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?
| +89 | Nothing to do at work & bored to hell | 9 | 1d |
| +67 | Do people over-index on 'moats' | 22 | 1d |
| +53 | Predicted Net Worth in Trodden Finance Path by 60? | 20 | 1d |
| +44 | Biggest (avoidable) failures in PE Investments? | 25 | 1d |
| +38 | Why is ROIC never really a topic when looking at companies IRL | 11 | 5d |
| +24 | What do you think of PE Value Creation Careers in 2026? | 7 | 17h |
| +18 | LT Career Path after MF PE Associate Program? | 5 | 2h |
| +15 | Honest opinions needed about lateraling | 5 | 15h |
| +12 | NY LMM PE Recruiting | 3 | 2d |
| +12 | How to approach Buyside Recruiting | 3 | 6d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
I heard he's part of that whole Yale thing too