←back to thread

Dollar-stores overcharge customers while promising low prices

(www.theguardian.com)
510 points bookofjoe | 5 comments | 07 Dec 25 14:37 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
regera ◴[07 Dec 25 21:07 UTC] No.46185157[source]▶
Dollar stores are private equity with a checkout lane.

In 2025, Dollar Tree sold Family Dollar to a group of private-equity firms: Brigade Capital Management, Macellum Capital Management and Arkhouse Management Co.

https://corporate.dollartree.com/news-media/press-releases/d...

It’s a business model cosplaying as poverty relief while quietly siphoning money from the people least able to lose it. They already run on a thin-staff, high-volume model. That 23% increase is not a glitch. They know their customers can’t drive across town to complain. They know the regulators won’t scale fines to revenue.

replies(17): >>46185182 #>>46185228 #>>46185328 #>>46185369 #>>46185506 #>>46185683 #>>46185730 #>>46185872 #>>46186098 #>>46186112 #>>46186250 #>>46187818 #>>46188387 #>>46190357 #>>46192019 #>>46194885 #>>46195965 #
sema4hacker ◴[07 Dec 25 21:15 UTC] No.46185228[source]▶
Has private equity ever done anything good for anyone outside of the investors?
replies(19): >>46185374 #>>46185474 #>>46185536 #>>46185605 #>>46185618 #>>46185662 #>>46185700 #>>46185710 #>>46186450 #>>46186733 #>>46187823 #>>46188138 #>>46188268 #>>46188770 #>>46189870 #>>46190264 #>>46191097 #>>46191669 #>>46192442 #
gruez ◴[07 Dec 25 21:57 UTC] No.46185605[source]▶
I'm not sure why private equity is singled out here, when every time a public company does a bad (eg. Boeing), people crow about how public companies only care about juicing next quarter's earnings.
replies(5): >>46185613 #>>46185688 #>>46185994 #>>46190030 #>>46198331 #
CPLX ◴[07 Dec 25 22:06 UTC] No.46185688[source]▶
Private equity is far worse. It means 100% ownership by a group of sociopaths who are executing on a plan to extract as much cash as possible quickly with no other goals at all.

At least public companies have some diversity in ownership and agenda.

replies(2): >>46185800 #>>46190762 #
gruez ◴[07 Dec 25 22:17 UTC] No.46185800[source]▶
>Private equity is far worse. It’s mean 100% ownership by a group of sociopaths who are executing on a plan to extract as much cash as possible quickly with no other goals at all.

...as opposed to the average public company? An average company might have more "average joe" shareholders (almost by definition, because private equity is typically off limits to non-accredited investors), but outside of meme stocks, there's not enough of them to make a difference. The rest of the shareholders (eg. pension funds, insurance companies, endowments, family offices) can be assumed to behave like ruthless capitalists chasing the highest returns, regardless of whether the company is public or not.

replies(5): >>46185998 #>>46186052 #>>46186105 #>>46186310 #>>46194429 #
youarentrightjr ◴[07 Dec 25 23:07 UTC] No.46186310[source]▶
I see these private equity takes on HN frequently and am really baffled by the ignorance. There's a very clear difference between a public and private company - the fiduciary duty to shareholders.

There is a legal requirement for directors of public companies to act in the financial interests of all shareholders. In practice, and according to precedent, this means long term viability of the company, in other words, a sustained profitable business.

There is no such requirement for a private company. In practice (esp. recent history), this means private equity firms acquire successful businesses to "mine them" of their wealth - capitalizing their assets for personal gain, and leaving nothing left.

The question for public companies isn't how many retail vs institutional investors they have, it's whether an investor can make a claim about a breach of fiduciary duty. It's patently false to say that the institutional investors (who yes, do have more sway) aren't interested in the company acting in their financial interests.

replies(4): >>46186526 #>>46186549 #>>46187023 #>>46193388 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[07 Dec 25 23:35 UTC] No.46186549{4}[source]▶
> There is a legal requirement for directors of public companies to act in the financial interests of all shareholders

No, there isn't.

The whole point of Revlon duties is that they trigger "in certain limited circumstances indicating that the 'sale' or 'break-up' of the company is inevitable" [1]. Outside those conditions, "the singular responsibility of the board" is not "to maximize immediate stockholder value by securing the highest price available."

> There is no such requirement for a private company

Are you thinking of minority rights? These vary based on whether a company is closely held or not [2], not whether it's public or private.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revlon%2C_Inc._v._MacAndrews_%....

[2] https://millerlawpc.com/rights-minority-shareholders-private...

replies(1): >>46187258 #
1. youarentrightjr ◴[08 Dec 25 01:23 UTC] No.46187258{5}[source]▶
Why bring up Revlon duties when as you say, their relevance is only during company acquisition or restructuring?

It's well established over hundreds of years of case law that directors of public companies have to act in good faith to benefit the company (and therefore, the shareholders).

Weird cherry pick.

replies(1): >>46187516 #
2. JumpCrisscross ◴[08 Dec 25 02:07 UTC] No.46187516[source]▶
> Why bring up Revlon duties when as you say, their relevance is only during company acquisition or restructuring?

It’s an exception that proves the rule. In that specific case, what you’re saying applies. In all others, it does not.

> It's well established over hundreds of years of case law

Where are you getting this from?

> directors of public companies have to act in good faith to benefit the company (and therefore, the shareholders)

Where did you get that this only applies to public companies? What you’re describing is basic English and Delaware corporate law.

Also, there is a massive difference between “all shareholders” and “the shareholders”. And nothing about public companies says they can’t be structured in a way that sometimes undermines some shareholders. This comes up most commonly when different shares have different voting or blocking rights. But it’s also fundamental to the intent behind B Corps, publicly traded or not.

replies(1): >>46188050 #
3. youarentrightjr ◴[08 Dec 25 03:45 UTC] No.46188050[source]▶
> Where are you getting this from?

I seriously doubt you're operating sincerely in this thread, given your ability to cite Revlon. But on the off chance, start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

> And nothing about public companies says they can’t be structured in a way that sometimes undermines some shareholders.

See above.

replies(1): >>46189597 #
4. JumpCrisscross ◴[08 Dec 25 07:59 UTC] No.46189597{3}[source]▶
> seriously doubt you're operating sincerely in this thread, given your ability to cite Revlon

I know about the topic and can correctly cite sources, herego I'm operating insincerely?

> start here [1]

You're citing a 1919 Michigan state court decision concerning the Ford Motor Company. Ford went public in 1956 [2]. The sole source you've cited is about a then-private company from over 100 years ago.

You said "there is a legal requirement for directors of public companies to act in the financial interests of all shareholders." That is wrong. It's doubly wrong in the context of public versus private companies, given it applies to all business corporations.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

[2] https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/01/16/63-years-later-wha...

replies(1): >>46192779 #
5. youarentrightjr ◴[08 Dec 25 14:44 UTC] No.46192779{4}[source]▶
You're operating insincerely by attacking low quality interpretations of what I'm saying, among other problems. For example:

> You said "there is a legal requirement for directors of public companies to act in the financial interests of all shareholders." That is wrong. It's doubly wrong in the context of public versus private companies, given it applies to all business corporations.

Wouldn't that mean my statement is incomplete, not "doubly wrong", if it applies to all businesses, not just public ones?

Similarly, cherry picking sources that support narrow scenarios tangential to the discussion (Revlon) is not sincere.

By this point it's clear your religious grasp on the distinction between public and private companies will not be shaken. I'll continue living in reality, where in fact directors of private companies do act against the interests of the company itself (and in practice are still in accordance with the law), paying themselves off and leaving an insolvent heap. I'm honestly shocked regarding your insistence that public and private companies are the same in this matter; I can only assume that you already have, or stand to, gain from such a private endeavor, and this is causing a cognitive dissonance that is at fault for the vomit you've spewed above. Good day.