on the Carlyle Group
I am not sure that we should side with Nextwave. They overbid
and went
bust. Why give the creditors a free ride? Why not resell the
spectrum to
a new set of vultures? Although if the funds just finance more
war, then
...
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
Message -
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 9:54 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:24049] Re: Re: Fortune on the Carlyle Group
I am not sure that we should side with Nextwave. They overbid
and went
bust. Why give the creditors a free ride? Why
No, Charles, I meant the creditors of NextWave. The spectrum that they
bought would have been forfeited by the bankruptcy. Instead, NextWave
gets to keep ownership, sell it and then give the proceeds to the
creditors.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 04:37:34PM +0900, Charles Jannuzi wrote:
The
MP writes:
No, Charles, I meant the creditors of NextWave. The spectrum that they
bought would have been forfeited by the bankruptcy. Instead, NextWave
gets to keep ownership, sell it and then give the proceeds to the
creditors.
I don't usually refer to such venture capitalists as
http://www.fortune.com/indexw.jhtml?channel=artcol.jhtmldoc_id=206684page=1_DARGS=%2Fartcol.jhtml.3_A_DAV=artcol.jhtml
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have not really read much material on the Carlyle Group (or been very
interested in it), but reading the Fortune piece it seems to me here is
an instance where LOV as a _sociological_ rather than (merely) economic
concept is useful. It looks like all they do is redistribute surplus
value. And
Yes, your appraisal is correct. Of course, redistribution of the surplus
via government spending has led to a multitude of interpretations.
On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 08:05:16PM -0600, Carrol Cox wrote:
I have not really read much material on the Carlyle Group (or been very
interested in it),
What interests me about Carlyle Group is, in a way, still rather amorphous.
1. They give revolving doors an entirely new 'spin'.
At first the strategy was how to benefit from the consolidation of the
defense industries of the US and UK that took place from the late 1980s
onward. No one took
While CG's funds cherry pick profitable holdings and clients, it does
another important type of cherry picking: head hunting through the revolving
doors of DC and other government centers. It's got the former head of the
World Bank, the former head of the FCC, and the former head of the SEC. I'm
And if CG enters an area, you can be sure (1) the stakes are high, (2)
they've got key insider knowledge, and (3) they know who to lobby (imagine
being lobbied by your former boss with a promise of a job at a company like
CG!). Anyway, it was Kennard, now at CG, when he was in charge of the FCC,
I am not sure that we should side with Nextwave. They overbid and went
bust. Why give the creditors a free ride? Why not resell the spectrum to
a new set of vultures? Although if the funds just finance more war, then
...
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
MP writes:
I am not sure that we should side with Nextwave. They overbid and went
bust. Why give the creditors a free ride? Why not resell the spectrum to
a new set of vultures? Although if the funds just finance more war, then
The biggest creditor is the federal government here, since
12 matches
Mail list logo
