<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
<channel>
<title>BloggingStocks</title>
<link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com</link>
<description>BloggingStocks</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2009 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Private equity's real winners -- U.S. retirees and the public markets, for starters]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/03/26/private-equitys-real-winners-u-s-retirees-and-the-public-ma/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/03/26/private-equitys-real-winners-u-s-retirees-and-the-public-ma/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/03/26/private-equitys-real-winners-u-s-retirees-and-the-public-ma/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>As a private equity professional for more than twenty years, it has been amusing to read about the growth of private equity as if the business is a new phenomenon. And now it is also being portrayed by various governments as troubling and perhaps even a bit of an evil force in need of various remedies. Our own Federal Government, always late to the party, has decided that things are sufficiently off track that they must consider changing the longstanding tax code to be sure to step on the throat of the U.S. economy's Golden Goose.</p>
<p>First, a brief bit of history. Though operating under a different moniker, Private Equity is actually a hundred year old business. Good old fashioned leveraged buyouts have been a basic tool of entrepreneurship since the early 1900s when folks like J.P. Morgan and The Rockefellers were doing "bootstrap" deals, acquisitions of companies financed largely with bank debt. The business became institutionalized in the 1970s with the growth of good firms like <a href="http://www.bloggingbuyouts.com/kkr/">Kohlberg Kravis Roberts</a>, who started out doing $10 million deals. The sector grew dramatically during the '80s, as the "LBO-business" and had its first peak in 1989 with the collapse of Drexel Burnham Lambert.</p>
<p> </p><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/03/26/private-equitys-real-winners-u-s-retirees-and-the-public-ma/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Private equity's real winners -- U.S. retirees and the public markets, for starters</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/03/26/private-equitys-real-winners-u-s-retirees-and-the-public-ma/">Private equity's real winners -- U.S. retirees and the public markets, for starters</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:46:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/03/26/private-equitys-real-winners-u-s-retirees-and-the-public-ma/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/860335/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/03/26/private-equitys-real-winners-u-s-retirees-and-the-public-ma/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Rick Rickertsen]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:46:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Private equity for Chrysler: Bring it on!]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/02/25/private-equity-for-chrysler-bring-it-on/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/02/25/private-equity-for-chrysler-bring-it-on/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/02/25/private-equity-for-chrysler-bring-it-on/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/dai/" rel="tag">Daimler (DAI)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/f/" rel="tag">Ford Motor (F)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/gm/" rel="tag">General Motors (GM)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/tm/" rel="tag">Toyota Motor Corp. (TM)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/privateequity/" rel="tag">Private equity</a></p><p>Much has been made recently of the problems DaimlerChrysler AG (NYSE:<a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/daimlerchrysler-ag/dcx/nys">DCX</a>) has with its Chrysler unit and the prospect that the unit may be sold.</p>
<p>There has been speculation that it will end up in the hands of private equity firms. Let's hope so. This may be among the best hopes for our struggling domestic auto industry. </p>
<p>First, some have suggested that the deal is too large for PE firms. This is just not the case. Industry experts peg the value of the deal at $60 billion, about equal to Chrysler's annual revenue. </p>
<p> </p><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/02/25/private-equity-for-chrysler-bring-it-on/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Private equity for Chrysler: Bring it on!</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/02/25/private-equity-for-chrysler-bring-it-on/">Private equity for Chrysler: Bring it on!</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:45:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/02/25/private-equity-for-chrysler-bring-it-on/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/840381/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/02/25/private-equity-for-chrysler-bring-it-on/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>Big Three</category><category>BigThree</category><category>Chrysler</category><category>Ford</category><category>GM</category><category>private equity</category><category>PrivateEquity</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Rick Rickertsen]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:45:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Best &amp; Worst: The Donald as hair icon]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/12/06/best-and-worst-the-donald-as-hair-icon/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/12/06/best-and-worst-the-donald-as-hair-icon/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/12/06/best-and-worst-the-donald-as-hair-icon/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/trmp/" rel="tag">Trump Entertainment Resorts (TRMP)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/best-and-worst-2006/" rel="tag">Best and Worst 2006</a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><em><img id="vimage_1" alt="" hspace="4" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2006/12/favorite-worst-signature-style-look-200a120106.jpg" align="right" vspace="4" border="1" />This post is written as part of AOL Money &amp; Finance's Best &amp; Worst 2006. You can vote for Donald Trump's hair as the <a href="http://money.aol.com/best-and-worst-in-money-2006/worst-signature-style">Worst Signature Style</a>. </em><br /></p>
<p>Good Mr. Trump, he of the fluffy comb-over, had a heck of a year in 2006. We should all be so lucky (he would ascribe luck to none of it, of course, but that is another matter)!</p>
<p>Just a few of his accomplishments:</p>
<ul>
    <li>The Iconic Donald saw his net worth rise again above a mere <strong>five billion dollars</strong>. </li>
    <li>He is erecting buildings all over the world, including a Trump Tower in Dubai. The Hair is literally global. </li>
    <li>He married a stunning model, half his age, and fathered a lovely son whom he subtly named Baron. He has stated for the record that he does not and will not change the baby's diapers. </li>
    <li>His television show, <em>The Apprentice,</em> is literally one of the top-rated shows in television. To demonstrate that his Trumpian blood line lives on, he fired his firm professionals from the show and put both of his genetically perfect children on camera alongside him. And they are articulate and on the ball, like pop. </li>
    <li>To put a capper on his TV dominance he put a smack down on his "friend" and <em>Apprentice </em>ing&eacute;nue, Martha Stewart, when she attempted her own show and talked down the D-man. Nobody does that! Wonder how he handles his enemies when they cross him? </li>
</ul>
<p>And now, at year end, he is giving foreign-policy style speeches and musing about running for president. And like our current president, the Donald does not drink alcohol. No wonder he is always so crisp. </p><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/12/06/best-and-worst-the-donald-as-hair-icon/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Best &amp; Worst: The Donald as hair icon</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/12/06/best-and-worst-the-donald-as-hair-icon/">Best &amp; Worst: The Donald as hair icon</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:00:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/12/06/best-and-worst-the-donald-as-hair-icon/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/710285/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/12/06/best-and-worst-the-donald-as-hair-icon/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>Baron Trump</category><category>Donald Trump</category><category>DonaldTrump</category><category>Frederic Fekkai</category><category>FredericFekkai</category><category>George Clooney</category><category>Lance Armstrong</category><category>LanceArmstrong</category><category>Madonna</category><category>Martha Stewart</category><category>Oprah</category><category>Prince</category><category>The Apprentice</category><category>The Donald</category><category>Trump Tower</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Rick Rickertsen]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[We've reached the market top: Tom Cruise meets private equity]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/11/21/weve-reached-the-market-top-tom-cruise-meets-private-equity/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/11/21/weve-reached-the-market-top-tom-cruise-meets-private-equity/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/11/21/weve-reached-the-market-top-tom-cruise-meets-private-equity/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/rants-and-raves/" rel="tag">Rants and raves</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/goog/" rel="tag">Google (GOOG)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/f/" rel="tag">Ford Motor (F)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/privateequity/" rel="tag">Private equity</a></p><p><img id="vimage_1" alt="" hspace="4" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2006/11/tom-cruise-150a061506.jpg" align="right" vspace="4" border="1" />Market observers are always looking for a top. It is that one moment, that one symbolic act, that one windfall beyond belief or act of such stupidity that tells folks that things have gotten as crazy as they are going to get. And it's all downhill from here.</p>
<p>It's the day when irrational exuberance gets drunk on hubris. And a terrible hangover follows.</p>
<p>Well, I have seen the top, and it happened this week.</p>
<p>Was it the announcement that Wall Streeters were going to get <em>$30 billion</em> in bonuses in their Christmas stockings this year? Nope. </p>
<p>Was it the Hertz IPO, you ask, where investors fleeced Ford Motor company (NYSE:F) and made $2 billion in about thirty minutes? No sirree.</p>
<p>Was it Google Inc.(NASDAQ:GOOG) buying YouTube, Inc. for about $10 million dollars per day that the company existed ? Nyet. </p>
<p>Was it the announcement of more than $50 BILLION DOLLARS of deals in one day, which occurred on Monday ? Wrong again!</p><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/11/21/weve-reached-the-market-top-tom-cruise-meets-private-equity/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>We've reached the market top: Tom Cruise meets private equity</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/11/21/weve-reached-the-market-top-tom-cruise-meets-private-equity/">We've reached the market top: Tom Cruise meets private equity</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:35:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/11/21/weve-reached-the-market-top-tom-cruise-meets-private-equity/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/705865/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/11/21/weve-reached-the-market-top-tom-cruise-meets-private-equity/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>Ford</category><category>Google</category><category>Hertz</category><category>private equity</category><category>PrivateEquity</category><category>Tom Cruise</category><category>TomCruise</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Rick Rickertsen]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:35:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[More scrutiny for private equity firms]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/11/06/more-scrutiny-for-private-equity-firms/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/11/06/more-scrutiny-for-private-equity-firms/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/11/06/more-scrutiny-for-private-equity-firms/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/deals/" rel="tag">Deals</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/management/" rel="tag">Management</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/privateequity/" rel="tag">Private equity</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/scandals/" rel="tag">Scandals</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/mer/" rel="tag">Merrill Lynch (MER)</a></p><p>As the Private Equity deal juggernaut continues at a record pace, the Justice Department continues to send out letters in their probe of PE competitive behavior. <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116278409226914225.html?"><em>The Wall Street Journal</em> reported today that Merrill Lynch &amp; Co., Inc. (NYSE:MER)</a> has joined this inauspicious list. Other letters in the same form, I am sure, will be received by other players. Any Justice Department investigation is bad news and a distraction, and I am sure there is concern throughout the PE industry. <br /><br />The question at hand is whether PE firms, in pursuing the "club" deals (many firms getting together to pursue a large target, like a bunch of hunters combining to wrestle an elephant) are "colluding" to bring down prices for the assets they are pursuing, thereby undertaking anti-competitive and thus illegal behavior. The <em>Journal </em>speculates that the Hertz transaction is under particular scrutiny. This was not only a large club deal but one where the buyers made a lot of money VERY quickly. To the Justice Department, I am sure, the fact that big bucks were made in short order MUST mean illegal activity. The Federal Government seems to frown upon large scale success, and therefore must investigate. <br /><br />I have not seen any of these love letters and can only speculate about the investigation, but the facts of life in Private Equity do not support a case for collusion.</p><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/11/06/more-scrutiny-for-private-equity-firms/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>More scrutiny for private equity firms</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/11/06/more-scrutiny-for-private-equity-firms/">More scrutiny for private equity firms</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:23:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116278409226914225.html?>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/11/06/more-scrutiny-for-private-equity-firms/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/697185/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/11/06/more-scrutiny-for-private-equity-firms/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>club deals</category><category>ClubDeals</category><category>deals</category><category>equity</category><category>hertz</category><category>journal</category><category>merrill</category><category>merrill lynch</category><category>MerrillLynch</category><category>pe</category><category>private</category><category>private equity</category><category>PrivateEquity</category><category>wall street journal</category><category>WallStreetJournal</category><category>wsj</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Rick Rickertsen]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:23:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[NASA starts venture capital fund! They can't be serious]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/31/nasa-starts-venture-capital-fund-they-cant-be-serious/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/31/nasa-starts-venture-capital-fund-they-cant-be-serious/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/31/nasa-starts-venture-capital-fund-they-cant-be-serious/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/launches/" rel="tag">Launches</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/rants-and-raves/" rel="tag">Rants and raves</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/privateequity/" rel="tag">Private equity</a></p><p>With the annual Federal deficit at around $300 billion, a weekly $1.5 billion cash burn in Iraq, and the National Debt a little north of $7 TRILLION, you would think our trusty lawmakers would be watching OUR pennies.</p>
<p>Instead, they are finding new and creative ways to waste OUR money.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/30/AR2006103001069.html"><u><em>Washington Post</em></u></a> announced this morning that "NASA Invests in Its Future with Venture Capital Firm." In a project that is called "Red Planet" but surely should have been called "Red Ink," the wise folks at NASA have set aside $75 million of your dough to fund projects so "NASA could see a lot of technical innovation" through its direct ownership in technology companies. </p>
<p>This idea is a screaming loser on so many levels it is almost hard to get started.</p><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/31/nasa-starts-venture-capital-fund-they-cant-be-serious/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>NASA starts venture capital fund! They can't be serious</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/31/nasa-starts-venture-capital-fund-they-cant-be-serious/">NASA starts venture capital fund! They can't be serious</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:30:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/31/nasa-starts-venture-capital-fund-they-cant-be-serious/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/693853/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/31/nasa-starts-venture-capital-fund-they-cant-be-serious/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>MIchael Griffin</category><category>MichaelGriffin</category><category>NASA</category><category>Red Planet</category><category>RedPlanet</category><category>technology</category><category>Venture capital</category><category>VentureCapital</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Rick Rickertsen]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:30:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Failing up, large, on Wall Street]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/30/failing-up-large-on-wall-street/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/30/failing-up-large-on-wall-street/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/30/failing-up-large-on-wall-street/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/newspapers/" rel="tag">Newspapers</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/rants-and-raves/" rel="tag">Rants and raves</a></p>I didn't know the <em>Wall Street Journal </em>was a humor paper. But good for them. Perhaps they will sell more papers this way. They ran a piece this weekend that provided true belly laughs. And tears. <br /><br />"Amaranth Trader Dreams of Second Act After Loss" the paper proclaimed. Wow ! Brian Hunter, the guy who lost only six billion dollars four weeks ago and wiped out retirement money for dozens of institutions, "is exploring whether to get back in the game". "He approached Wall Street contacts to gauge investor interest in backing him," the paper went on to say. They did not mention if these were very short conversations. <br /><br />Hmmmmm.<br /><br />Now, I thought that Hollywood was the only economic environment wherein the larger you failed in your career, the better you progressed. It used to be that Hollywood had a monopoly on the Land of Failing Up. If you made a really lousy picture for ten million, they would put you in charge of a $100 million picture. That one then goes $100 million over budget, subsequently grosses 300 Rupees, and they immediately made you a studio head in charge of billions. What a country !!<p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/30/failing-up-large-on-wall-street/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Failing up, large, on Wall Street</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/30/failing-up-large-on-wall-street/">Failing up, large, on Wall Street</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:21:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/30/failing-up-large-on-wall-street/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/693199/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/30/failing-up-large-on-wall-street/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>Amaranth</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Rick Rickertsen]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:21:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Private equity firms hit new funding highs: will anyone be safe?]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/26/private-equity-firms-hit-new-funding-highs-will-anyone-be-safe/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/26/private-equity-firms-hit-new-funding-highs-will-anyone-be-safe/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/26/private-equity-firms-hit-new-funding-highs-will-anyone-be-safe/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/privateequity/" rel="tag">Private equity</a></p><img id="vimage_1" alt="" hspace="4" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2006/10/snipshot_160pkpmuhb.jpg" align="right" vspace="4" border="1" />The <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116182819263204208.html?mod=home_whats_news_us"><em>Wall Street Journal</em></a> reported today that Private Equity monster Blackstone is taking their fund size up over $20 billion, an industry first. This, in itself, is not big news. Fund sizes have grown dramatically in the past five years, with several players at $15 billion. The big news in the story is that, in this year alone, PE firms have raised upwards of $159 billion, a record by a wide margin. <br /><br />Let's think about this. With conservative leverage of 2 to 1, the dollars raised this year alone could buy over $450 billion worth of companies. It is likely that previously existing funds were in the $300 billion range, so in total PE firms have the existing financial clout to acquire well over $ 1 TRILLION worth of companies.<br /><br />This now means that no company, however large, is beyond PE reach. This is very good for the stock market for several reasons. Slackers will be taken private. All of those lazy executives, bloated companies, poorly run conglomerates, and CEOs who pursue empire building rather than profits, are all on notice. No one is safe. This also means that companies who were moving slowly will be put on notice, and all executives will need to take their game up a few notches. <br /><br />For investors, I believe this PE war chest is good news all around.<p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/26/private-equity-firms-hit-new-funding-highs-will-anyone-be-safe/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Private equity firms hit new funding highs: will anyone be safe?</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/26/private-equity-firms-hit-new-funding-highs-will-anyone-be-safe/">Private equity firms hit new funding highs: will anyone be safe?</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:59:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/26/private-equity-firms-hit-new-funding-highs-will-anyone-be-safe/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/691528/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/26/private-equity-firms-hit-new-funding-highs-will-anyone-be-safe/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>Blackstone</category><category>Pine Creek Partners</category><category>PineCreekPartners</category><category>Private Equity</category><category>PrivateEquity</category><category>Rick Rickertson</category><category>RickRickertson</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Rick Rickertsen]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:59:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Do Goldman Sachs senior partners discriminate against candidates with hair?]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/13/do-goldman-sachs-senior-partners-discriminate-against-candidates/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/13/do-goldman-sachs-senior-partners-discriminate-against-candidates/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/13/do-goldman-sachs-senior-partners-discriminate-against-candidates/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/employees/" rel="tag">Employees</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/privateequity/" rel="tag">Private equity</a></p><p>In carefully and critically reviewing <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116070584752591520.html?mod=hps_us_at_glance_most_pop">today's <em>WSJ</em> cover piece</a> (subscription required) on the byzantine process at Goldman Sachs for elevating their big hitters to the level of partner (a.k.a you are now very rich -- WITH status!), I stumbled upon a major insight into the inner workings of the mighty Goldman: They clearly discriminate against people with hair. </p>
<p>I don't actually read any <em>WSJ</em> articles because the print font is so small, but I very much enjoy studying the <em>Journal</em>'s little ink-jet photos. As many of you may or may not know, one has not really ARRIVED in the land of heavy hitters until one gets an ink-jet photo in the <em>Journal</em>. </p>
<p>Of ongoing interest are the ones they use of President Bush. When the <em>Journal</em> likes him , they run a powerful, upbeat ink photo that shows gravitas. But when they don't like him, they make his face look kind of scrunched-up and place his eyes too close together. Could it be a strategy on their part? </p>
<p>But I digress...</p>
<p>When doing my review of today's Goldman Sachs article, I noticed that all three of the Goldman Kahunas featured are bald as a cue-ball. Three-for-three! </p>
<p>But this does not a conspiracy make. I only pulled it all together when in my computer-like mind (which only holds pictures), it occurred to me that Hank Paulson is bald too! I immediately called the EEOC to file a claim on behalf of all People of Hair ("POH") as a class action. </p>
<p>I don't know where all this is leading, but I have hired my brother-in-law, a low-level divorce lawyer, to handle the claim. All of you Goldman-partner-wannabe's who have something on their head to put a brush to, should call me right away or rise up in protest on my website: www.goldmandiscriminatesagainstpartnercandidateswithhair.com. </p>
<p>On this news I have also shorted some barber and hair products companies. It is clear to me that since no one with hair will be made partner at Goldman, there will be no rich folks with hair downtown who are able to afford a good haircut. Follow my lead!</p>
<p><em>Rick Rickertsen is a managing partner at Pine Creek Partners, a Washington, D.C.-based private equity firm, and author of</em> Sell Your Business Your Way. <em>He occasionally writes humor pieces for Blogging Stocks.</em></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/13/do-goldman-sachs-senior-partners-discriminate-against-candidates/">Do Goldman Sachs senior partners discriminate against candidates with hair?</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:50:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116070584752591520.html?mod=hps_us_at_glance_most_pop>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/13/do-goldman-sachs-senior-partners-discriminate-against-candidates/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/684578/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/13/do-goldman-sachs-senior-partners-discriminate-against-candidates/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>bald</category><category>Goldman Sachs</category><category>GoldmanSachs</category><category>Wall Street Journal</category><category>WallStreetJournal</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Rick Rickertsen]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:50:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Venture capital dead, says NY Times? We are finished!]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/09/venture-capital-dead-says-ny-times-we-are-finished/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/09/venture-capital-dead-says-ny-times-we-are-finished/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/09/venture-capital-dead-says-ny-times-we-are-finished/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/bad-news/" rel="tag">Bad news</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/newspapers/" rel="tag">Newspapers</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/rants-and-raves/" rel="tag">Rants and raves</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/hpq/" rel="tag">Hewlett-Packard (HPQ)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/privateequity/" rel="tag">Private equity</a></p><p>The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/07/business/07venture.html"><em>NY Times</em> proclaimed on Saturday</a> that the venture capital business is dead, based upon one venture firm going wobbly at the knees. This simply is not true, and other forces are likely at work here.</p>
<p>I just wanted to cry at the sadness I felt for Sevin-Rosen in pulling their tenth fund. This is a venerable old firm, which funded such legendary Silicon Valley founders as Compaq Computer. "The traditional venture model seems to be broken," said partner Steve Dow. Too much money chasing too few deals!! As Claude Rains said in <em>Casablanca</em>, "I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!" to find lots of money pursing good venture investments. </p>
<p>This has been the operative environment since I joined the venture capital business in 1987. It is just a competitive business, folks. Is now and always has been. It is a hard, rigorous, risky business, requiring hard work and harder huevos rancheros. </p><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/09/venture-capital-dead-says-ny-times-we-are-finished/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Venture capital dead, says NY Times? We are finished!</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/09/venture-capital-dead-says-ny-times-we-are-finished/">Venture capital dead, says NY Times? We are finished!</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Mon, 09 Oct 2006 12:18:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/09/venture-capital-dead-says-ny-times-we-are-finished/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/681933/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/10/09/venture-capital-dead-says-ny-times-we-are-finished/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Rick Rickertsen]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2006 12:18:00 EST</pubDate></item></channel></rss>