I wrote last week about Salmon's post questioning the "silly war," as he puts it, on vulture funds. Reader comments and the views expressed as a result of the entry were thoughtful and added further color to this increasingly interesting issue.
One reader made a particularly thought-provoking analogy, comparing the public's discomfort about vulture funds to that of record or pharmaceutical companies. He says:
"The discomfort people feel toward vulture funds strikes me as rather a lot like (part of) the discomfort people feel toward record companies and pharmaceuticals. Each is playing the different games in the same way: they’re both playing for the tails of the distribution. Now these same people may have other good reasons to hate the recording and pharma industries, but claims that these groups “gouge” artists and patients (and debtors in the case of the vultures) on the basis that one particular “hit” has high margins/returns is a bit myopic."
I think this brings up an important point--perhaps because of the name they have assumed, or the couple of high-profile cases that have been splashed across the news, vulture funds are often only partially understood.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment