Corbyn says he'll end asset-stripping hostile takeovers

Just to be clear, I very much want a Corbyn government, I just don’t want more of the emotions I presently feel when I see something from November 7 2016 talking about Hillary Clinton as the next US president.


Which is an entirely subjective call - and intended to gull people like yourself into thinking this is a wonderful, cost-free way of protecting precious jewels from robbers. It’s not - it’s a proposed political land grab.

Subjective, political and false.

Very good, Comrade Barafundle. You make wonderful post. Glorious Leader Vladimir will be ever so pleased. Extra vodka in your allowance this week.

1 Like

Not entirely subjective. People like me (business owners and consultants) make these judgments all the time. They’re called “cost-benefit analyses,” and they take into account objective facts and reality-based projections. Rules like the proposed one (or existing anti-trust ones) are based on such analyses. In such tests the basic question to be answered is “does this acquisition provide a net positive gain for all stakeholders*?” Frequently (as in the cases cited by Cory) the answer is no when it comes to asset-strippers, who profit mightily while leaving behind measurable economic devastation. This is why they’re also disliked by people more focused on building businesses than selling them for parts.

[* again, this is a different concept from shareholders, who are also taken into account as stakeholders]


Hell in a hand cart - is this Breitbart for losers? Because that’s where your comment comes from.

Thank you - my point exactly. It is for owners of business to decide cost-benefit analysis. Not a here today gone tomorrow politician. As for anti-trust re Cadbury and Kraft - pfft. What are the barriers to entry of chocolate making? Why did Cadbury pay top whack for Green & Black - an upstart competitor?
All stakeholders? really -how in the world do you manage that? Making this business profitable would mean sacking all the consultants we employ - but the CEO loves them because he came from there and will return when this particular gravy train stops.? What kind of consultant are you?
Asset stripping is merely a pejorative term used by flailing management to defend their bonuses.
BTW, ‘parts’ in business terms when a company is broken up means the bits of a company that work and have economic value and can be developed by people who understand the value and will carry it forward and build on the knowledge, management and people. Don’t prop up bad management.
Your post is why socialists can’t have nice things - they won’t learn that pouring effort in to a failing strategy is a waste of talent and resource.

No, not your point exactly. The owners (AKA shareholders) of businesses in the U.S. and UK are not known for considering the interests of any stakeholders other than themselves. Business schools further hammer home that viewpoint to their graduates.

The answer to the first question is “very high if you want to get placement in thousands of stores.” The answer to the second question is contained within it: they wanted to remove a competitor in a growing and popular niche (“artisanal”, “authentic”, etc.) that managed to scale the barriers to entry but was not yet an incumbent player in the market (the three global beer monopolies also do this).

By determining who or what they are. There are established and well-understood categories (e.g. employees, local communities, the environment) defined by CSR organisations that are used as standards.

The kind with a steady base of clients who pay me and stick with me despite my own most self-destructive efforts on their behalf to make myself redundant to them. I take the occasional client that does follow my advice in that regard as the price of a reputation for competence and trustworthiness, which has kept me in clients for two decades.

Asset-stripping is a well-understood business practise that underlies the profits of LBO and private equity firms. They’re very open about what they do.

The only concern of the asset stripper is to make at least $1 more than he paid for the business (often by saddling the business itself with crushing debt). While they sell some parts to value investors they themselves are not in the value investing business, and there’s usually a lot of waste involved (because some parts have value, but they’d rather toss it away rather than negotiate down to a fair price with a potential buyer).

I know successful private equity people and successful scrap metal dealers. The latter are a lot less wasteful with the parts.

I never do and have advised clients to dump turkeys and deadwood in the past. But unlike you, I don’t give that advice purely on the basis of thinking Gordon Gekko is the hero of “Wall Street,” which I’m beginning to think is the sum total of your business education.

Your post is an example of why seeing a manager at a client’s office who spouts Libertarian or Objectivist rhetoric always puts up a big red flag for me. As I’m fond of saying, I wouldn’t trust most people like that to run a child’s lemonade stand.


and replace them with inept managers and greedy shareholders.

I suppose that sort of policy would float all the delicious cream up to the top faster.


Politicians come and go. Policy persists.

That makes no logical sense to me. Can you explain that assertion with an couple real world examples?


Accidental irony is my favorite flavor!


You continue to repeat ‘asset stripping’ as if that is an actual thing rather than a label. If you have advised clients to dump turkeys, that might well be seen by those in the turkey wing as asset stripping - it all rather depends on perspective. Which you signally fail to understand. Which is why I believe you’re a consultant - because let’s face it - that’s a broad field. But why I’m still interested in your elision on ‘what kind’?

I’m not going to take the time to tackle your other Trumpian (ie fact free, evidence free) assertions except one:

‘Your post is an example of why seeing a manager at a client’s office who spouts Libertarian or Objectivist rhetoric always puts up a big red flag for me. As I’m fond of saying, I wouldn’t trust most people like that to run a child’s lemonade stand.’

oh very dear, I’m neither. Trying to hang insulting labels on people you have disagreed with is not just rude but silly. Thanks for the chat.

It’s both.

I was talking about individual managers, but I also have advised clients to dump turkey businesses. During my discovery process, I spend a lot of time getting the perspective of those in the company who think the business is viable. When they can’t make the case for the business I make great efforts to see where the employees of that division can be re-assigned to add value within the other divisions or in a new business.

I have my specialities, but I don’t get into that level of detail on aspects of my business life here.

You certainly sound like one or the other, what with the anti-statist rhetoric (to the point of opposing anti-trust laws) and the general ignorance of basic business concepts.


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.