Talk:Private equity

message: I'm not a financial expert, but it seems glaringly obvious that no one has discussed whether or not this type of ownership is good thing for a nation's citizens. Not just it's wealthy citizens, but ALL it citizens. I suspect that there's something bad-smelling about this type of 'secret' ownership.
:This is emerging as a significant subject in UK politics; I was surprised not to see anything about it here. 86.132.137.36 01:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about looking at the topic from a historical perspective on how the pace of private equity investments slowed in 2007-2009?  There is already some of that in History of private equity and Private equity in the 2000s.  I am all on board with tracking this development although it probably should not be written in the moment but with a little hindsight - which is where I think those articles are now.  I think the real topic that will be discussed is the large amount of capital that is still committed to private equity and its potential uses.  There is an overhang of oveleveraged companies although I am not sure what makes that systemic.  Interestingly in late 2008 / early 2009 there was a lot written about massive numbers of bankruptcies and the closure of half of the private equity firms as a result of the financial crisis.  the PE world has not been nearly as impacted on that front as hedge funds where investors can pull out their money.  Again - feel free to be WP:BOLD and add something to let others comment on. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, an historical perspective, in addition to a review of the consequences of the private equity industry. These are probably best separate articles.  Here's another example, similar to the previous item. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the public policy aspects of Private equity ownership? 

message: I removed this edit about a news story regarding a car dealership business. That would be appropriate for a news report about the subject, but I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia article about private equity as a whole.—DMCer™ 08:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of automotive section

message: Why is the fund that owns the investments a limited partnership if it has no loans? Couldn't it just as well be a limited liability company or an unlimited partnership then? Is is because of laws regarding other differences betwen the general and limited partners other than about limited liability? For example on influence over investment decisions or about what information about the investments or the firms performance have to be shared?--JR, 17:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Private equity is typically structured as a limited partnership because the investors do not seek to exercise any management control over the investments and it provides limited liability to the investors.  Funds could potentially be structured as LLCs however LLCs are newer than LPs and as such LPs are the traditional structure and investors are accustomed to the terms set forth in the limited partnership agreement.  Also, certain states and foreign jurisdictions tax LLCs less advantageously than LPs and LLCs have had more issues than LPs of treatment as a disregarded entity creating liability for passive investors.Urbanrenewal (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why a LP? 

message: Can someone who understands this article disambiguate the term "equity" used in the lede?  --Lambiam 12:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Urbanrenewal changed it to point to stock. I think Ownership equity is better though. For some reason we also have Shareholders' equity. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguate, please 

message: I don't know whether to be proud of Wikipedia, or ashamed of my Tax Office!
:"THE Australian Tax Office faces international embarrassment after it used the online site Wikipedia as a source for a ruling affecting the fate of hundreds of millions of dollars. Wikipedia has been criticised for the quality of its information, but the ATO trusted it enough to use it for a definition of the business term "private equity"."
Malcolm Farr From: The Daily Telegraph(Australia) December 18, 2009 7:19AM Australian Tax Office relied on Wikipedia reference
--220.101.28.25 (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is because they are not given access to proper resources and so have to rely on wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.212.131 (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian Tax Office relied on Wikipedia reference (this Article) 

message: Someone objected to my attempt to make the intro less confusing. They said private equity refers to the asset class not to simply non-public equity. That is however incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo for most readers, which in addition contradicts the explanation of private equity in numerous reference works. Most WP readers have no idea what an asset class is, and the link doesn't help because it leads to asset allocation. In addition, the intro should first say what private equity is and not first unnecessarily and confusingly explain that stocks (not stock securities) are an asset class. And most WP readers also do not understand the confusing term equity, especially because it means many different things in English. In addition, the unnecessarily confusing word links to the article stock and this does not explain what equity is. Let's stick to something comprehensible like this. --Espoo (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello! I will attempt to rewrite the intro into simpler words. I agree with you that as of now it is not very clear. Best regards,BruceMiton (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  incomprehensible intro 

message: Under 1.1 "simple example", i would like to question why the 11bn loan appear on the books of XYZ company(the acquired company) and not on the private equity investment firm??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.165 (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: why 11bn loan on books of acquired company but not in private equity investment firm company?"

message: I think it makes more sense to put History and development second—immediately following the introduction—rather than how it is now, jumping right into Leveraged buyout second. (The article might benefit from a further re-organization, but I think this would make a big difference to start.) Any objections? If none in 24 hours, I'll make the change. Disclosure: an indirect client of mine is a private equity advocacy organization, and as such I have a possible COI with the topic. If I propose any further changes, I'll always bring them here first. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I would object on the grounds that the sections Leveraged buyout to Other strategies expand on concepts introduced in the introduction, and so logically follow the introduction. Surely the best place for History and development is after private equity has been defined in full. AWhiteC (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your response, AWhiteC. I don't agree that Leveraged buyout "follows logically" from the introduction. (And shouldn't the intro say something about the history of private equity?) I realize that the order of the first four—actually, seven—sections mirrors that of the introduction, but I still think it's more than a little confusing to jump from the intro to one specific strategy. Perhaps then what makes more sense is to create a parent heading for these seven sections, with a short introduction identifying them as significant strategies private equity firms may use. What do you think? Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I liked the idea so much I did it! Please feel free to reverse it or change it if it's not what you intended. A paragraph on history would be a good addition to (maybe the end of) the intro. I don't feel qualified to do it; feel free! AWhiteC (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, very cool. Glad we could agree on it, and it's certainly a good start. My goal really is to make the page more accessible, which I realize is no small challenge. I'll think about it and see what advice I get, and aim to suggest any major changes here before implementing directly. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move history section up? 

message: and new product development? As I understand it this is a lie, the opposite of what these firms do. Also isn't this distinct from "venture capital" which is presumably involve in pre IPO companies whereas a company has to have substantial public equity to get the attention of these entities. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its fair to say that there's private equity narrowly defined (leveraged buyout) and private equity broadly defined (leveraged buyout + venture capital + other less important stuff). The latter is used more in Europe (inc. UK) I hear, and the former is more American usage. Do you still think there's a problem with the text? Wildfowl (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears unchanged, I suppose the POV about which I'm most passionate is best served if it stays as it is/made more so. However the feedback would be just make it factual and consistent with accepted usage, which as I understand it assigns the "corporate raider" role to this, it's the bogey of capital or something, seen all kinds of statements to that effect in the capitalist press, Forbes and the like, and with other articles. In this case letting the masking go forward is better than trying to pull it off. Those pushing the opposite POV would be better off taking the creative destruction line than attempting the big lie, if they were you know, smart. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I only suggest to the author of this comment to read the following article: http://www.vernimmen.com/ftp/21_11_2011_What_is_private_equity.pdf. Also, as Wildfowl points out, there are different types of PE deals.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.12.92.32 (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  nurture expansion,? 

message: Does anyone think we ought not have a sub-section for the criticism of this industry? There's been plenty of it recently. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section

message: In December I made a few suggestions on this page, and one  to the article on behalf of a client, PEGCC. Now I have another suggestion regarding the Private equity fund performance, which I've described in detail at WikiProject Cooperation. I'd like to focus any discussion over there, so I'd like to invite anyone watching this page to offer feedback, and even to make the changes if you agree they're appropriate. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed paragraph reorganization 

message: I don't understand the meaning of this sentence "Private equity specialization is usually in specific industry sector asset management while hedge fund specialization is in industry sector risk capital management." AliceStanley11 can you clarify? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The sentence either makes no sense or is unclear Jaeljojo (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: PE and HF

message: Hi. The Series A round article has been without sources for over 4 years.  What content is has is certainly related to private equity.  Since this article appears to be more mature and better maintained, I have proposed merging what can be salvaged from Series A round into an appropriate section here, and then doing away with that fledgling article.  --Ds13 (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to merge "Series A round" article into this one

message: Sorry, Chongalulu, you added the following text to the above section (at the end of the first paragraph) but I removed it as it didn't seem to be in a good place, seemed much more specific than the text round about, and the link in the citation didn't work. 
:In research by GF Data, upper mid-market transactions (those between $100-million and $250-million) which have been completed by private equity groups “have consistently attracted premium multiples compared to smaller trans-actions.” {http://business.financialpost.com/2012/12/27/private-equitys-role-in-mid-market-transactions-in-north-america/} 
Can we discuss this issue in here? Wildfowl (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liquidity in the private equity market 

message: Dear Wikipedia writers,
Please consider who comes to an encyclopedia page titled 'Private Equity', or any Economics term for that matter. This page is firstly for the average person, the layman, and they know words like 'money' and 'ownership' and 'invest'. If you write a page on what a cell is, you dont explain how its the most plenipotentiary (link) gubbernational unit (link) of the endoplasmic reticulum conglomerate (link). You start with 'its a thing, in a thing, that does this, and its made of stuff'. I could read whole definitions of Economics terms and go away not knowing what the hell any of it is. Please consider who an encyclopedia is written for.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.110.239.227 (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is reading this? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Private equity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111024152807/http://growthcapital.com:80/growth/ to http://www.growthcapital.com/growth/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Private equity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160105001859/http://www.bvca.co.uk/publications/guide/intro.html to http://www.bvca.co.uk/publications/guide/intro.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Private equity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120120185350/http://www.buyoutsnews.com:80/story.asp? to http://www.buyoutsnews.com/story.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Private equity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327052724/http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/corporate_governance/papers/2008fall-Speakers_11-13_Weisbach.pdf to http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/corporate_governance/papers/2008fall-Speakers_11-13_Weisbach.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151107021723/http://www.privateequitycouncil.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/driving-growth-final.pdf to http://www.privateequitycouncil.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/driving-growth-final.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.buyoutsnews.com/story.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101112060143/http://www.sbnonline.com/Local/Article/17958/73/156/A_higher_yield.aspx to http://www.sbnonline.com/Local/Article/17958/73/156/A_higher_yield.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228221626/http://vcexperts.com/vce/library/encyclopedia/documents_view.asp?document_id=15 to http://vcexperts.com/vce/library/encyclopedia/documents_view.asp?document_id=15
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130801080539/http://www.nvca.org/pdf/Principles_of_VC.pdf to http://www.nvca.org/pdf/Principles_of_VC.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130612041440/http://www.altassets.com/casefor/sectors/2001/nz2639.php to http://www.altassets.com/casefor/sectors/2001/nz2639.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130612054840/http://www.altassets.com/features/arc/2006/nz8397.php to http://www.altassets.com/features/arc/2006/nz8397.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228221626/http://vcexperts.com/vce/library/encyclopedia/documents_view.asp?document_id=15 to http://vcexperts.com/vce/library/encyclopedia/documents_view.asp?document_id=15
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121150300/http://www.stlmag.com/media/St-Louis-Magazine/October-2005/TWA-Death-Of-A-Legend/ to http://www.stlmag.com/media/St-Louis-Magazine/October-2005/TWA-Death-Of-A-Legend/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613163056/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087 to https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ardubKH_t2ic&refer=home
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150423072103/http://www.thecityuk.com/assets/Uploads/Private-Equity-2.pdf to http://www.thecityuk.com/assets/Uploads/Private-Equity-2.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Most new new jobs are created through relatively new companies (Kauffmann 2016). Established firms may do things more efficiently -- which means either fewer jobs or less capital. 'Restructuring' is a euphemism that typically involves cutting jobs, increasing unemployment. (It's easy for young people in particular to not understand this, and their own role in furthering wealth inequalities.) This should be stated explicitly in the article, with relevant citations. Wtf2wtf (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs to address the net employment impact of p.e. Most 'restructuring' means cutting jobs.