2 things I got out of this,
first is how I see the same names showing up multiple times. KKR and Platinum Equity seem to have a niche for obscure monopolies.
And also that is seems to be a viable strategy to start a port-a-john business to be acquired by Platinum Equity's United Site Services port-a-john empire.
Also Dana White hasn't been run out of town yet and everyday I wonder how that is still possible.
The cult of JRE fans helped give its popularity another boost, but in reality, what other league are you going to watch save a different fight sport like boxing? People like to huddle around the cooler and focus on one league (See: NFL, MLB, NBA). That's not to say WNBA or XFL don't exist, but think about the multiplier of games you'd have to keep track of with your friends for all of them.
Natural entertainment monopolies...interesting concept.
Like so many articles in this space, there is a lot of assumption, claims without evidence and vague assertions. The author doesn't seem to know what Predatory Pricing is. He also dismisses economics of scale as an accounting fiddle.
I sympathetize with his general position (as life gets complex, barriers to entry rise and markets of many small companies are replaced by one's of a few big companies.
But then he gets lost in his own prejudices/conspiracy theories about harvard, financial engineering etc. Not really helpful to his wider point...
If you're not broadly familiar with Matt Stoller- he's an ideologue. He is a far, far leftist on economic issues.
>He also dismisses economics of scale as an accounting fiddle
He proposed on Twitter to make bulk discounting illegal for the entire US economy, on the theory that any kind of discounting is just predatory pricing. In other words, whether you buy 1 computer server or 10,000, 2 avocados or 2 million, the price per unit would be exactly the same. He thinks this would harm large companies and help smaller ones
>"He observed that “68% of private equity buyouts are add-ons from previous acquisitions,” which is to say that most acquisitions by private equity firms are attempts to expand market power for companies they already own. A quarter of these acquisitions, in fact, are “tied to an investment with at least five add-ons.” Given that there are thousands of private equity firms making transactions every year, that’s a lot of attempts to increase market power."
[...]
"Doing a roll-up is designed to take advantage of how capital markets value bigger companies versus small ones, or what is called multiple expansion.
Buying a small family owned business for three to four times its cash flow
(or what is known in annoying accounting-speak as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization, abbreviated as EBITDA), putting it into a conglomerate that financiers then call a ‘platform’ or ‘market leader’, means you can often
sell the much bigger company for eight to ten times that cash flow later on."
I worry about something like this happening with housing. PE firms are sitting on a bunch of cash currently and I can imagine a scenario in which the recent damage coronavirus + lockdowns have done to the economy leads to a bunch of foreclosures. If PE firms step in to buy these homes and to manage them at scale that will just lead to further concentration of housing wealth.
I forget the name, but there was one company that bought properties throughout the US after the 2008 market crash - we are talking about hundreds of thousands of properties here, massive scale.
I remember (2014 or so) looking for apartments in some places in NYC - I went to multiple buildings before it struck me that they were all owned by the same company. I've been a renter all my life and the situation is not good for renters.
I don't care if the super rich have mega mansions and million dollar cars. It is when they start monopolizing essential resources like water, housing etc that it becomes a serious issue.
Another thing I noticed on HN - HN doesn't seem to like landlords being criticized, I guess many people here are well off and are landlords themselves. I do not understand why a person should be allowed to own multiple houses, just because they can afford it.
There is a German town that bought apartment buildings from private companies to take charge of the out of control rent. Maybe it is time for such measures.
After healthcare, housing (mortgage or rent) is how you keep a large percentage of the population chained to their jobs and control them easily. It is also the reason tiny house movement is taking off in other countries. In the US, legislation is a bottleneck for tiny houses. Who wants to be a slave to banks for 30+ years just to have a roof over one's head (assuming one can get a loan in the first place)?
Greenhorn about private equity/microeconomics here, do PE firms ever have a noble goal in mind of creating a stronger company or do most of them just roll-up and mark-up companies to the next highest bidder, regardless of the health of the company or whether it is even worth that much? Housing already seems troublesome as a late millenial/old zoomer.
Individual homeownership still carries a bunch of tax incentives in most places; I'm not aware of anywhere mega-landlord companies have popped up (although there are a few mega-landlord individuals, usually heavily leveraged).
It's not really the UFC's fault that multiple MMA promotions have also been attempted, and failed as businesses. No non-UFC promotion (Bellator, ONE, Rizin, KSW, Cage Warriors, LFA, etc.) has turned even a dime in profits in the last decade. And Bellator has signed multiple famous UFC fighters (former champs like Benson Henderson), including some (Phil Davis, Ryan Bader) at the height of their career. I don't think their ratings even budge a bit when these ex-UFC fighters are on.
I don't think the UFC should have been allowed to buy Strikeforce, and I think many of their restrictive contract provision should be struck down in court. But it's not the government's fault that none of the UFC's competitors are unable to turn a profit, and I don't really see a role for government there overall. If some business models don't work in practice, they don't work
While monopolies are bad, I don't see what's listed in this article as monopolies. I see a series of small businesses that are more profitable when economies of scale are utilized. So, the small businesses are being bought up by a few larger players.
When saying this is bad, what is the author optimizing for?
This market consolidation should decrease consumer prices, as long as actual monopolies are not in place and price fixing doesn't occur. At the same time the individual owners are getting buy-outs they are happy with. Seems fine to me.
> I see a series of small businesses that are more profitable when economies of scale are utilized
That is literally the definition of monopolizing...
> market consolidation
Again, that's just another word for monopolizing...
It reminds me of people who say "I, as a man, like having sex with other men — but no, I am not gay or bisexual"
It's like society has become 'definition phobic'? Or maybe some words have lost their old definitions and have taken on new ones? Or it's just Doublespeak and everyone is fragmented and we lack decent complex adaptive systems?
The rules for what consists of a monopoly are somewhat arbitrary anyway. I think we should have worker coops everywhere, instead of this American/English-style Neoliberal Corporatism, which often takes away people's autonomy and creates a whole array of bureacratic corporate hierarchies. A company in the Netherlands called Buurtzorg is having a lot of success organizing themselves very differently than the hyper-consolidation that we have seen the healthcare systems in the West become victim to. [1]
-
> What am I missing?
I don't even know where to start...
Have you been in therapy or sought professional help? Many therapists now have to work within one size fits all models. For example: in some countries patients get therapy sessions in blocks of 12. Regardless of wether they would benefit from just 2-3 sessions. Or maybe around 25, spread out over a year, is what would best support them. This cookie-cutter standardization approach completely destroys equitable and personalized healthcare options, and takes away the autonomy of therapists.
It's the paradox of capitalism. Just ask yourself. Why in the world would a business want to compete with another business? They don't, it's not profitable. And only X amount of businesses can exist within a given radius before profits margins decline to the point of nonexistence. It's all a zero sum game. That's why established monopolies are protected by the system.
It seems like the only solution to these types of rollouts happening in every industry may be based in law. The economics of rollouts make it impossible to compete in any other way.
“private equity” is not a company, its an industry - so its not clear to me why only one private equity company at a tine would try to cash in on this opportunity? And if several such companies are trying to do the same thing, then its unlikely that any of them will become a monopoly.
Its like worrying about “real estate investors” getting a “monopoly” on the ownership of houses - it’s not going to happen. Real estate investors are part of the market, and having an additional source of demand tends to raise prices, which is bad for new buyers and good for existing homeowners. But there is no monopoly.
While we may never see a monopoly on owning the house itself, we are well on our way to seeing at least one monopoly in the home buying process. [0][1]
ideals|5 years ago
Also Dana White hasn't been run out of town yet and everyday I wonder how that is still possible.
MoomerLoom|5 years ago
Natural entertainment monopolies...interesting concept.
peteretep|5 years ago
Because UFC makes fights happen. How long did it take for Manny and Floyd to finally go head to head?
LatteLazy|5 years ago
I sympathetize with his general position (as life gets complex, barriers to entry rise and markets of many small companies are replaced by one's of a few big companies.
But then he gets lost in his own prejudices/conspiracy theories about harvard, financial engineering etc. Not really helpful to his wider point...
hash872|5 years ago
>He also dismisses economics of scale as an accounting fiddle
He proposed on Twitter to make bulk discounting illegal for the entire US economy, on the theory that any kind of discounting is just predatory pricing. In other words, whether you buy 1 computer server or 10,000, 2 avocados or 2 million, the price per unit would be exactly the same. He thinks this would harm large companies and help smaller ones
peter_d_sherman|5 years ago
[...]
"Doing a roll-up is designed to take advantage of how capital markets value bigger companies versus small ones, or what is called multiple expansion.
Buying a small family owned business for three to four times its cash flow
(or what is known in annoying accounting-speak as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization, abbreviated as EBITDA), putting it into a conglomerate that financiers then call a ‘platform’ or ‘market leader’, means you can often
sell the much bigger company for eight to ten times that cash flow later on."
My comments:
Buy low, sell high...
Makes sense from a pure business perspective...
jeffreyrogers|5 years ago
justaguyhere|5 years ago
I remember (2014 or so) looking for apartments in some places in NYC - I went to multiple buildings before it struck me that they were all owned by the same company. I've been a renter all my life and the situation is not good for renters.
I don't care if the super rich have mega mansions and million dollar cars. It is when they start monopolizing essential resources like water, housing etc that it becomes a serious issue.
Another thing I noticed on HN - HN doesn't seem to like landlords being criticized, I guess many people here are well off and are landlords themselves. I do not understand why a person should be allowed to own multiple houses, just because they can afford it.
There is a German town that bought apartment buildings from private companies to take charge of the out of control rent. Maybe it is time for such measures.
After healthcare, housing (mortgage or rent) is how you keep a large percentage of the population chained to their jobs and control them easily. It is also the reason tiny house movement is taking off in other countries. In the US, legislation is a bottleneck for tiny houses. Who wants to be a slave to banks for 30+ years just to have a roof over one's head (assuming one can get a loan in the first place)?
WrtCdEvrydy|5 years ago
MoomerLoom|5 years ago
peterpeppers|5 years ago
Warren Buffet has had a near monopoly on new mobile home construction, sales and leasing.
https://publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/w...
pjc50|5 years ago
hash872|5 years ago
I don't think the UFC should have been allowed to buy Strikeforce, and I think many of their restrictive contract provision should be struck down in court. But it's not the government's fault that none of the UFC's competitors are unable to turn a profit, and I don't really see a role for government there overall. If some business models don't work in practice, they don't work
unknown|5 years ago
[deleted]
tenpoundhammer|5 years ago
When saying this is bad, what is the author optimizing for?
This market consolidation should decrease consumer prices, as long as actual monopolies are not in place and price fixing doesn't occur. At the same time the individual owners are getting buy-outs they are happy with. Seems fine to me.
What am I missing?
bergstromm466|5 years ago
That is literally the definition of monopolizing...
> market consolidation
Again, that's just another word for monopolizing...
It reminds me of people who say "I, as a man, like having sex with other men — but no, I am not gay or bisexual"
It's like society has become 'definition phobic'? Or maybe some words have lost their old definitions and have taken on new ones? Or it's just Doublespeak and everyone is fragmented and we lack decent complex adaptive systems?
The rules for what consists of a monopoly are somewhat arbitrary anyway. I think we should have worker coops everywhere, instead of this American/English-style Neoliberal Corporatism, which often takes away people's autonomy and creates a whole array of bureacratic corporate hierarchies. A company in the Netherlands called Buurtzorg is having a lot of success organizing themselves very differently than the hyper-consolidation that we have seen the healthcare systems in the West become victim to. [1]
-
> What am I missing?
I don't even know where to start...
Have you been in therapy or sought professional help? Many therapists now have to work within one size fits all models. For example: in some countries patients get therapy sessions in blocks of 12. Regardless of wether they would benefit from just 2-3 sessions. Or maybe around 25, spread out over a year, is what would best support them. This cookie-cutter standardization approach completely destroys equitable and personalized healthcare options, and takes away the autonomy of therapists.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/nov/20/radical-plan...
skee0083|5 years ago
dumbfoundded|5 years ago
Apocryphon|5 years ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23815212
ghufran_syed|5 years ago
Its like worrying about “real estate investors” getting a “monopoly” on the ownership of houses - it’s not going to happen. Real estate investors are part of the market, and having an additional source of demand tends to raise prices, which is bad for new buyers and good for existing homeowners. But there is no monopoly.
anonAndOn|5 years ago
[0]https://www.alta.org/business-tools/title-insurance-mergers.... [1]https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/09/ftc-c...
chmaynard|5 years ago
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, it's tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail."
amadeuspagel|5 years ago
clairity|5 years ago
the examples enumeration is good information, but to me, this quoted bit would have been a better jumping off point for an article.
what are the precedents and barriers to private antitrust suits?
monopolies are a scourge and a bane to free markets.