Most innovative and disruptive (and generally just profoundly interesting) company that hardly anyone knows about in the grand scheme of things.

Econ professor espousing on the stock market lol. As someone with a couple dumb fancy Econ degrees and whose career has been quite good in the stock market, this comment made me laugh.

Why? Everyone knows the stock market can be irrational and disconnected from the economy.

One framework I like to use is, “If this thing didn’t exist today, and someone proposed it, how would people react to it?”

I think it’s fair to say that if none of this existed today, and someone proposed that the federal government simply give universities like Harvard seemingly endless billions, it would be laughed out of existence by republicans and democrats alike. All of this is the product of inertia at best, corruption at worst. It’s a different world today and we don’t need our tax dollars going to these places.

"If thing doesn't exist, gets proposed, gets laughed out of the room, good idea" is your framework? It doesn't sound like a good framework.

Wait till you hear of countries where university education is 100% tax funded. And you get money from the government while you're a full-time student.

What a life.

You said it, what a legend. Highly recommend the documentary "When We Were Kings". RIP Big George.

YouTube can only stop if it the guy goes on Joe Rogan, then they can screw around with it with impunity.

Now apply this to every private business and their hiring practices and let me know how things shake out and whether people are happy about the results.

Is this isn’t the top comment I’ll be sad.

I too was a libertarian when I was 12 years old.

But seriously, if you paid attention over the last decade, there was so much shit about big tech that people said were going to lead to tyranny/big brother oversight, and yet the closest we have ever gotten to tyranny is by voting in a bombastic talking orange man from NYC that we somehow believed has our best interests in mind.

Like Y2K, there's an argument that diligence from the tech crowd prevented this.

Or, the more likely scenario is that Big Tech is just interested in making money rather than controlling the population.

Yep, the tech crowd sure did prevent Palantir and ClearView. Argue away.

While there is some truth to being exposed to certain stimuli through products that you actually use that may cause you to do things like buy shit you don't need, that behaviour is intrinsic to people, and big tech just capitalizes on it.

And people always have the option not to partake.

The author wrongly implies that if Center Parcs was just owned by a public company or an individual, that those controlling entities would simply not care about making a profit and wouldn’t charge the prices they do. Author also ignores inconvenient facts such as how the private equity firms actually spent a lot of money upgrading parks in order to make them the desirable locations they are today. I suppose author would’ve preferred they be kept in disarray but cheap?? I could go on but no point. This kind of left wing economic ignorance (redundant?) is tiring but sadly expected. Private equity isn’t perfect but it’s been made out to be some sort of bogeyman it’s demonstrably not.

Which is actually more utilitarian? An experience anyone including the working poor can experience or glamping?

Not "which makes more money" and not "which is nicer" which actually benefits more people?

Hello! Author of the article here. Thanks for the comments, and appreciate the discusssion. I'll start off by pointing out that I'm not left wing, and I have an economics degree so my old lecturers would be disappointed if I was still described as 'economically ignorant.' And I completely agree that PE isn't perfect and I completely agree that PE isn't a bogeyman of any sort. Like any kind of business, I'm sure there are good PE firms and not-so-good PE firms, and firms at every point along that spectrum.

I don't intend to at all imply that Center Parcs would be better off as a public company, or in the hands of a private individual. I'm pointing out that the surface level commentary of "bloody hell Center Parcs is expensive" is misleading, and the reality is much more nuanced than that, hence the need for a deep dive into the financials. Points I make in the article:

1) Center Parcs makes great gross margins on accommodation and food & drink, and EBITDA looks great, but that's a misleading way to look at the business precisely because it's capital-intensive, and the owners -- whether PE, public, or a private individual -- have to continue to reinvest maintenance or growth capex to keep it that way. And that requires either cash or debt, there's no way around that.

2) I contrasted it with a couple of capital-light businesses to show the difference in P&L and balance sheet dynamics, precisely because people often misunderstand capital intensity and the impacts on the business model.

3) I gave a restated measure of profitability (EBDAT), and show the normalised free cash flow which show that Center Parcs is a fairly normal performing business with decent but unspectactular returns. It's definitely not the case that the PE owners are simply pricing things high and raking in the cash.

4) I showed that the expected valuation of £4.5-5bn might be difficult to achieve at a time of rising interest rates, because both capital intense businesses and large PE deals require lots of debt. I make no value judgment on the use of debt -- debt is a tool to use in any business, and just like a surgeon's scalpel, it can be used for good or for harm.

Again, this is much more nuanced than 'PE bad, high prices bad' which is the surface-level analysis that I'm poking fun at in the title and in the piece.

There needs to be some remedy for these handful of companies that manage to break the game like they reached the kill screen in Pac Man.