NY Times vs. the PE Industry
This is one of many articles where the NY Times has shit on PE in its series covering the industry.
What are your thoughts? Concerns? Is this justified or unjustified? With the NY Times delivering a clear bias to its readers, what do you think the industry can do to prevent uninformed criticisms?
Nytimes is garbage. I wouldn't worry.
Yeah probably some fake news? Alone for this stupid post you bananas should decrease at 25,476
Cool. The nytimes is incredibly biased and not a good source of factual news. Enjoy being mislead or reading crappily written opinion pieces masquerading as reporting.
with every post you only show more of your stupidity. funny thing is that people called news as fake news only when they don't agree with something particular. i bet you have been at the inauguration with other millions of people.
I bet you think Huffpo is balanced reporting? Or maybe Foxnews tells all the facts. NYTimes is garbage and has been for a long time. If you want facts and actual reporting that isn't the place to go.
BTW - the Fake News meme was created by liberals after the election. This wasn't some right wing machination. CNN, NYTimes, MSNBC, all report selective facts and ignore pertinent new stories. Wikileaks clearly highlighted the political collusion between the major news networks that attempt to present themselves as "unbiased".
Seriously, do you really think that Wikileaks is unbiased? Your poor thing. Next thing is that the climate change is only something invented by Chinese? Fake news did not certainly pop up after the election. Fake news have been existed for ever. Only the definition is now used widely because it is so obvious how people lie.
So your stance is Wikileaks created fake Podesta and DNC emails? Because that is what you are implying. And that DWS and Donna Brazile resigned/got fired for nothing?
The term "Fake News" was coined after Trump won by the democrats.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-10/washington-post-instrumental-c…
While ZH can be biased, this lays out the timeline of this fake news crap.
Don't try to imply something. I said that Wikileaks is a fucking political tool not that they are faking. I don't trust Wikileaks because i dont know who is uploading. This is what I said: People use the term nowadays more frequently. Again, fake news have existed forever so the term. No "liberals" nor "democrats" have created this term. Something is "created" when first used/introduced.
You're being facetious.
Wikileaks presented emails. Unless you think the emails are fake, the uploaded is irrelevant. Wikileaks posts what they get. They've done a lot of damage to Bush and now to Obama and I am sure Trump will get his as well. The emails are true and the collusion is real.
Fake news has been around forever. What we commonly refer to as "fake news" in this context was a word and theme started and pushed by anti-Trump people to delegitimize the election.
And you trying to pretend that fake news being around for a long time as proof that liberals weren't the ones pushing the way we use it now is about as bold face of a lie as when Republicans talk about Democrats being the party of slavery, when they know plainly that there was a shift in the parties that occurred once slavery was eliminated.
Declaring something as true but not checking the source.... Who is facetious?
(i) "... pushed by anti-Trump people to delegitimize the election." -> who declared the election as rigged? even before & after the election, AND after winning? (ii) "Fake news has been around forever." This is what I am saying from day one. Thanks for supporting me. (iii) "And you trying to pretend that fake news being around for a long time as proof that liberals weren't the ones pushing the way we use it" -> Yes, as shown in your analysis fake news was mentioned before the election but not in the magnitude as today. (iii.i) "the Fake News meme was created by liberals after the election." -> not true as shown in the analysis
Btw, the analysis is completely half true. It only shows the number of mentioning "fake news". Then the author shows selected results from WP, Huffo, NYT, Buzzfeed. But it doent tell you anything about the whole data set. Who mentioned fake news at most? Who at least. C#mon this is fucking Statics 101. Don't citing anything like this without even thinking. But like you said: As long as something is "true" don't need to look for the source (i.e. data).
I think everything is said. Mic drop.
1) The election was completely rigged. You had the press, the sitting president, the over sampled polls, all the big money donors, all against Trump. It was all rigged against him. Only when Trump won did you hear about fake news helping him win, fake news put out by Russia, etc.
2) Fake news, as in salacious, made up articles, have been around since the dawn of time. We are talking about "fake news" in the context of this election. You are being obtuse and deliberately so.
3) Fake news was pushed by the left when Trump won. It was pushed as a Russian effort, as fake stories that benefitted Trump. He then took that word and applied it to CNN during his 1st press conference. It wasn't created by the Republicans or Trump, but it is used by them now. That being said, it was the left that started and pushed this concept after the election.
You are being deliberately literal, knowing full well that is not the discussion at hand.
How is Wikileaks biased?? All it did was reveal the facts directly from the source. Its the most unbiased you can get.
To be fair, I would argue that all news that isn't just a list of facts is inherently biased as it includes the beliefs/opinions of the author.
You do know that the NYT came out after the election and acknowledged that it completely and utterly failed at being politically objective, don't you?
https://www.google.com/amp/nypost.com/2016/11/15/new-york-times-edits-i…
They tried to act like they were objective but they had to retract and reprint the article because they knew the line they had put in about covering both candidates equally was completely false. The NY Post does a great job of running even more salt in the wound.
https://www.google.com/amp/nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew…
I didn't vote, didn't support either candidate, but it is incredibly obvious how biased and divisive the mainstream media has become and the NYT is as guilty as anyone.
You mad bro? Lol?
Why does everyone go to one extreme or the other? The New York Times is slightly left, Washington Post is middle, and WSJ is slightly conservative. If you read all three along with The Atlantic, Bloomberg, The Economist, BBC, and The Hill you will be well informed and understand the issue from all sides. One thing is for sure, The New York Times is not garbage by any stretch of the imagination. And one op-ed should not be presented as a reflection of a news site.
no FT :o
Lol. NYT and washpo are all leftist new sources. Same with the Atlantic and the hill. Just go read Huffpo and get it overwith.
Btw Daily Kos has the hill as middle ground which means left to any normal person. Washpo is a Hillary propaganda mouth piece and generally trash.
IMO, anything mainstream is written for a 8th grade reading level and driven by adds. I prefer paying for more in depth reporting that is driven by subscribers vs selling ad revenue.
lol at wapo being in the middle....that is comical
if you read all of those you are prob liberal
That was one of the least accurate articles that I've ever read in my life.
Be careful. It is an OPINION Page. Contributors do not necessarily reflect the "opinion" of a newspaper. So don't blame a newspaper for an op-ed article.
Btw, I read this articles two days ago: funny part is that this guy works in a VC (Partner at Sequoia)
I actually noticed that, which is why I was very confused haha. Why do VC guys deserve carried interest, when LBO guy supposedly don't...?
Because they're part of the Silicon Valley circle jerk that's all about making an impact and building something people want that has this embarrassing side effect of occasionally making people very rich, whereas NY financiers are all scummy douchenozzles intent on financially destroying America for their own gain.
Source: growing up in Silicon Valley
Well, this thread derailed. As someone not in PE/IB, in what way is this article inaccurate?
nothing's inaccurate about it at all. it's an op-ed piece, not a news story. it's written by a billionaire, who has this holier than thou attitude and thinks he's more moral than another billionaire.
users of WSO just want any excuse to start a political argument. this is nothing more than rich guilt and opportunistic bashing because of party lines, a la Warren Buffett, George Soros & Bill Gross. I'm not a fan of Trump, but the hypocrisy by Moritz laughable in this. just write an op-ed about why you think trump sucks, don't bash someone just because they're taking meetings with the POTUS and operate in a different part of the cap structure.
"Mr. Schwarzman has flourished during the four decades that the people Mr. Trump purports to represent have languished."
so have you, Moritz.
"Just like Mr. Trump's real-estate business, groups like Blackstone rely on enormous debt..."
so because you willingly take a piece further down in the capital structure away from an entrepreneur, that makes what you do more moral?
"Then they cut costs - which almost always means making sizable layoffs..."
fair point here, but do you not keep an eye on costs? kinda hard to layoff people at google when it's just 2 people, so not really apples to apples. every good investor looks at the bottom line potential, and before you get to the bottom line, you look at costs.
"...and figure out a way to reward themselves financially."
I believe you've heard of IPOs before. how is what you do any different?
then he slams PE for taking advantage of carried interest/cap gains...when VC gets the same treatment forehead slap
closes with a comment about the 1%...his net worth is 3.1bn.
if he wants to make a philanthropy argument, still meh, but that seems more legit. he's donated a bunch to lower income type scholarship programs. schwarzman has not. he has, however, endowed a scholarship in China, similar to the Rhodes scholar program, and also donated $100mm to the NY Public Library, among other large 9 figure donations.
in short, Moritz hates Trump, and attacks another investor who is working with Trump.
VC are way worse than PE. They constantly attempt to dilute founders and squeeze out other executives that actually work, they add practically no value compared to PE, and on top of that they have the gall to be holier-than-thou about what industry they invest in, despite most of their products being of no intrinsic value whatsoever.
VC criticizing PE and bankers? Pot calling the kettle black. They can fuck off back to their pre-Revenue, global-local-mobile-social, SaaS-based ad-tech stealth portcos, the fucking donkeys.
Regarding the philanthropy part, Schwarzman actually has more to his credit than the Scholars program. He's funded some public education causes in NY. Goes so far as to read report cards of the middle school kids his program funds and writes a custom letter to each of them. Although I'll admit, Schwarzman's philanthropy is more old-school, while Moritz is more new-agey, hipster.
As for the last line, this might be relevant : (www) dot bloomberg dot com/view/articles/2017-02-08/steve-schwarzman-explains-why-he-counsels-trump
Still doesn't give the VC the higher moral ground. I've seen people being able to keep their homes thanks to Blackstone, while other PEs would've evicted them, and I've seen Sequoia screw over dozens of cofounders, to the point of poaching away good people from their portfolio startups.
The writer of this opinion piece is nearly on his way to Schwarzman's wealth. And the focus is mainly on the treatment of debt, which is just funny because I'm sure that he knows how to use these structures to his own advantage, very well. Maybe he would do better spending his time educating and mentoring people so they too can be as fortunate.
"Mr. Schwarzman and his brethren have become symbols for the economic inequality that Mr. Trump deplored during his campaign. They are able to borrow billions and deduct interest payments from their corporate tax bills while $75,000-a-year wage earners in Ohio, Michigan or Pennsylvania are unable to secure a mortgage and get no tax break on their monthly rent."
What kind of entitled crap is this??? Why the fuck would anyone get a tax break on rent. What the fuck does anyone's personal tax situation have to do with corporate taxes policies intended to incent Schwarzman et. al. to buy mismanaged businesses and make them more efficient with a net positive impact on the entire fucking economy? I'm VERY surprised to see one of the leading VCs spewing such garbage. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but this really makes my blood boil.
Very interesting that Moritz lambastes leverage for its social evils but hardly says anything about cap gains breaks. The pot is calling the kettle black here, folks.
He probably sympathizes with that whole populist thing...
I heard he's part of that whole Yale thing too
taking an op-ed as news was your first mistake.
a VC investor worth 3bn talking shit about a PE investor worth 11bn is just comical. it'd be like if Arnold talked shit to Ronnie Coleman for doing steroids.
thanks for the laugh OP
noticed this trend too over the past year and Fortress seems to be the new scapegoat of the megafunds.
1) Op-ed articles are often absolute bollocks. Have you seen Forbes' op-ed pieces? Some of them make me want to claw my eyes out.
2) This guy is just a slightly differently-flavoured PE investor, so I'm not sure what he's all on about. Sure, there are some instances where PEs have done shady things, but in the grand scheme of things the PE industry drives growth by identifying high-value companies and providing them with much-needed capital and expertise.
3) Ant your rabidly anti-left is a little unsettling. I can understand having a conservative stance on some issues, including lower taxes, smaller government, and even limiting immigration. May not necessarily agree with all of 'em, but I can understand them. When you're at the point where you're calling the NYT and WashPo "garbage" and "trash", respectively, you're just shitting on your own credibility. These two publications between them have some ~150 Pulitzers, and have broken some of the most important stories of all time - Watergate, much? Your dismissal of them only serves to indicate a complete unwillingness to even attempt to approach things in a fair, unbiased manner.
4) For what it's worth, I like to get my news from a wide variety of sources. I'll read articles from the NYT and WashPo, from Al Jazeera and the BBC, plus even some on Snapchat on HuffPo (not sure which is the less reputable of the two), but I'll also read articles from Fox News. Hell, every once in a while I'll even check in on Breitbart, just to see their take on things.
I'm sorry but 3 good stories 40 years ago and a bunch of awards given by liberal media tools, to liberal media tools, for being liberal media tools is not an impressive resume.
Nytime and washpo used to be good. They've sucked for a long time (pre trump as well). I like informative news and articles on important issues. With that criteria, NYT and WPO are garbage in my book. It's even more sad considering the greatness they've fallen from.
That said, I'll look at the travel or wine section of th NYTimes. Everything non news or non socially liberal has good coverage.
My opinions of them reflect someone who hates slanted, inflammatory journalism driven by selling adds or pushing an agenda. I dislike fox for that reason as well. I'm also hardly a conservative as I support abortion, social programs, unions (to an extent) and am pretty much agnostic religiously.
The left has gone from a party of labor and helping those in need to a party that fights over bathroom rights and free college for everyone. Trump moved th republicans to the middle (he's non religious, isn't anti gay rights, is pro labor, and vocally anti nation building). These are all classic democratic stances.
But yeah, I'm an off kilter fundie neocon because I don't give the NYTimes a pass on their biased and crap reporting because of some solid journalism 30-40 years ago.
I love all the liberal idiots in this thread kissing the NY Times ass. The NY Times is a FORMER Newspaper. Even when it was in print it was still totally biased garbage and a tool of the liberal political machine. Now that it is only a website it is closer to Teen Vogue for people who want to feel informed.
Dolor et et optio sit et ea voluptatem voluptas. Dolore autem assumenda nemo rerum cupiditate rem quae. Vel velit et nulla ea nam id suscipit. Adipisci et occaecati quae expedita corporis. Voluptas amet neque iusto dolorem ut culpa commodi. Qui nam sint officiis voluptatibus aut ut maiores qui. Placeat maiores rerum qui saepe.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Ut deleniti est iste non. Quis fugiat veniam et autem.
Qui rerum in nihil consequatur beatae dolor. Officiis voluptatibus rerum voluptatem ullam. Fugit itaque quia non voluptatem odit id. Cupiditate laudantium est sit fugiat voluptatum in.
Assumenda sit perspiciatis soluta. Perspiciatis sapiente quis occaecati vel error illo.