Vulture Funds: A New Category in Capitalism

A new capitalism – brutal and conquering – is moving in. It's the capitalism of a new category of vulture funds: private equity funds with the appetite of an ogre that command colossal amounts of capital.

Vulture Funds: A New Category in Capitalism

A new capitalism – brutal and conquering – is moving in. It's the capitalism of a new category of vulture funds: private equity funds with the appetite of an ogre that command colossal amounts of capital.

The names of these titans – The Carlyle Group, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (KKR), The Blackstone Group, Colony Capital, Apollo Management, Starwood Capital Group, Texas Pacific Group, Wendel, Eurazeo, etc. – remain little known to the general public. And, sheltered by that discretion, they're in the process of taking possession of the global economy. In four years, from 2002 to 2006, the sum raised by these investment funds, which collect the money of banks, insurance companies, pension funds, and the assets of the richest individuals, went from $137 billion to $524 billion. Their financial firepower is phenomenal, exceeding $1.6 trillion. Nothing withstands them. Last year, in the United States, the main private equities firms invested $424 billion in repurchasing companies, and more than $322 billion during just the first semester of 2007, thus taking control of 8,000 companies. Already one American employee out of four – and close to one French employee out of 12 – works for these mastodons.

The phenomenon of these rapacious funds erupted about 15 years ago, but is now on steroids. Thanks to cheap credit and ever more sophisticated financial instruments, that phenomenon has lately taken on a worrying scope. The principle is simple: a club of wealthy investors decides to buy up companies that they then manage privately, far from the stock market and its restrictive rules, and without having to account to fussy, fuddy-duddy shareholders. The idea is to circumvent the very principles of the capitalist ethic by betting on the laws of the jungle only.

Concretely, two specialists explain to us, this is how things go: "To acquire a company worth 100, the fund takes 30 out of its pocket (on average) and borrows 70 from banks, taking advantage of the very low interest rates of the moment. During three or four years, it reorganizes the company with the management in place, rationalizes production, develops activities and captures all or part of the profits to pay the interest... on its own debt. After which, it will resell the company for 200, often to another fund that will do the same thing. Once the borrowed 70 is repaid, the firm has 130 left in its pocket for an initial bet of 30, or a return of over 300 percent on a four-year investment. What could be better?"

And while they personally are earning insane fortunes, the directors of these funds practice, without any squeamishness, the four great principles of corporate "rationalization:" reducing employment, squeezing salaries, increasing the work pace and outsourcing. Encouraged in all that by the public authorities, which, as in France today, dream of "modernizing" their production apparatus. And to the great displeasure of the unions, which call it a nightmare and denounce the end of the social contract.

Some thought that, with globalization, capitalism was finally sated. We see now that its voracity seems limitless. Until when?


Abridged from Le Monde Diplomatique. Translated by Leslie Thatcher.

28 comments on the article “Vulture Funds: A New Category in Capitalism”

Displaying 11 - 20 of 28

Page 2 of 3

an individual

They are vultures and they pay just enough to keep the ones below them from unionizing or do whatever the unions used to do as a collective whole. but we as children of America know nothing of the collective whole because we are taught to go at it alone thinking that were better than the union. While the union is these vulture investors who have just made a rich, really wealthy union with a die hard pact that stops at nothing.

an individual

They are vultures and they pay just enough to keep the ones below them from unionizing or do whatever the unions used to do as a collective whole. but we as children of America know nothing of the collective whole because we are taught to go at it alone thinking that were better than the union. While the union is these vulture investors who have just made a rich, really wealthy union with a die hard pact that stops at nothing.

Jess

I haven't read any of the other comments so I don't know if anyone mentioned this. There is another kind of vulture fund where companies buy the reduced debt of third world countries, sue the country and make them pay back the full price. See this article for more details: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/6362783.stm

Jess

I haven't read any of the other comments so I don't know if anyone mentioned this. There is another kind of vulture fund where companies buy the reduced debt of third world countries, sue the country and make them pay back the full price. See this article for more details: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/6362783.stm

Dan H

I just noticed the 'abridged from Le Monde Diplomatique' and realized that this was taken from a different publication. There's nothing wrong with this - it was credited - but since when is Adbusters putting wire stories on the front page of their website. Belated ones, no less. The story was from almost a year ago. The fact that the article uses the word "new" in the headline, deck and first graph is a bit sad for the state of this publication.

Dan H

I just noticed the 'abridged from Le Monde Diplomatique' and realized that this was taken from a different publication. There's nothing wrong with this - it was credited - but since when is Adbusters putting wire stories on the front page of their website. Belated ones, no less. The story was from almost a year ago. The fact that the article uses the word "new" in the headline, deck and first graph is a bit sad for the state of this publication.

Rob Em

Do you read the journal? Most of the articles you see here are from back issues of Adbusters, such as this one. So for one, this isn't a wire story. As for the datedness, Vulture Capitalism is still going on so is it irrelevant? What defines datedness to you, simply being not immediately new? Thats a very commmon consumerist attitude.

Why not comment on the content rather than attack the medium (as I just did to you)?

Rob Em

Do you read the journal? Most of the articles you see here are from back issues of Adbusters, such as this one. So for one, this isn't a wire story. As for the datedness, Vulture Capitalism is still going on so is it irrelevant? What defines datedness to you, simply being not immediately new? Thats a very commmon consumerist attitude.

Why not comment on the content rather than attack the medium (as I just did to you)?

Dan H

"Why not comment on the content rather than attack the medium (as I just did to you)?"

I did, see my earlier post.

"As for the datedness, Vulture Capitalism is still going on so is it irrelevant?"

No, I said that in my earlier post as well. The fact that the publication was to lazy to refashion the article (ie. eliminating the focus on this being some new phenomenon, although this probably should have been done a year ago as well) is what bothered me.

Dan H

"Why not comment on the content rather than attack the medium (as I just did to you)?"

I did, see my earlier post.

"As for the datedness, Vulture Capitalism is still going on so is it irrelevant?"

No, I said that in my earlier post as well. The fact that the publication was to lazy to refashion the article (ie. eliminating the focus on this being some new phenomenon, although this probably should have been done a year ago as well) is what bothered me.

Pages

Add a new comment

Comments are closed.