Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadHopper
Google and Sunapee and Wachusets' privatizing did not go well through the years. Some years they ask for forgiveness and some years they made out very well and the state did not profit from it. Plus the demands the fat corporation asks for the landowners are a bit much so I don't want to get into this here. In other states and federal property when a company goes belly up the municipalities are usually held responsible for cleaning up the abandoned property.
So, Silber, Sylvia's grandiose idea may not have a silver lining. They probably don't give a s$$t as they pass it on to the next generation.
I heard that their puppet Peter Ness came barrelling in and tries to bark orders in the resort. The rank and file are getting furious. Peter is just a mediocre lawyer on the wagon thinking he knows everything because he has a PSIA certificate.
|
Most investment professionals would say that there is ALWAYS a good price at which to sell an investment--in other words, there is definitely some number and set of conditions that a for-profit operator could offer where the citizens come out ahead.
But that does not mean that we will get that number, and there are a couple of reasons why it's unlikely. First, the for-profit operator needs to build in profit to get a return on their investment. That might be 20% of the amount invested off the top every year. So the first 20% of financial improvement goes to the money guys, not the people. Of course, it's REALLY tough to improve a good operation by more than 20%, so....Second, even if we accept the above, we need to remember that the for-profit finance guys are MUCH more sophisticated than the government guys on our side of the bargaining table. So even if we think we have a good deal, we are likely missing a few finer points, as BroadHopper notes was the case at other areas.
So I'd keep my money on Mr Day...