This was a win for whomever bought it. They cut costs and killed an underperforming unit. Assuming it’s part of a larger entity, they’re able to strip this parts or shutter it completely to post a loss they’ll get tax credit for or can use to offset gains elsewhere. Modern US capitalism only cares about short term shareholder value increases and this story, when viewed through that lens, is just another day in the world of investment banks, venture capital, and corporate sharks.
Note I’m not saying it’s a win for people. In the 70s and 80s when the US markets moved shareholder value above customers and employees, life got fucked. It’s just naive to think any of this actually matters beyond dollars on a balance sheet. Gamurs Group can spin the shutdown of The Escapist as a net win or can rebuild the publication at a loss, also as a net win. They don’t fucking care.
Ah. Well, doesn’t really matter how it’s spun. The Escapist was that company’s golden goose, and they just chased it off. Anyone with any brains in the industry or in private equity will be able to see that, regardless of spin. This isn’t in the interest of short- or long-term gains, it’s just a company-ending error by a fucking stupid exec.
That’s a very naive take on business practices that have made a lot of people a lot of money (which is why they continue). I really don’t see anything happening to any Gamurs Group execs beyond, say, their golden parachute deploying on their way to their next raider role. Companies don’t care about their holdings, they care about their balance sheet. Losing a company can make a ton on a balance sheet.
Again, I’m not saying any of this is right. It’s just how huge businesses work and all of it happens at the expense of employees first and customers second.
I understand the benefit of prioritizing short-term gains over long-term when you intend to flip the property. That’s not what this is though. Explain to me how driving away the most valuable asset of a company turns a profit before you start calling people naïve. You sound like you’re talking out of your ass.
Taking a major loss on The Escapist allows Gamurs Group to take a major win on their balance sheet. I had to check to make sure Australia works the same way (edit: as the US for the whole corporate using losses to mask gains). Reporting the complete loss of The Escapist drops the tax burden, increasing total gains. Given that Gamurs was already forcing cuts, they had a plan for losing the entire operation. Unless all these people plan on not supporting a single Gamurs publication, they come out ahead.
Why am I wrong? How is the holding company going to be negatively affected? What am I missing? Or, on the other hand, is everyone missing that I’m talking about Gamurs Group which owns almost twenty different operations each with millions in revenue?
If you’re under the assumption I support what Gamurs Group is doing, you’re wrong. I think this kind of business is idiotic and fucks everything up (Jack Welch at GE is a prime example). It’s also how these holding companies operate so my opinion that customers first, employees second, shareholders third doesn’t really matter.
This was a win for whomever bought it. They cut costs and killed an underperforming unit. Assuming it’s part of a larger entity, they’re able to strip this parts or shutter it completely to post a loss they’ll get tax credit for or can use to offset gains elsewhere. Modern US capitalism only cares about short term shareholder value increases and this story, when viewed through that lens, is just another day in the world of investment banks, venture capital, and corporate sharks.
Note I’m not saying it’s a win for people. In the 70s and 80s when the US markets moved shareholder value above customers and employees, life got fucked. It’s just naive to think any of this actually matters beyond dollars on a balance sheet. Gamurs Group can spin the shutdown of The Escapist as a net win or can rebuild the publication at a loss, also as a net win. They don’t fucking care.
What makes you say the Escapist was underperforming?
I’m speaking from the perspective of how it will be spun. Why would Gamurs Group take a loss on this?
Ah. Well, doesn’t really matter how it’s spun. The Escapist was that company’s golden goose, and they just chased it off. Anyone with any brains in the industry or in private equity will be able to see that, regardless of spin. This isn’t in the interest of short- or long-term gains, it’s just a company-ending error by a fucking stupid exec.
That’s a very naive take on business practices that have made a lot of people a lot of money (which is why they continue). I really don’t see anything happening to any Gamurs Group execs beyond, say, their golden parachute deploying on their way to their next raider role. Companies don’t care about their holdings, they care about their balance sheet. Losing a company can make a ton on a balance sheet.
Again, I’m not saying any of this is right. It’s just how huge businesses work and all of it happens at the expense of employees first and customers second.
I understand the benefit of prioritizing short-term gains over long-term when you intend to flip the property. That’s not what this is though. Explain to me how driving away the most valuable asset of a company turns a profit before you start calling people naïve. You sound like you’re talking out of your ass.
I think you greatly over estimate your knowledge of how business works.
You’re like David Rose running around saying “it’s a write-off!”
Like it’s a fucking choice.
Mate, the house burned down. You don’t get to spin it better on sticktoitiveness. Shit’s fucked.
Taking a major loss on The Escapist allows Gamurs Group to take a major win on their balance sheet. I had to check to make sure Australia works the same way (edit: as the US for the whole corporate using losses to mask gains). Reporting the complete loss of The Escapist drops the tax burden, increasing total gains. Given that Gamurs was already forcing cuts, they had a plan for losing the entire operation. Unless all these people plan on not supporting a single Gamurs publication, they come out ahead.
Why am I wrong? How is the holding company going to be negatively affected? What am I missing? Or, on the other hand, is everyone missing that I’m talking about Gamurs Group which owns almost twenty different operations each with millions in revenue?
How do you write this and not immediately wrap yourself in a black-and-red balaclava?
Apologies I’m not following.
If you’re under the assumption I support what Gamurs Group is doing, you’re wrong. I think this kind of business is idiotic and fucks everything up (Jack Welch at GE is a prime example). It’s also how these holding companies operate so my opinion that customers first, employees second, shareholders third doesn’t really matter.