> The term is so broad that you cannot say that for private equity.

You called these "high risk investments". That tells you at least some broad information about the sort of investors who are attracted to it. Claiming otherwise makes you appear as ignorant as you're asserting the journalist is.

> Yes, just like my uncle is stuck in his car because he doesn't want to get out of it.

I think it's more akin to deciding if you stay in or get out of a car engulfed by floodwaters; it depends on a number of things, with neither option being ideal. Maybe the flood will be short? How good of a swimmer am I? What are other people doing? Is it still raining? Is there a rescue helicopter coming? How fast is the water? How deep?

There's a downside to getting out of the car right now, in other words, that must be considered.

> Only a person who reasons like a fool (like this journalist) would consider themself to be "stuck" with an investment which they cannot make a profit on and have to wait and pray.

Plenty of investors have to wrestle with deciding if an investment will recover or continue to plummet.

The article even directly addresses this:

"Many in the industry predict that private equity firms will eventually be forced to sell and give cash back to investors, even if it means accepting a lower price."

> When the true meaning is that those private equity firms are invested into that number of companies. They will always be invested in companies which they haven't sold yet.

Which is why the journalist noted said number is more than twice as many as a decade ago.

Your objections here feel very much like "the finance journalist left assumed some basic knowledge and reading comprehension skills anyone reading a finance article should already possess". They aren't writing for Wikipedia.