I've had several clients bought up by PE over the years. Usually just after my work with them refactoring for growth. It's fascinating to me to read about them having anything not go their way. Every deal was so clean and efficient - like a robotic butcher from a Looney Tunes cartoon. It also makes me wonder about the extended time frame since PE are often far better at the deal making than they are running businesses long-term. In other words, they can make a business efficient through strategic cuts, but building and managing it afterward is very different when that wasn't necessarily part of the plan.
I had some visibility to a software company looking to sell the last few years. All the PE companies were effectively “if it’s not AI we’re not interested”.
1. Private equity is a form of investment, not a form of investor. Meaning that strategy and goals are different for different investors. Some want long term, some want short term. They have different risk/profit calculations.
2. "Stuck with unsold business" - You can only sell for the price that somebody wants to buy for. There is no such thing as a guaranteed return on investment, especially not for this type of investment. Just sitting on it doesn't magically make value go up. So the entire idea of the journalist is dumb from beginning to end.
3. "Fulfill their value promise" - If you believe anybody who promises you a certain return on your high risk investment, then I have a bridge to sell you.
4. Everybody who has invested any money into any type of investment is also "stuck" waiting for somebody to buy it for a higher price if they don't want to sell for the price offered right now. So the article is completely meaningless. They are "stuck" by their own decisions.
> Private equity is a form of investment, not a form of investor.
Surely a particular form of investment typically attracts a particular form of investor?
> You can only sell for the price that somebody wants to buy for.
And if you don't want to sell for that price, because you'd lose money on the deal, you are kinda stuck, yes?
> If you believe anybody who promises you a certain return on your high risk investment, then I have a bridge to sell you.
I think you're doing the "false perspective of what … a word means" thing here yourself.
> Everybody who has invested any money into any type of investment is also "stuck" waiting for somebody to buy it for a higher price if they don't want to sell for the price offered right now.
Sure, but there's stuck in a puddle, and stuck at the bottom of the Challenger Deep.
The 2008-2009 financial crisis happened because a bunch of investors got very stuck with assets that were suddenly not worth much.
> Surely a particular form of investment typically attracts a particular form of investor?
The term is so broad that you cannot say that for private equity.
> And if you don't want to sell for that price, because you'd lose money on the deal, you are kinda stuck, yes?
Yes, just like my uncle is stuck in his car because he doesn't want to get out of it.
Only a person who reasons like a fool (like this journalist) would consider themself to be "stuck" with an investment which they cannot make a profit on and have to wait and pray. Sure, many people think like that, but a seasoned or professional investor who thinks like that has to be instantly fired and probably tarred and feathered by whoever has trusted their money with him.
The correct way: Instead of demanding that God forces somebody to pay you an amount that nobody wants to pay for your investment, you have to accept your losses so that you can get your money out and invest it into something better.
The journalist takes this:
"As of June 30, private equity firms had 33,575 unsold companies in their portfolios, according to PitchBook, an industry data firm. "
And turns it into this:
"Private Equity Is Stuck with 33,575 Unsold Businesses"
When the true meaning is that those private equity firms are invested into that number of companies. They will always be invested in companies which they haven't sold yet. Otherwise they wouldn't exist. Every pension fund in the world is invested into hundreds or thousands of "unsold businesses" as long as they are invested. The purpose of private equity firms is to invest in businesses. Otherwise they have no investments.
> The term is so broad that you cannot say that for private equity.
You called these "high risk investments". That tells you at least some broad information about the sort of investors who are attracted to it. Claiming otherwise makes you appear as ignorant as you're asserting the journalist is.
> Yes, just like my uncle is stuck in his car because he doesn't want to get out of it.
I think it's more akin to deciding if you stay in or get out of a car engulfed by floodwaters; it depends on a number of things, with neither option being ideal. Maybe the flood will be short? How good of a swimmer am I? What are other people doing? Is it still raining? Is there a rescue helicopter coming? How fast is the water? How deep?
There's a downside to getting out of the car right now, in other words, that must be considered.
> Only a person who reasons like a fool (like this journalist) would consider themself to be "stuck" with an investment which they cannot make a profit on and have to wait and pray.
Plenty of investors have to wrestle with deciding if an investment will recover or continue to plummet.
The article even directly addresses this:
"Many in the industry predict that private equity firms will eventually be forced to sell and give cash back to investors, even if it means accepting a lower price."
> When the true meaning is that those private equity firms are invested into that number of companies. They will always be invested in companies which they haven't sold yet.
Which is why the journalist noted said number is more than twice as many as a decade ago.
Your objections here feel very much like "the finance journalist left assumed some basic knowledge and reading comprehension skills anyone reading a finance article should already possess". They aren't writing for Wikipedia.
Free link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/10/business/private-equity-u...
I've had several clients bought up by PE over the years. Usually just after my work with them refactoring for growth. It's fascinating to me to read about them having anything not go their way. Every deal was so clean and efficient - like a robotic butcher from a Looney Tunes cartoon. It also makes me wonder about the extended time frame since PE are often far better at the deal making than they are running businesses long-term. In other words, they can make a business efficient through strategic cuts, but building and managing it afterward is very different when that wasn't necessarily part of the plan.
I had some visibility to a software company looking to sell the last few years. All the PE companies were effectively “if it’s not AI we’re not interested”.
Gotta wonder how that is going to play out…
Private Equity is a cancer
[flagged]
Perhaps you could give us a concrete example, or explanation, to help us understand?
Otherwise, this comment is similarly void of useful info.
1. Private equity is a form of investment, not a form of investor. Meaning that strategy and goals are different for different investors. Some want long term, some want short term. They have different risk/profit calculations.
2. "Stuck with unsold business" - You can only sell for the price that somebody wants to buy for. There is no such thing as a guaranteed return on investment, especially not for this type of investment. Just sitting on it doesn't magically make value go up. So the entire idea of the journalist is dumb from beginning to end.
3. "Fulfill their value promise" - If you believe anybody who promises you a certain return on your high risk investment, then I have a bridge to sell you.
4. Everybody who has invested any money into any type of investment is also "stuck" waiting for somebody to buy it for a higher price if they don't want to sell for the price offered right now. So the article is completely meaningless. They are "stuck" by their own decisions.
> Private equity is a form of investment, not a form of investor.
Surely a particular form of investment typically attracts a particular form of investor?
> You can only sell for the price that somebody wants to buy for.
And if you don't want to sell for that price, because you'd lose money on the deal, you are kinda stuck, yes?
> If you believe anybody who promises you a certain return on your high risk investment, then I have a bridge to sell you.
I think you're doing the "false perspective of what … a word means" thing here yourself.
> Everybody who has invested any money into any type of investment is also "stuck" waiting for somebody to buy it for a higher price if they don't want to sell for the price offered right now.
Sure, but there's stuck in a puddle, and stuck at the bottom of the Challenger Deep.
The 2008-2009 financial crisis happened because a bunch of investors got very stuck with assets that were suddenly not worth much.
> Surely a particular form of investment typically attracts a particular form of investor?
The term is so broad that you cannot say that for private equity.
> And if you don't want to sell for that price, because you'd lose money on the deal, you are kinda stuck, yes?
Yes, just like my uncle is stuck in his car because he doesn't want to get out of it.
Only a person who reasons like a fool (like this journalist) would consider themself to be "stuck" with an investment which they cannot make a profit on and have to wait and pray. Sure, many people think like that, but a seasoned or professional investor who thinks like that has to be instantly fired and probably tarred and feathered by whoever has trusted their money with him.
The correct way: Instead of demanding that God forces somebody to pay you an amount that nobody wants to pay for your investment, you have to accept your losses so that you can get your money out and invest it into something better.
The journalist takes this:
"As of June 30, private equity firms had 33,575 unsold companies in their portfolios, according to PitchBook, an industry data firm. "
And turns it into this:
"Private Equity Is Stuck with 33,575 Unsold Businesses"
When the true meaning is that those private equity firms are invested into that number of companies. They will always be invested in companies which they haven't sold yet. Otherwise they wouldn't exist. Every pension fund in the world is invested into hundreds or thousands of "unsold businesses" as long as they are invested. The purpose of private equity firms is to invest in businesses. Otherwise they have no investments.
> The term is so broad that you cannot say that for private equity.
You called these "high risk investments". That tells you at least some broad information about the sort of investors who are attracted to it. Claiming otherwise makes you appear as ignorant as you're asserting the journalist is.
> Yes, just like my uncle is stuck in his car because he doesn't want to get out of it.
I think it's more akin to deciding if you stay in or get out of a car engulfed by floodwaters; it depends on a number of things, with neither option being ideal. Maybe the flood will be short? How good of a swimmer am I? What are other people doing? Is it still raining? Is there a rescue helicopter coming? How fast is the water? How deep?
There's a downside to getting out of the car right now, in other words, that must be considered.
> Only a person who reasons like a fool (like this journalist) would consider themself to be "stuck" with an investment which they cannot make a profit on and have to wait and pray.
Plenty of investors have to wrestle with deciding if an investment will recover or continue to plummet.
The article even directly addresses this:
"Many in the industry predict that private equity firms will eventually be forced to sell and give cash back to investors, even if it means accepting a lower price."
> When the true meaning is that those private equity firms are invested into that number of companies. They will always be invested in companies which they haven't sold yet.
Which is why the journalist noted said number is more than twice as many as a decade ago.
Your objections here feel very much like "the finance journalist left assumed some basic knowledge and reading comprehension skills anyone reading a finance article should already possess". They aren't writing for Wikipedia.
Typical NY Times bait
What is bait about it?