Tuesday, February 27, 2007

This time they've gone too far

The normally pro-whatever-the-markets-come-up-with Wall Street Journal editorial page (subs. req'd) finally finds something it doesn't like about private equity takeovers -- a nefarious conspiracy of environmentalists and ruthless profit-maximizing Wall Street investment bankers not to pollute the air with coal fired power plants. This is in the context of the biggest private equity deal yet, the KKR takeover of the Texas power company TXU, but even the Journal knows that they need a theory as to why the takeover specialists would profit from an alliance with the greens, so they link it to the opposition in Texas to TXU's plans to follow the exhortations of George W. Bush and use more coal --

As for TXU's current shareholders, the agitation of the greens may have helped bring down TXU's share price last year, so the environmentalists probably did KKR and partners a favor. There may even be a trend in the making here -- environmental protesters bring down a stock, making a private-equity transaction look more attractive, and in return, the equity firm and its management partners buy off the greens with this or that environmental promise. We're not suggesting any such quid pro quo here, but if we were TXU's mom-and-pop investors or Texas energy consumers we'd certainly be asking some pointed questions.

Geddit? Silly power company proposes more coal, environmentalists object, share price declines making it a cheaper takeover target, the company drops its plans and the share price goes back up -- cleaner air and fat profits for everyone. This all sounds like a fabulous conspiracy except for the complete absence of any theory explaining why the environmentalists, probably trying to scrape together the $3 for a latte at Starbucks, suddenly have the power to determine share prices at $35 billion companies.

Who knows where this line of reasoning could lead. If it turns out that rich people are disproportionately interested in Al Gore's Oscar winning film, could the Journal develop a sudden interest in progressive taxation?

No comments: