their books asap. But who do they sell it to? I can’t imagine there is any type of reinsurance for this, since insurance providers should know even better.
I imagine some of the debt is to employees and small contractors, but can that really account for such a massive sum?
So the Equity Holders (The Private Equity firms) were largely shielded from risk as they had taken out billions in dividends and they had a small equity state relative to the debt meaning their downside was limited.
The creditors (large banks) were left holding the bag, but they’d had years of interest payments so they wrote off the rest and likely still made some profit.
Employees, suppliers, and landlords. Employees lose their jobs, suppliers get pennies on the dollar for what they’re owed and landlords might have got some money but still not all.
So in short it was the banks, but don’t forget they had years of interest payments and after all they took the risk.
Well, I mean, banks kind of ‘invent’ the money which they hand out as loans…so what do they care, really?
When the pile of bad loans gets to big, they sell those bundled as loot boxes to other banks. When that pile starts stinking too much, they are too big to fail and get bailed out. That’s the circle of life 🪇🎶
Welcome to the house of cards that is globalisation and capitalism.
landlords might have got some money but still not all.
This is assuming that the landlords aren’t also the private equity companies as well. So far as I can tell in long term care/assisted living/skilled nursing facilities, the same parent company owns everything, but the food branch is separate from the nursing branch, is separate from the physical rehabilitation branch, is separate from the admin services, and since they are all separate from the building branch, they are all operating “at a loss since” they have employees to pay. All the money goes to the building branches and everyone else gets told to do more with less.
The banks can also technically short the stock as well once the buyout was public, knowing how shit the deal was they can make money on the downside at the expense of all the pensions, 401ks etc that had initially bought the stock. There also isnt a limit that prevents shorting the stock more than shares are in existence. Hence why the gamestop situation was close to breaking the whole stock market a few years back when they started turning everything around for the companies bottom line. With the stock now able to make it think a bout a billion more shares over time the out for the short side has been sort of given without completely nuking the market. But as when the shares are diluted is up to the board it allows gamestop to take advantage of the short side to create more cash on hand for themselves threw timing their market offerings to coincide with when swaps that are housing those shorts come due. In the toys r us case the executives and board were happy to take their golden parachute from the buyout and let ordinary people’s pensions and 401ks carry the bag for them in the form of the stock going to zero and eventually being delisted from the market.
Not sure this applies here as it was a private buyout meaning that there would be no stock to short.
They could have shorted it before the buyout to get a better deal, but the banks didn’t buy it the just lent the money.
Also shorting before could be seen as insider trading, right? Not that something being illegal means it wouldn’t happen, but feels like that would be hard to hide.
So we make interest illegal and the whole scam falls apart, got it.
and if you do that most of the economy fails because no one wants a bond that does nothing
The current economy sucks anyway. Houses as investments, line-go-up disposable consumerism, rent-seeking, it’s all fucked if you aren’t born on top.
seems fine for anyone that already has a house, like everyone should (for hundreds of years)
Sadly the only way is a lot more Luigi’s. If more CEO’s start getting wigged off maybe they’ll lobby for change.
Just sad that most people have it just good enough to not want to risk prison forever to murder someone, although if I could get away with it I’d have no issue in pulling the trigger on these ghouls.
Companies are valued by earnings-per-share, independent of the assets. So if the P/E ratio is too low the company costs less than its assets and it pays off to sell the parts.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price–earnings_ratio
In this case I heard a rumor that Amazon did it to dominate the toy market, so losses could have been acceptable.
I heard a rumor that Amazon did it to dominate the toy market
I certainly would not put it past them.
Alot of debt gets bundled into bonds or other investment vehicles and sold. So small retail investors, retirement funds, etc end up holding the bag. Sometimes the banks lose, but they can take tax write offs and if the loses are too great, they can often get bailed out by the government.
IIRC it was Mitt Romneys firm that did it to (technically after he left leadership, if i recall)
Impossible! Mitt Romney is one of the good conservatives!
/s because tens of millions of liberals actually believe that it’s true.
He is one of the ones who actually wants a functioning government.
Just saw this after making my comment. I believe it was.
Bain Capital
Not technically, it was years after he left Bain.
Look up Cellar boxing, you’ll see all the companies that were driven out of business because of this strategy
It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.
Truer now than when Henry Ford said it like a hundred years go.
The SEC exists to shelter Self Regulating Organizations from any threats of democratic governance or law enforcement. Oh ya and to keep up the legalese charade that there literally is no such thing as counterfeit stock (because the Secret Service has purview over counterfeiting for some strange reason)
Fuck the stock market 🖕
The Secret Service has purview over counterfeiting because that’s what it was founded for. More confusing is why they became the presidential protection service from there.
In a sane world that would be life in prison illegal.
Sadly we live in crazy town.
Wait until you hear about using shorts to drive a company out of business or stock buy backs.
Wasn’t it Bain Capital (Mitt Romney’s old place of work), or am I misremembering?
Yes, that was one of them.
From OP
Basically, the company had to pay for its own buyout when private equity firms KKL, Vornado, and Bain bought the company for $6.6 billion, mostly with loans.
Ah, I skimmed it and must have skipped over that
It’s cool. My intention wasn’t to call you out.
And people think I’m crazy for making my life harder by not shopping at places like Amazon or being a pirate and not giving money to Netflix etc.
You’re not crazy; you’re smart.
The average person just doesn’t want to accept how stupid they are.
The hypersane smart get called crazy by conformists.
Its best to plan to not have a retirement fund. Plenty of communities just take care of each other instead.
I’m not sure what you mean. We have a state pension tied to the stock market.
I also have a private pension too. I don’t see how not planning for retirement can be beneficial?
The UK state pension is largely a Ponzi scheme, no? Those paying tax now fund those receiving pensions now with some promise that they’ll get returns in the future. The only difference is it’s backed by the currency issuer and they’re pretty up front about it.
I don’t know that I would call it a Ponzi scheme, although I could argue for it based on current trends.
Basically, the everybody pays in to the state pension with the understanding that it pays for retired people. So yes people paying in now are covering those that have retired.
The thing is now though is that birth rates are not keeping up with retirements, understandably as why would you have a child in this shit hole, so that means each year it’s harder and harder to pay for the pensioners.
The above is incredibly funny when you look at this silly anti immigration rhetoric, we need more immigration to sustain old people not less. These fools will be shocked when they ban immigration and retire and the state is like yeah we got nothing.
What’s worse is it isn’t means tested which I would support but many older people don’t as they see it as they paid in expecting it back where I see it as paying in to support those that need it.
So I have two bosses one is amazing and very progressive and has never done wrong by their 6 employees. The other is not so much progressive and is soon to retire. He is selling his house for £500k, has lots in savings already and is taking his state pension because, and I quote “ I paid in so it’s mine”, now I can’t fathom this behaviour as I don’t want more than I need and would happily not take money if I can support myself.
Alas, these are the people that vote so we are fucked.
Yeah, this is the case for most “public to private” company moves, and other types of private equity acquisition deals. They are all just a massive shell game to liquidate a company’s value and transfer it to those private equity companies. Vulture Capitalism
Comical to read this when I just saw a $50 billion dollar sale of EA going private being bought by private equity firms, haha.
My first thought as well. Of companies to lose to further “investor” shittery, I can’t say I’ll lose much sleep over EA if that turns out to be the case.
EA was down the path of being awful, long before that. But yeah…
I was guessing that it was going to be leveraged as a propaganda outlet given the Kushner and Saudi connections, but it does seem more likely that it’ll just be hollowed out and thrown away.
If EA gets bled dry by private equity, it’ll probably be the biggest company to go down that way ever.
Not Sears?
I don’t really know if that’s the same kind of animal though. The Saudi royal family is trying desperately hard to diversify. Into as many different revenue streams as they can. You know to Stave off the coming disaster. So I think maybe they’re actually in it for real with EA, though why you bank on a video game company being a long-term investment I’m not 100% sure. Point is they have so much money now I doubt it’s for a quick profit. They have so many projects right now that are so risky they’re basically burning cash.
When you think about how much money EA’s main soccer title makes from microtransactions alone, it certainly makes sense to buy them out
Assuming the Saudis buy EA out for 55 billion and earnings don’t change much from now on, they’ll recover the expenses in 9 years.
Death Spiral Financing is one of those things that should be shouted from the rooftops by anyone who wants to spread anti capitalism. It so cleanly displays the evil inherent to the system.
vulture capitalism
No other kind. Every major gain is just made by eating a corpse you don’t acknowledge-polluting the air or putting plastics in all our blood or slopping us with malevolent ux and llm’s.
And the same thing is happening to hospitals all over the US, which should fucking terrify you.
Yeah but they have Jesus so they’ll be okay.
What’s crazy is that the Catholic hospitals are becoming your best bet.
So you’re kinda right!
Unless you want care they consider morally objectionable.
I don’t want religion anywhere near my medical care, it’s crazy it got to this point
Used to be all hospitals were religious in nature. And don’t conflate Catholic hospitals with Evangelical nut jobs, whole different worlds.
Or are a kind of person they consider objectionable.
Ex-wife was a sort of surgeon at the local Catholic hospital. Never heard of anyone being denied care on religious grounds. Of course they’re not going to do an abortion, but that’s about it.
We should really restrain what private equity can invest in.
Already happened, hospitals, clinics, ambulances, but also housing.
These parasites are going to ruin us all and we are doing nothing about it.
What will really shift your thinking is finding out that they have done this to almost all the hospitals in the United States, which is part of the reason healthcare costs have skyrocketed.
Hospitals need more to pay their leases, health insurers need to pay more to feed the hospitals machine, premiums go way up/more services restricted/more cost share (copay etc)
If you think it’s shitty that consumers can’t own anything anymore, they stole your wellbeing services while you were bitching about how little is still on Netflix these days
This is enough reasoning to say that capitalism is the single greatest enemy of mankind. The search for endless profit will kill everyone.
Careful now, they’re about to classify criticism of capitalism terrorism.
Nono its the best system. All others have failed. You cant have the American dream without capitalism.
/LIES FROM FASCISTS
The culture of consumption is the greatest threat to humanity.
Capitalism, and even communism, are just means to that end.
Capitalism is a great system as long as it’s regulated. It’s been more and more destructive and caused catastrophic shifts in wealth distribution since deregulation started with Reagan
You’re basically saying cancer isn’t so bad as long as it’s just a little cancer and is kept in check. All you need is a few bad actors and everything goes up in flames.
TIL: stock buybacks were considered insider trading before Reagan made them legal
Is there anything that Reagan hasn’t fucked?
Whatever he didn’t got fucked by Clinton.
He did not. Have. Sexual relations. With that. Policy.
“Bill! Get you dick out of the jelly beans!”
He died before Epstein Island was a thing, presumably.
Your mom.
Well he better get to work then
The entire investor community is filled with shitbags.
