These are just my first thoughts after a quick read~~
The title of the piece is written in a condescending way. ” Just STFU and do your movies.” Insulting.
The author brings up the two flops that Loeb complained about–and as George had stated, Loeb picks two flops and ignores the profitable movies. You can’t possibly think that you’re going to have hit after hit? Seriously? If one never takes a chance and puts stuff out there that may or may not do well at the box office, according to the public’s whim, then we’ll have what happened to the music industry. With the exception of Adele and the former Amy Winehouse, I can’t think of any new music that is being played on the radio that is worth a crap.
From the article:
But to be clear, and with job-creating growth in mind, if hedge funds didn’t exist we’d have to invent them
Um.. I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think hedge funds invested in the movie industry when it was created. Folks used this thing called “cash” to form the studios and then they had this great idea to make some films and then ask people to pay to see them. Hedge fund investors don’t invest until there is a business going already. And Hedge funds have been known to fail themselves.
I found a history of hedge funds in investopedia.
More from the article:
It’s not broadly understood this way, but hedge fund billionaire John Paulson not only saved jobs, but the billions he earned surely created new ones.
Seriously? Where are those jobs, because there are an awful lot of people out of work for all the jobs created by Hedge Funds. /snark
For taking these risks, hedge funds are not only masterful job creators, they’re also paradoxically masterful job savers for their intrepid style telling others where and where not to go with their capital.
I think I’m going to be sick.
Let me get this straight–they create jobs by telling investors not to invest in a company that might create 100 jobs because….Company A looks better than Company B because Company A is willing to go without a union shop and pay people minimum wage….am I correct…?
Or…how about this–if you follow the “short selling” link, you see this:
Selling short is the opposite of going long. That is, short sellers make money if the stock goes down in price.
~~~~~
Read that again–short sellers make money if the stock goes down. Now I’m wondering if Loeb is short selling….or if someone he knows is short selling Sony stock? An associate? A relative? Since Loeb actually owns the stock, it doesn’t appear that he is short selling, since the broker technically owns the stock in a short sale. Gah. The whole thing sounds like a scam.
I used to invest in stock back in the day. I took an investment class in college, and I did quite well investing in emerging telecommunications technology. But this was at the beginning of the metamorphosis I was going through, and I began to question the whole scheme because of stuff like the above. I knew that I could not invest in companies that did not use Fair Trade practices or those that ran sweat shops, or companies like Monsanto, etc. The decision came to stop investing after losing $4,000 in Lucent Technologies, which had “facts” and “figures” that made it appear to be a good investment. Turns out that it was not.
Telling Sony to spin off the entertainment portion of its business is not creating jobs. Sorry, try another line of defense of the doubletalk.
Eagle 