MovieChat Forums > Wall Street (1987) Discussion > Bud Fox Was the Villain, not Gordon Gekk...

Bud Fox Was the Villain, not Gordon Gekko

posted 12 years ago by Withrow68
24 replies | jump to latest

Bud Fox was the villain of this movie, not Gekko. Gekko was right in that he took Fox from nothing and gave him everything, including the girl, and look how Fox paid him back.

Look what Fox did to Bluestar shareholders:

Gekko thinks he can liquidate the company for $30 per share, so he will pay into the low 20s and still be making money. But of course, as the price rises, Gekko's profit margin declines.

Fox manipulates things so that he takes the $20 to say $22 or $23 per share that Gekko would have paid Bluestar shareholders and forces them to take Wildman's offer at $18 per share.

Just like that, Fox has wiped out $2 to $5 per share in market value that Bluestar shareholders would never recover just to "save the company" and this was supposed to be a good thing?

[–] firstwinsgop 12 years ago

Worse, Bud Fox's father is the head of the Union that is going to pocket all that money that Bud is stealing from the shareholders.

[–] wardevil360 12 years ago

Bud was so coked out he didn't know his head from his ass.

[–] hogwouth 12 years ago

I thought Wildman was far richer than Gordon Gekko and it was assumed that he would put his own money into the company to turn it around.

Well what are the use of my brains if I'm tied up with a dumb cluck like you?

[–] nutsberryfarm 11 years ago

fact.

The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Withrow68 11 years ago

The stock would have never recovered that value because Wildman was taking the company private at $18 per share. Instead of being able to sell to Gekko for $22 or $23 per share, the owners had to sell to Wildman at $18. So, the shareholders never recouped the difference- thanks to Fox.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Withrow68 11 years ago

Wildman was BUYING the company for $18 a share. That implies that he was taking the company private and it would no longer be on the stock exchange. Yes, he could have taken the company public again or even sold a minority # of shares on the exchange while keeping majority control. Or, the company may have remained a 100%, privately held, Wildman holding, in which case, shareholder losses due to Fox would have been permanent. A good thing?

The point is that if you were a Bluestar shareholder, you got screwed. Instead of being able to sell your stock to Gekko for $22 or $23 a share, through Fox's manipulations, you were forced to take Wildman's offer at $18. Gekko lost that $4 to $5 per share for every share he owned. The other stockholders suffered the same loss for the shares they owned.

In this fictional case, if you had owned 100,000 shares of Bluestar, Bud Fox's actions cost you $400,000 to $500,000 dollars. How can you put a positive spin on that loss? Would it be okay just because Gekko lost more?

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Withrow68 11 years ago

When Warren Buffett bought Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad or when he closes the deal for H.J. Heinz,if he has not already, these stocks were taken private. They went off the stock exchange. The only assumption that is in error is yours that someone will buy a company in an LBO transaction AND that it would remain on the stock exchange. If a private equity firm or corporate raider buys a company, it is delisted just like Dell Computer recently delisted. If you lost money on Dell, you won't have a chance to make it back.

If you had owned 100,000 shares of Bluestar and you were forced to sell to Wildman at $18 instead of Gekko buying you out at $22 or $23, you lose $400,000 to $500,000.

Selling a stock for $23 is better than selling it at $18. Why are you willing to ignore that loss?

How the airline performed under Wildman would not be relevant to you because you would no longer own the stock. Nobody would own it except Wildman.

He COULD have taken the company public again. COULD HAVE. Some private equity firms do this, but it's rare, and usually because they are having trouble making debt payments. But even if he did, you would have already incurred your loss from when he 1st bought you out. Gekko would have paid $23. Why should the people who sold to Wildman at $18 be happy that the Gekko purchase fell through? Why?

Gekko was willing to pay $23 a share. Wildman paid $18. Gekko lost $5 per share. So did the rest of the shareholders.

It was a permanent loss because after the deal, there would be no Bluestar Airlines on the stock exchange.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Withrow68 11 years ago

Just could not resist the personal attack at the end, I see. Well, I saw that one coming. I was sort of like... wait for it... wait for it... wait for it... There it is.

This is not my 1st rodeo on the IMDB and I have a great deal of experience with Leftist leaning persons like yourself going with the insult route once logic burst their bubble.

You probably still believe the president when he says if you like your insurance and doctor you can keep it.

Exxon's stock once decline $3 per share in one day because their quarterly profit was only $12 billion and the market expected $12.5 billion. Wall Street is a tough boss.

People invest in stocks to maximize their capital gains and dividends, not to support and maintain employment at a failing corporation.

Gekko's offer at $23 per share was better for stockholders than Wildman's $18 per share offer as 23 > 18.

A company that get's bought out is still on the stock exchange? Not unless the buyer resells it to the public. Otherwise, it becomes either privately held or a subsidiary of another publically held company. In either case, it gets delisted. When Berkshire bought 100% of GEICO, GEICO was delisted. When Exxon bought XTO Energy, XTO was delisted. Same with Dell Computer when they were bought out. Where is your proof that Bluestar was ever relisted on a stock exchange? I mean it does not even make any sense? Why would anybody buy a company's stock but not buy the stock and let the shareholders keep their stock and just give them money for nothing in exchange?

None of the shareholders of these acquired companies would have been thrilled if some stock broker decided they should have accepted another offer that was 25 to 30% lower.

Fox cost Bluestar shareholders millions of dollars in capital gains that would never be recovered. What happened to Gekko that day happened to all of the Bluestar shareholders whether they owned 1 share or a million shares, and these shareholders should have appreciated what Fox did to them?

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fourpointstars 11 years ago

I agree that Fox is the true villian of the film. Gekko gave people like Fox an opportunity for a better life. He also taught him the value of information. Fox back stabbed him just because "oh no people I know will lose their jobs". Other airlines would have hired those people in the aftermath. Bluestar wasn't the only game in town.

[–] daughterofolaf 11 years ago

Yep, and Bud wouldn't have given a flying f v c k about the airline or the people who would have lost their jobs, etc, etc, had he not had a family member there. He would have had no problem destroying a company as long as no one he cared about was involved!

"It's Minnie Pearl's murder weapon."

[–] dl4060 9 years ago

He also taught him the value of information.

You are aware that is insider trading? It is highly illegal, and for good reason. Gekko taught Fox to get information before it became public so that he would have an unfair advantage over the general public. He taught Fox to become involved in an office management company so that he could break in to people's offices and steal information that was not yet public.

And you don't know that those people would have been rehired. There are a limited number of jobs out there.

[–] roddick-1 9 years ago

You've opened up my eyes to some very good points. Thanks Withrow68. I was not well versed enough in stocks to realize his victory over Gekko wasn't what it was made out to be. Plus it's not like the Bluestar deal was the first time Fox saw Gekko potentially mess with people's jobs. He should have known better.

[–] dl4060 9 years ago

Gekko was an insider trader. He made money by having information that he was not supposed to have. That is not a hero.

I don't like what Fox did either, and I feel for the shareholders who lost money in the Wildman deal, but making Gekko out to be a hero is simply not accurate. He was a criminal who made better investments than others because he had information they did not have. This is made very clear in the movie, with Fox breaking into offices and stealing financial information.

The question is whether the idea that a company should be run for the benefit of the shareholders versus the benefit of the actual company is a good thing. I think the best policy lies somewhere in between. I don't think destroying companies to make a profit for the shareholders is ethical, but I also don't believe that the shareholders should not have a say in things.

[–] charli3 9 years ago

Gekko said "victimless crime" in the sequel. Evil man! Who knows how many pensions he stole from people. Blow 'em away Ollie mentioned something about using the California pensions to buy half a million shares of Teldar...

[–] dl4060 9 years ago

I forgot about the pension fund. He was going to give the people the minimum buyout and keep the rest of the money for himself. That is an absolutely deplorable thing to do.

People trying to portray someone who would rip off a pension fund as a hero need to evaluate some things. I'm not sure if the OP is doing that, he seems to be saying that Fox is not a hero, not necessarily that Gekko is, but if that is what he believes that is seriously wrong.

[–] MachoManRandySavage 9 years ago

Gekko was going to destroy the company. The people who were the minority shareholders were the people who worked at Bluestar. They would have got a one time pay out but lost their jobs.

The new majority owner may have bought the shares for cheaper, but he was going to invest in the company. The people were going to keep their jobs and the airline was going to grow so the stocks would eventually rise.

In the long run the people who built the company and worked there were going to do better under Bud's plan. Those looking to turn a quick buck would not.

At least that's how I remember it when I watched it years ago...

[–] dl4060 9 years ago

Just like that, Fox has wiped out $2 to $5 per share in market value that Bluestar shareholders would never recover just to "save the company" and this was supposed to be a good thing?

How about ripping off the pension fund? Do you consider that ethical behavior?

I know you won't respond, considering this post is two years old, but I feel compelled to comment here.

[–] Withrow68 9 years ago

As soon as Larry Wildman bought Bluestar, it would become a privately held company and be de-listed from the stock exchange. No other shareholders would make any money from this stock unless Wildman took it public again. So, shareholders never had a chance to recoup when Fox forced them into the lower $18 per share offer instead of Gekko paying $22. The same thing that happened to Gekko happened to them, just on a smaller scale- thanks to Fox.

[–] dl4060 9 years ago

I get that, and like I said I feel for the stockholders, but I am talking about the pension fund here. It is mentioned in the movie that the pension fund is over valued, and that Gekko was going to pay out the minimum annuities for all of the workers and keep the rest (which was millions upon millions of dollars) for himself. This is mentioned in the movie when Bud goes into the meeting with Gekko's people and the investment bankers and finds out that Bluestar is going to be liquidated. That is highly unethical. Even if Gekko was going to liquidate Bluestar he should have left the pension fund alone. That is a truly evil thing to do.

I should add that I appreciate your reply, it seems you have not been here for a while so I'm sure this thread is not of much interest anymore.

I should also add that the money from the pension fund was NOT going to other shareholders, just Gekko himself, although I think I mentioned that earlier. I just wanted to make sure to explicitly state that Gekko was not raiding the pension fund to help anyone other than himself. That action shows his character.

How about the insider trading? It is very obvious in the movie that this is what Bud and Gekko are doing. I don't consider anyone doing that a hero.

EDIT: I am not positive that the stockholders would not have gotten a piece of the over-funded pension, it is possible it would have been divied up. Regardless, Gekko would have gotten the lion's share. Either way, not the right thing to do.