"Real" story of Romney and Bain Capital:

Titan1
Profile picture for user Titan1
Posts
9482
Joined
2/3/2010
Location
Lehi, UT, USA
Titan1
Edited Date/Time 8/20/2012 7:59am
I put "real" in parenthesis because its from Fox News....but I've got to admit, this is more in keeping with what I always knew his company to be about (and others like it), they make money, when the company/idea/product they invest in is profitable and makes money:

https://youtu.be/DJLx6RtQXXg
|
WhKnuckle
Profile picture for user WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
USA
WhKnuckle 1/19/2012 11:16am
1/19/2012 11:16am
Bain capital does what every private equity company does - buys companies, or at least controlling interests, at a deep discount (through, according to William Cohen, dishonest bidding tactics); analyze what could be done to incease the book value of that company; does whatever is necessary to increase that book value; attracts lenders and other investors to put cash into the company; skims as much of that cash as possible; and leaves the company to continue with a big debt burden. That's the standard private equity method - private equity companies don't seek operational profits (although that's a factor in book value so it's a good thing if it's there), they seek increase in book value, which they leverage into cash for themselves. Sometimes that results in production of goods and services, sometimes it doesn't - but if it does, the company's ongoing viability is hamstrung by debt created in the overselling and money-skimming functions by the private equity firm.

None of this is illegal. Sometimes it's not even immoral. But it's not capitalism. In a capitalist model, a guy has an idea for a product or tangible, physical service; he borrows money from a bank to start a company, he hires people to make his vision a reality, he creates a revenue stream, pays his workers, pays the bank back with interest and makes a profit. His workers then go out and buy other products created by other visionaries, and the cycle continues indefinitely. Bain and other private equity firms, on the other hand, goes in and skims money that dead-ends into the weatlhiest pockets in America. That's an inorganic, non-self sustaining one way cash dead end, and it's anti-capitalism.

None of this stuff is illegal. But if Mitt Romney is going to run for President based on his supposed business savvy, you have to ask - when did Mitt Romney have an idea for a product or non-financial service, start his own company, hire his own workers, bring his own idea to market, make his own money, and create actual COMMERCE? When did Mitt's supposed business savvy actually create a business of his own? If the answer is "never", then he doesn't have business savvy, he has investment savvy. That's not the same thing.
vet323
Profile picture for user vet323
Posts
3644
Joined
7/31/2010
Location
Lead, SD, USA
vet323 1/19/2012 12:59pm
1/19/2012 12:59pm
WhKnuckle wrote:
Bain capital does what every private equity company does - buys companies, or at least controlling interests, at a deep discount (through, according to William Cohen...
Bain capital does what every private equity company does - buys companies, or at least controlling interests, at a deep discount (through, according to William Cohen, dishonest bidding tactics); analyze what could be done to incease the book value of that company; does whatever is necessary to increase that book value; attracts lenders and other investors to put cash into the company; skims as much of that cash as possible; and leaves the company to continue with a big debt burden. That's the standard private equity method - private equity companies don't seek operational profits (although that's a factor in book value so it's a good thing if it's there), they seek increase in book value, which they leverage into cash for themselves. Sometimes that results in production of goods and services, sometimes it doesn't - but if it does, the company's ongoing viability is hamstrung by debt created in the overselling and money-skimming functions by the private equity firm.

None of this is illegal. Sometimes it's not even immoral. But it's not capitalism. In a capitalist model, a guy has an idea for a product or tangible, physical service; he borrows money from a bank to start a company, he hires people to make his vision a reality, he creates a revenue stream, pays his workers, pays the bank back with interest and makes a profit. His workers then go out and buy other products created by other visionaries, and the cycle continues indefinitely. Bain and other private equity firms, on the other hand, goes in and skims money that dead-ends into the weatlhiest pockets in America. That's an inorganic, non-self sustaining one way cash dead end, and it's anti-capitalism.

None of this stuff is illegal. But if Mitt Romney is going to run for President based on his supposed business savvy, you have to ask - when did Mitt Romney have an idea for a product or non-financial service, start his own company, hire his own workers, bring his own idea to market, make his own money, and create actual COMMERCE? When did Mitt's supposed business savvy actually create a business of his own? If the answer is "never", then he doesn't have business savvy, he has investment savvy. That's not the same thing.
Congratulations- you posted a definition of a corporate raider (not an equity company).

That's not "what every private equity company does".
WhKnuckle
Profile picture for user WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
USA
WhKnuckle 1/19/2012 1:10pm
1/19/2012 1:10pm
WhKnuckle wrote:
Bain capital does what every private equity company does - buys companies, or at least controlling interests, at a deep discount (through, according to William Cohen...
Bain capital does what every private equity company does - buys companies, or at least controlling interests, at a deep discount (through, according to William Cohen, dishonest bidding tactics); analyze what could be done to incease the book value of that company; does whatever is necessary to increase that book value; attracts lenders and other investors to put cash into the company; skims as much of that cash as possible; and leaves the company to continue with a big debt burden. That's the standard private equity method - private equity companies don't seek operational profits (although that's a factor in book value so it's a good thing if it's there), they seek increase in book value, which they leverage into cash for themselves. Sometimes that results in production of goods and services, sometimes it doesn't - but if it does, the company's ongoing viability is hamstrung by debt created in the overselling and money-skimming functions by the private equity firm.

None of this is illegal. Sometimes it's not even immoral. But it's not capitalism. In a capitalist model, a guy has an idea for a product or tangible, physical service; he borrows money from a bank to start a company, he hires people to make his vision a reality, he creates a revenue stream, pays his workers, pays the bank back with interest and makes a profit. His workers then go out and buy other products created by other visionaries, and the cycle continues indefinitely. Bain and other private equity firms, on the other hand, goes in and skims money that dead-ends into the weatlhiest pockets in America. That's an inorganic, non-self sustaining one way cash dead end, and it's anti-capitalism.

None of this stuff is illegal. But if Mitt Romney is going to run for President based on his supposed business savvy, you have to ask - when did Mitt Romney have an idea for a product or non-financial service, start his own company, hire his own workers, bring his own idea to market, make his own money, and create actual COMMERCE? When did Mitt's supposed business savvy actually create a business of his own? If the answer is "never", then he doesn't have business savvy, he has investment savvy. That's not the same thing.
vet323 wrote:
Congratulations- you posted a definition of a corporate raider (not an equity company).

That's not "what every private equity company does".
I described private equity functions - you attached a label. Private equity is a financial system designed to increase the book value of a company and to make money off of that increase in value. It is not designed to increase productivity or profitability or anything else, except to the extent that those factors figure into book value. Period. End of story. If a company can become more valuable by shipping all the jobs overseas and selling the real estate, that's what they do. If a company can become more valuable by hiring more people and opening more outlets, that's what they do. If the company has some kind of idea that can create a new product that will increase the book value of the company more than the new product costs, the private equity company will fund that development. But in every case, the point is to INCREASE THE BOOK VALUE OF THE COMPANY, and create cash inflows from loans and/or investors, which the private equity company skims. The ultimate goal is to sell out the position in the company for vastly more money that the company cost in the first place, and the general rule is that the original company is left with a lot of debt. Maybe it lives, maybe it doesn't, but the equity company has their money either way.
Titan1
Profile picture for user Titan1
Posts
9482
Joined
2/3/2010
Location
Lehi, UT, USA
Titan1 1/19/2012 1:16pm
1/19/2012 1:16pm Edited Date/Time 1/19/2012 1:17pm
WhKnuckle wrote:
Bain capital does what every private equity company does - buys companies, or at least controlling interests, at a deep discount (through, according to William Cohen...
Bain capital does what every private equity company does - buys companies, or at least controlling interests, at a deep discount (through, according to William Cohen, dishonest bidding tactics); analyze what could be done to incease the book value of that company; does whatever is necessary to increase that book value; attracts lenders and other investors to put cash into the company; skims as much of that cash as possible; and leaves the company to continue with a big debt burden. That's the standard private equity method - private equity companies don't seek operational profits (although that's a factor in book value so it's a good thing if it's there), they seek increase in book value, which they leverage into cash for themselves. Sometimes that results in production of goods and services, sometimes it doesn't - but if it does, the company's ongoing viability is hamstrung by debt created in the overselling and money-skimming functions by the private equity firm.

None of this is illegal. Sometimes it's not even immoral. But it's not capitalism. In a capitalist model, a guy has an idea for a product or tangible, physical service; he borrows money from a bank to start a company, he hires people to make his vision a reality, he creates a revenue stream, pays his workers, pays the bank back with interest and makes a profit. His workers then go out and buy other products created by other visionaries, and the cycle continues indefinitely. Bain and other private equity firms, on the other hand, goes in and skims money that dead-ends into the weatlhiest pockets in America. That's an inorganic, non-self sustaining one way cash dead end, and it's anti-capitalism.

None of this stuff is illegal. But if Mitt Romney is going to run for President based on his supposed business savvy, you have to ask - when did Mitt Romney have an idea for a product or non-financial service, start his own company, hire his own workers, bring his own idea to market, make his own money, and create actual COMMERCE? When did Mitt's supposed business savvy actually create a business of his own? If the answer is "never", then he doesn't have business savvy, he has investment savvy. That's not the same thing.
You may be right, that kind of "business" goes way over my head, so I won't even pretend to know which is right. Not that I care either way, Romney isn't a guy I'll be voting for either way.

The Shop

See All »
WhKnuckle
Profile picture for user WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
USA
WhKnuckle 1/19/2012 1:24pm
1/19/2012 1:24pm
WhKnuckle wrote:
Bain capital does what every private equity company does - buys companies, or at least controlling interests, at a deep discount (through, according to William Cohen...
Bain capital does what every private equity company does - buys companies, or at least controlling interests, at a deep discount (through, according to William Cohen, dishonest bidding tactics); analyze what could be done to incease the book value of that company; does whatever is necessary to increase that book value; attracts lenders and other investors to put cash into the company; skims as much of that cash as possible; and leaves the company to continue with a big debt burden. That's the standard private equity method - private equity companies don't seek operational profits (although that's a factor in book value so it's a good thing if it's there), they seek increase in book value, which they leverage into cash for themselves. Sometimes that results in production of goods and services, sometimes it doesn't - but if it does, the company's ongoing viability is hamstrung by debt created in the overselling and money-skimming functions by the private equity firm.

None of this is illegal. Sometimes it's not even immoral. But it's not capitalism. In a capitalist model, a guy has an idea for a product or tangible, physical service; he borrows money from a bank to start a company, he hires people to make his vision a reality, he creates a revenue stream, pays his workers, pays the bank back with interest and makes a profit. His workers then go out and buy other products created by other visionaries, and the cycle continues indefinitely. Bain and other private equity firms, on the other hand, goes in and skims money that dead-ends into the weatlhiest pockets in America. That's an inorganic, non-self sustaining one way cash dead end, and it's anti-capitalism.

None of this stuff is illegal. But if Mitt Romney is going to run for President based on his supposed business savvy, you have to ask - when did Mitt Romney have an idea for a product or non-financial service, start his own company, hire his own workers, bring his own idea to market, make his own money, and create actual COMMERCE? When did Mitt's supposed business savvy actually create a business of his own? If the answer is "never", then he doesn't have business savvy, he has investment savvy. That's not the same thing.
Titan1 wrote:
You may be right, that kind of "business" goes way over my head, so I won't even pretend to know which is right. Not that I...
You may be right, that kind of "business" goes way over my head, so I won't even pretend to know which is right. Not that I care either way, Romney isn't a guy I'll be voting for either way.
Well, I'm not damning the guy, I'm just saying there's a big difference between business savvy and investment savvy. The Bain experience was an investment exercise. Sure, you have to have some business bonafides to just own positions in companies, but when I think of a business genius, I think of Steve Jobs or Henry Ford - guys who visualized products and got rich (and made other people rich) making them.
DDub8
Profile picture for user DDub8
Posts
245
Joined
8/17/2006
Location
Austin, TX, USA
DDub8 1/19/2012 1:32pm
1/19/2012 1:32pm
Knuck, I'd swear from reading your posts that, given the chance and existence of a time machine, you'd hit rewind and put us all back in 1959 because that's the world you so often describe. The problem is it isn't reality and it's not how business gets done.

You've made sweeping statements about all private equity and the only truth in them is increasing the value of their investments. Each firm is different and that's one of the key things to consider when taking their money. I can also borrow money from a bank, a loan shark or anything else on the spectrum but I certainly can't pigeonhole them under the same label.
WhKnuckle
Profile picture for user WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
USA
WhKnuckle 1/19/2012 1:52pm
1/19/2012 1:52pm Edited Date/Time 1/19/2012 1:57pm
DDub8 wrote:
Knuck, I'd swear from reading your posts that, given the chance and existence of a time machine, you'd hit rewind and put us all back in...
Knuck, I'd swear from reading your posts that, given the chance and existence of a time machine, you'd hit rewind and put us all back in 1959 because that's the world you so often describe. The problem is it isn't reality and it's not how business gets done.

You've made sweeping statements about all private equity and the only truth in them is increasing the value of their investments. Each firm is different and that's one of the key things to consider when taking their money. I can also borrow money from a bank, a loan shark or anything else on the spectrum but I certainly can't pigeonhole them under the same label.
I understand private equity firms - I worked for a company that was taken over by one. I left the day they walked in the door, but I had lots of friends who stayed. Most of them were let go within the first 6 months because their salaries were too high. The only problem was, those guys made lots of money because they had the skills necessary to make the company successful - but the PE firm increased the book value of the company by lowering total salaries, moving the company to a more prestigious address with a whiz-bang meeting room, creating all kinds of business plans that they never funded - then they borrowed money against the collateral of the company, took a large portion of the cash and left the company with a huge debt hole. That's not a theory, that's an experiential fact. The PE firm brought NOTHING to the table that would help make the company a success, and how could they? What did they know about natural gas, or any other kind of energy business? Nothing. But they knew how to increase and leverage corporate valuation.

And it wouldn't bother me that much to go back to a day when people who ran businesses knew something about the business they're running. Mitt Romney is the exact opposite. He's the "Rent-A-CEO" guy who might be running a computer company one day and a corn flake factory the next. It's all the same to him.
TeamGreen
Profile picture for user TeamGreen
Posts
37813
Joined
11/25/2008
Location
Thru-out, CA, USA
TeamGreen 1/19/2012 2:49pm
1/19/2012 2:49pm
Bain has made some companies better and shredded others...

Sounds like a 70% success rate to me. HOW MANY OTHER V/C Co's have that RECORD?
Titan1
Profile picture for user Titan1
Posts
9482
Joined
2/3/2010
Location
Lehi, UT, USA
Titan1 1/19/2012 2:52pm
1/19/2012 2:52pm
TeamGreen wrote:
Bain has made some companies better and shredded others...

Sounds like a 70% success rate to me. HOW MANY OTHER V/C Co's have that RECORD?
That is a great point...even if business 'savvy" isn't the same as 'investment savvy"....Romney seems to have a much better than average investment savvy. And I don't think its a stretch so assume he'd be able to manage the economy better than, say, I don't know, an attorney?
WhKnuckle
Profile picture for user WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
USA
WhKnuckle 1/19/2012 3:08pm
1/19/2012 3:08pm
TeamGreen wrote:
Bain has made some companies better and shredded others...

Sounds like a 70% success rate to me. HOW MANY OTHER V/C Co's have that RECORD?
Titan1 wrote:
That is a great point...even if business 'savvy" isn't the same as 'investment savvy"....Romney seems to have a much better than average investment savvy. And I...
That is a great point...even if business 'savvy" isn't the same as 'investment savvy"....Romney seems to have a much better than average investment savvy. And I don't think its a stretch so assume he'd be able to manage the economy better than, say, I don't know, an attorney?
Well, one thing we know for sure about Mitt is that he's no attorney. If he was, he wouldn't be trying to run for president and explain why he's been tax-sheltering money in the Cayman Islands at the same time. A good attorney would have told him he had to clean that up 6 years ago when he started running for president full time.

And it's worth noting that a president has the world's best economists sitting around. And the world's best military people, the world's best foreign policy people, the world's best everything. It's not like he has to make decisions in a vacuum. Which is good for Romney - he can't decide how to get his family to Canada for vacation without strapping the dog to the roof. He apparently can't look at the number of people and pets who need to make the trip, look at the amount of space in the car, determine they won't all fit, and call Hertz for another car or a bigger car or whatever. Heck, he could have charged it on his Cayman Islands credit card.
vet323
Profile picture for user vet323
Posts
3644
Joined
7/31/2010
Location
Lead, SD, USA
vet323 1/19/2012 3:09pm
1/19/2012 3:09pm
DDub8 wrote:
Knuck, I'd swear from reading your posts that, given the chance and existence of a time machine, you'd hit rewind and put us all back in...
Knuck, I'd swear from reading your posts that, given the chance and existence of a time machine, you'd hit rewind and put us all back in 1959 because that's the world you so often describe. The problem is it isn't reality and it's not how business gets done.

You've made sweeping statements about all private equity and the only truth in them is increasing the value of their investments. Each firm is different and that's one of the key things to consider when taking their money. I can also borrow money from a bank, a loan shark or anything else on the spectrum but I certainly can't pigeonhole them under the same label.
WhKnuckle wrote:
I understand private equity firms - I worked for a company that was taken over by one. I left the day they walked in the door...
I understand private equity firms - I worked for a company that was taken over by one. I left the day they walked in the door, but I had lots of friends who stayed. Most of them were let go within the first 6 months because their salaries were too high. The only problem was, those guys made lots of money because they had the skills necessary to make the company successful - but the PE firm increased the book value of the company by lowering total salaries, moving the company to a more prestigious address with a whiz-bang meeting room, creating all kinds of business plans that they never funded - then they borrowed money against the collateral of the company, took a large portion of the cash and left the company with a huge debt hole. That's not a theory, that's an experiential fact. The PE firm brought NOTHING to the table that would help make the company a success, and how could they? What did they know about natural gas, or any other kind of energy business? Nothing. But they knew how to increase and leverage corporate valuation.

And it wouldn't bother me that much to go back to a day when people who ran businesses knew something about the business they're running. Mitt Romney is the exact opposite. He's the "Rent-A-CEO" guy who might be running a computer company one day and a corn flake factory the next. It's all the same to him.
How long did it take that PE firm to run your old company into bankruptcy? Sounds like they leveraged it straight into the ground- I imagine an investment company that routinely runs the companies they invest in into bankruptcy would eventually find it hard to raise capital, since all they do is buy companies, saddle 'em with debt, then empty the till and split.
Titan1
Profile picture for user Titan1
Posts
9482
Joined
2/3/2010
Location
Lehi, UT, USA
Titan1 1/19/2012 3:57pm
1/19/2012 3:57pm
TeamGreen wrote:
Bain has made some companies better and shredded others...

Sounds like a 70% success rate to me. HOW MANY OTHER V/C Co's have that RECORD?
Titan1 wrote:
That is a great point...even if business 'savvy" isn't the same as 'investment savvy"....Romney seems to have a much better than average investment savvy. And I...
That is a great point...even if business 'savvy" isn't the same as 'investment savvy"....Romney seems to have a much better than average investment savvy. And I don't think its a stretch so assume he'd be able to manage the economy better than, say, I don't know, an attorney?
WhKnuckle wrote:
Well, one thing we know for sure about Mitt is that he's no attorney. If he was, he wouldn't be trying to run for president and...
Well, one thing we know for sure about Mitt is that he's no attorney. If he was, he wouldn't be trying to run for president and explain why he's been tax-sheltering money in the Cayman Islands at the same time. A good attorney would have told him he had to clean that up 6 years ago when he started running for president full time.

And it's worth noting that a president has the world's best economists sitting around. And the world's best military people, the world's best foreign policy people, the world's best everything. It's not like he has to make decisions in a vacuum. Which is good for Romney - he can't decide how to get his family to Canada for vacation without strapping the dog to the roof. He apparently can't look at the number of people and pets who need to make the trip, look at the amount of space in the car, determine they won't all fit, and call Hertz for another car or a bigger car or whatever. Heck, he could have charged it on his Cayman Islands credit card.
LOL...you're smear campaign of Romney is right out of the DNC talking points section of their news letter (correction, at this point its right out of Newts Newsletter). So funny. I'm sure you honestly believe that Mitt isn't smart enough to calculate the space in a car....he's on a 1st grade mentality level, right? Come on...

I don't care about the stupid dog on the roof thing...It's meaningless. Only thing it does when you bring it up is make me laugh at YOU (not think negatively of Romney).
TeamGreen
Profile picture for user TeamGreen
Posts
37813
Joined
11/25/2008
Location
Thru-out, CA, USA
TeamGreen 1/19/2012 4:06pm
1/19/2012 4:06pm
Titan1 wrote:
That is a great point...even if business 'savvy" isn't the same as 'investment savvy"....Romney seems to have a much better than average investment savvy. And I...
That is a great point...even if business 'savvy" isn't the same as 'investment savvy"....Romney seems to have a much better than average investment savvy. And I don't think its a stretch so assume he'd be able to manage the economy better than, say, I don't know, an attorney?
WhKnuckle wrote:
Well, one thing we know for sure about Mitt is that he's no attorney. If he was, he wouldn't be trying to run for president and...
Well, one thing we know for sure about Mitt is that he's no attorney. If he was, he wouldn't be trying to run for president and explain why he's been tax-sheltering money in the Cayman Islands at the same time. A good attorney would have told him he had to clean that up 6 years ago when he started running for president full time.

And it's worth noting that a president has the world's best economists sitting around. And the world's best military people, the world's best foreign policy people, the world's best everything. It's not like he has to make decisions in a vacuum. Which is good for Romney - he can't decide how to get his family to Canada for vacation without strapping the dog to the roof. He apparently can't look at the number of people and pets who need to make the trip, look at the amount of space in the car, determine they won't all fit, and call Hertz for another car or a bigger car or whatever. Heck, he could have charged it on his Cayman Islands credit card.
Titan1 wrote:
LOL...you're smear campaign of Romney is right out of the DNC talking points section of their news letter (correction, at this point its right out of...
LOL...you're smear campaign of Romney is right out of the DNC talking points section of their news letter (correction, at this point its right out of Newts Newsletter). So funny. I'm sure you honestly believe that Mitt isn't smart enough to calculate the space in a car....he's on a 1st grade mentality level, right? Come on...

I don't care about the stupid dog on the roof thing...It's meaningless. Only thing it does when you bring it up is make me laugh at YOU (not think negatively of Romney).
No worries...

This doesn't compare to the attempt to Re-Write the Solyndra Scandal via an Article from some Greenie-Rag...

Fckn CLASSIC!
gabrielmalinois
Profile picture for user gabrielmalinois
Posts
1972
Joined
2/2/2011
Location
USA
gabrielmalinois 1/20/2012 9:29am
1/20/2012 9:29am
TeamGreen wrote:
Bain has made some companies better and shredded others...

Sounds like a 70% success rate to me. HOW MANY OTHER V/C Co's have that RECORD?
Titan1 wrote:
That is a great point...even if business 'savvy" isn't the same as 'investment savvy"....Romney seems to have a much better than average investment savvy. And I...
That is a great point...even if business 'savvy" isn't the same as 'investment savvy"....Romney seems to have a much better than average investment savvy. And I don't think its a stretch so assume he'd be able to manage the economy better than, say, I don't know, an attorney?
WhKnuckle wrote:
Well, one thing we know for sure about Mitt is that he's no attorney. If he was, he wouldn't be trying to run for president and...
Well, one thing we know for sure about Mitt is that he's no attorney. If he was, he wouldn't be trying to run for president and explain why he's been tax-sheltering money in the Cayman Islands at the same time. A good attorney would have told him he had to clean that up 6 years ago when he started running for president full time.

And it's worth noting that a president has the world's best economists sitting around. And the world's best military people, the world's best foreign policy people, the world's best everything. It's not like he has to make decisions in a vacuum. Which is good for Romney - he can't decide how to get his family to Canada for vacation without strapping the dog to the roof. He apparently can't look at the number of people and pets who need to make the trip, look at the amount of space in the car, determine they won't all fit, and call Hertz for another car or a bigger car or whatever. Heck, he could have charged it on his Cayman Islands credit card.
He is not actually an attorney but

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_romney
Romney became one of only fifteen students to enroll at the recently created joint Juris Doctor/Master of Business Administration He graduated in 1975 cum laude from the law school, in the top third of that class, and was named a Baker Scholar for graduating in the top five percent of his business school class.
vet323
Profile picture for user vet323
Posts
3644
Joined
7/31/2010
Location
Lead, SD, USA
vet323 1/20/2012 9:37am
1/20/2012 9:37am
vet323 wrote:
How long did it take that PE firm to run your old company into bankruptcy? Sounds like they leveraged it straight into the ground- I imagine...
How long did it take that PE firm to run your old company into bankruptcy? Sounds like they leveraged it straight into the ground- I imagine an investment company that routinely runs the companies they invest in into bankruptcy would eventually find it hard to raise capital, since all they do is buy companies, saddle 'em with debt, then empty the till and split.
That's a serious question, knuckle-how long until they ran your old company into the ground and took all the assets and money out of it? How many people were put out of work after the bankruptcy?
WhKnuckle
Profile picture for user WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
USA
WhKnuckle 1/20/2012 9:55am
1/20/2012 9:55am Edited Date/Time 1/20/2012 10:09am
vet323 wrote:
How long did it take that PE firm to run your old company into bankruptcy? Sounds like they leveraged it straight into the ground- I imagine...
How long did it take that PE firm to run your old company into bankruptcy? Sounds like they leveraged it straight into the ground- I imagine an investment company that routinely runs the companies they invest in into bankruptcy would eventually find it hard to raise capital, since all they do is buy companies, saddle 'em with debt, then empty the till and split.
vet323 wrote:
That's a serious question, knuckle-how long until they ran your old company into the ground and took all the assets and money out of it? How...
That's a serious question, knuckle-how long until they ran your old company into the ground and took all the assets and money out of it? How many people were put out of work after the bankruptcy?
The PE firm cashed out in about one year and a compressor corporation took over the company. The company basically ceased to exist as it previously was configured - and everyone who was there originally is now gone. It did not go bankrupt to my knowledge but all the original employees were gone, the original business was gone and the original contracts, which were very lucrative, were cashed out by the PE firm. And they threatened to sue me for leaving, saying I held "intellectual property". I gave that letter to one of the lawyers in the company I work for now, and he laughed at it and said if they ever actually file suit, let him know and we'd all get rich. I guess since the business didn't actually go bankrupt, that would mean it's one of those success stories. But the only people who succeeded at anything were the PE firm.
pelted
Profile picture for user pelted
Posts
678
Joined
6/25/2007
Location
., USA
pelted 1/20/2012 11:16am
1/20/2012 11:16am
WhKnuckle wrote:
The PE firm cashed out in about one year and a compressor corporation took over the company. The company basically ceased to exist as it previously...
The PE firm cashed out in about one year and a compressor corporation took over the company. The company basically ceased to exist as it previously was configured - and everyone who was there originally is now gone. It did not go bankrupt to my knowledge but all the original employees were gone, the original business was gone and the original contracts, which were very lucrative, were cashed out by the PE firm. And they threatened to sue me for leaving, saying I held "intellectual property". I gave that letter to one of the lawyers in the company I work for now, and he laughed at it and said if they ever actually file suit, let him know and we'd all get rich. I guess since the business didn't actually go bankrupt, that would mean it's one of those success stories. But the only people who succeeded at anything were the PE firm.
Smart counselor....Recognized right away the libelous statement in that letter.
flarider
Profile picture for user flarider
Posts
25496
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Daytona Beach, FL, USA
flarider 1/20/2012 11:25am
1/20/2012 11:25am
I have no problem with Mitt and Bain
None at all.
It's business, and sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.
Sometimes companies grow, sometimes they die

There is not one investment group with a 100% positive corporate growth portfolio, not even Berkshire Hathaway with Warren Buffett.
Berkshire has had corporate investment failures. They've sold businesses and they've split businesses.

Show me something illegal, and we can talk
Morality is a matter of perspective in the corporate world

The Bain issue is a bullshit issue

Pit Row

See All »
WhKnuckle
Profile picture for user WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
USA
WhKnuckle 1/20/2012 11:36am
1/20/2012 11:36am
flarider wrote:
I have no problem with Mitt and Bain None at all. It's business, and sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. Sometimes companies grow, sometimes they...
I have no problem with Mitt and Bain
None at all.
It's business, and sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.
Sometimes companies grow, sometimes they die

There is not one investment group with a 100% positive corporate growth portfolio, not even Berkshire Hathaway with Warren Buffett.
Berkshire has had corporate investment failures. They've sold businesses and they've split businesses.

Show me something illegal, and we can talk
Morality is a matter of perspective in the corporate world

The Bain issue is a bullshit issue
My point isn't that he did anything wrong or illegal. My point is that's not really business experience, it's investment experience. And it's certainly not the kind of experience that's going to help a president very much.

One other thing - these guys talk like they're going to go down to the White House basement and throw the "Make Jobs" switch. The President doesn't have that kind of direct control over the economy. He can do things that will stimulate it and give companies a good reason to hire, but he can't do a thing without Congress - and as we've seen, even when corporations make record profits, that's no indication they're going to hire anyone. And even the entire government is incapable of "turning the economy around". The Democratic theory about economic assistance is to enact policies that help the consumer, middle class; the Republican idea is to help the wealth-accumulating investor class. So if Romney gets the nod, we'll have the most obvious choice in presidents that you could ever want - a guy who came from the lower-middle class and supports the average worker, and a guy who was born to wealth and privelige and has spent his life as an investor.
JustMX
Profile picture for user JustMX
Posts
5363
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
USA
JustMX 8/17/2012 2:16pm
8/17/2012 2:16pm
WhKnuckle wrote:
Well, one thing we know for sure about Mitt is that he's no attorney. If he was, he wouldn't be trying to run for president and...
Well, one thing we know for sure about Mitt is that he's no attorney. If he was, he wouldn't be trying to run for president and explain why he's been tax-sheltering money in the Cayman Islands at the same time. A good attorney would have told him he had to clean that up 6 years ago when he started running for president full time.

And it's worth noting that a president has the world's best economists sitting around. And the world's best military people, the world's best foreign policy people, the world's best everything. It's not like he has to make decisions in a vacuum. Which is good for Romney - he can't decide how to get his family to Canada for vacation without strapping the dog to the roof. He apparently can't look at the number of people and pets who need to make the trip, look at the amount of space in the car, determine they won't all fit, and call Hertz for another car or a bigger car or whatever. Heck, he could have charged it on his Cayman Islands credit card.
jmar
Profile picture for user jmar
Posts
14154
Joined
2/11/2007
Location
Oklahoma City, OK, USA
jmar 8/17/2012 10:16pm
8/17/2012 10:16pm
flarider wrote:
I have no problem with Mitt and Bain None at all. It's business, and sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. Sometimes companies grow, sometimes they...
I have no problem with Mitt and Bain
None at all.
It's business, and sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.
Sometimes companies grow, sometimes they die

There is not one investment group with a 100% positive corporate growth portfolio, not even Berkshire Hathaway with Warren Buffett.
Berkshire has had corporate investment failures. They've sold businesses and they've split businesses.

Show me something illegal, and we can talk
Morality is a matter of perspective in the corporate world

The Bain issue is a bullshit issue
Show me something illegal, and we can talk
Morality is a matter of perspective in the corporate world

Morality is one thing. Reality is another.

Reality is, that people like mitt make their own rules. And the fact that it isn't illegal, doesn't make it right.

In the next year of two, our economy is going to hit rock bottom. And those responsible are going to get even richer while the rest of us suck eggs. We will see how everyone feels about the legalities of all of this when the house of cards finally falls down.
teggers
Profile picture for user teggers
Posts
3722
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
Winter Park, FL, USA
teggers 8/18/2012 12:47am
8/18/2012 12:47am Edited Date/Time 8/18/2012 1:07am
WhKnuckle wrote:
Bain capital does what every private equity company does - buys companies, or at least controlling interests, at a deep discount (through, according to William Cohen...
Bain capital does what every private equity company does - buys companies, or at least controlling interests, at a deep discount (through, according to William Cohen, dishonest bidding tactics); analyze what could be done to incease the book value of that company; does whatever is necessary to increase that book value; attracts lenders and other investors to put cash into the company; skims as much of that cash as possible; and leaves the company to continue with a big debt burden. That's the standard private equity method - private equity companies don't seek operational profits (although that's a factor in book value so it's a good thing if it's there), they seek increase in book value, which they leverage into cash for themselves. Sometimes that results in production of goods and services, sometimes it doesn't - but if it does, the company's ongoing viability is hamstrung by debt created in the overselling and money-skimming functions by the private equity firm.

None of this is illegal. Sometimes it's not even immoral. But it's not capitalism. In a capitalist model, a guy has an idea for a product or tangible, physical service; he borrows money from a bank to start a company, he hires people to make his vision a reality, he creates a revenue stream, pays his workers, pays the bank back with interest and makes a profit. His workers then go out and buy other products created by other visionaries, and the cycle continues indefinitely. Bain and other private equity firms, on the other hand, goes in and skims money that dead-ends into the weatlhiest pockets in America. That's an inorganic, non-self sustaining one way cash dead end, and it's anti-capitalism.

None of this stuff is illegal. But if Mitt Romney is going to run for President based on his supposed business savvy, you have to ask - when did Mitt Romney have an idea for a product or non-financial service, start his own company, hire his own workers, bring his own idea to market, make his own money, and create actual COMMERCE? When did Mitt's supposed business savvy actually create a business of his own? If the answer is "never", then he doesn't have business savvy, he has investment savvy. That's not the same thing.
None of this stuff is illegal. But if Mitt Romney is going to run for President ......I give him a fuckin 100% ....and very few people understand.
As I went through a corporate marketing meeting today.... to try to decide who and when the investors will make their money back, 90% of the meeting was to make the corporation solid and to keep a product serving the world.This also employs 20-40 people.

Go ahead piss us off.I will move the labor to a position to make the most profit.
Skip376
Profile picture for user Skip376
Posts
317
Joined
7/7/2012
Location
USA
Skip376 8/19/2012 3:33pm
8/19/2012 3:33pm
So do you not invest?
jtomasik
Profile picture for user jtomasik
Posts
12895
Joined
8/17/2006
Location
Golden, CO, USA
jtomasik 8/19/2012 3:38pm
8/19/2012 3:38pm Edited Date/Time 8/19/2012 3:50pm
Titan1 wrote:
I put "real" in parenthesis because its from Fox News....but I've got to admit, this is more in keeping with what I always knew his company...
I put "real" in parenthesis because its from Fox News....but I've got to admit, this is more in keeping with what I always knew his company to be about (and others like it), they make money, when the company/idea/product they invest in is profitable and makes money:

https://youtu.be/DJLx6RtQXXg
I think this country has had enough of lawyers (Obummer) and paper shufflers (like Mutt) running the show. Running these programs is more suited to a person who has management experience that includes schedule, meeting measurables, and performance goals (deliverables), in addition to monitoring cost and developing programs that have financial controls/goals.

Bean counters (Mutt) and legal (Obummer) are support functions in companies. The project managers and those involved with product development are the ones who should be running this show. Those people are the ones Mutt was investing in. It wasn't like his work was creating the products that made the profit. All his company does is eye companies who look like they'll provide a profit for investors.

If you listen to C-Span, the programs that are being promoted to buy votes by our government are much the same as recognizing market space, developing product to fit that niche, and putting it into production (on time, on budget, meeting performance). Trouble is, the typical politician doesn't know how to successfully recognize and implement profitable programs, unless you consider buying votes "profitable". I guess it is to the politician.

Mutt knows how to shuffle the money/numbers. But he's a far cry from a true "project manager". Someone like Gary Johnson of the Libertarian party is what we should be looking for. Even Ron Paul doesn't have that kind of valuable experience.
Skip376
Profile picture for user Skip376
Posts
317
Joined
7/7/2012
Location
USA
Skip376 8/19/2012 3:43pm
8/19/2012 3:43pm
Titan1 wrote:
I put "real" in parenthesis because its from Fox News....but I've got to admit, this is more in keeping with what I always knew his company...
I put "real" in parenthesis because its from Fox News....but I've got to admit, this is more in keeping with what I always knew his company to be about (and others like it), they make money, when the company/idea/product they invest in is profitable and makes money:

https://youtu.be/DJLx6RtQXXg
jtomasik wrote:
I think this country has had enough of lawyers (Obummer) and paper shufflers (like Mutt) running the show. Running these programs is more suited to a...
I think this country has had enough of lawyers (Obummer) and paper shufflers (like Mutt) running the show. Running these programs is more suited to a person who has management experience that includes schedule, meeting measurables, and performance goals (deliverables), in addition to monitoring cost and developing programs that have financial controls/goals.

Bean counters (Mutt) and legal (Obummer) are support functions in companies. The project managers and those involved with product development are the ones who should be running this show. Those people are the ones Mutt was investing in. It wasn't like his work was creating the products that made the profit. All his company does is eye companies who look like they'll provide a profit for investors.

If you listen to C-Span, the programs that are being promoted to buy votes by our government are much the same as recognizing market space, developing product to fit that niche, and putting it into production (on time, on budget, meeting performance). Trouble is, the typical politician doesn't know how to successfully recognize and implement profitable programs, unless you consider buying votes "profitable". I guess it is to the politician.

Mutt knows how to shuffle the money/numbers. But he's a far cry from a true "project manager". Someone like Gary Johnson of the Libertarian party is what we should be looking for. Even Ron Paul doesn't have that kind of valuable experience.
We won't ever get what you want bassed off the forefathers basically mandating that the president be a popular figure. The problem falls with who's been granted to much and to little power in the government. Something the forefathers hadn't expected the people would let happen.
jtomasik
Profile picture for user jtomasik
Posts
12895
Joined
8/17/2006
Location
Golden, CO, USA
jtomasik 8/19/2012 3:56pm
8/19/2012 3:56pm
Skip376 wrote:
We won't ever get what you want bassed off the forefathers basically mandating that the president be a popular figure. The problem falls with who's been...
We won't ever get what you want bassed off the forefathers basically mandating that the president be a popular figure. The problem falls with who's been granted to much and to little power in the government. Something the forefathers hadn't expected the people would let happen.
I guess you can claim that, but if you have a vested public, then it's going to be more than a popularity vote. Pass a true balanced budget act, and have a military draft mandate. That'll ensure that the public is held accountable for what they have their representatives asking for. All I hear now in Washington is "gimme gimme gimme". Listen to C-Span, and that's all these representatives and senators do.

Oh, was listening to C-Span yesterday morning, and they were talking about the latest auto industry bailout. The people against it were claiming we're just funneling money into an industry which continues to pay outrageous wages, maintains expensive retirement funds, and continually operates at a loss. Sounds like our government, to me. So what's the problem? lol...
Skip376
Profile picture for user Skip376
Posts
317
Joined
7/7/2012
Location
USA
Skip376 8/19/2012 4:16pm
8/19/2012 4:16pm Edited Date/Time 8/19/2012 4:17pm
Skip376 wrote:
We won't ever get what you want bassed off the forefathers basically mandating that the president be a popular figure. The problem falls with who's been...
We won't ever get what you want bassed off the forefathers basically mandating that the president be a popular figure. The problem falls with who's been granted to much and to little power in the government. Something the forefathers hadn't expected the people would let happen.
jtomasik wrote:
I guess you can claim that, but if you have a vested public, then it's going to be more than a popularity vote. Pass a true...
I guess you can claim that, but if you have a vested public, then it's going to be more than a popularity vote. Pass a true balanced budget act, and have a military draft mandate. That'll ensure that the public is held accountable for what they have their representatives asking for. All I hear now in Washington is "gimme gimme gimme". Listen to C-Span, and that's all these representatives and senators do.

Oh, was listening to C-Span yesterday morning, and they were talking about the latest auto industry bailout. The people against it were claiming we're just funneling money into an industry which continues to pay outrageous wages, maintains expensive retirement funds, and continually operates at a loss. Sounds like our government, to me. So what's the problem? lol...
Or just take away the powers that the forefathers never intended for certain parts of government to get and make them take college level courses teaching the Federalist Papers, etc.

Making everyone serve in the military would have about as much success as trying to take away guns from people. The society as a whole won't support an idea that requires people to do such a thing.
jtomasik
Profile picture for user jtomasik
Posts
12895
Joined
8/17/2006
Location
Golden, CO, USA
jtomasik 8/19/2012 4:19pm
8/19/2012 4:19pm
Skip376 wrote:
Or just take away the powers that the forefathers never intended for certain parts of government to get and make them take college level courses teaching...
Or just take away the powers that the forefathers never intended for certain parts of government to get and make them take college level courses teaching the Federalist Papers, etc.

Making everyone serve in the military would have about as much success as trying to take away guns from people. The society as a whole won't support an idea that requires people to do such a thing.
I guess you're right it is a dumb idea. Seems to me all that Americans want is someone besides themselves to make the sacrifice. Bunch of spoiled cowards across this land...
Skip376
Profile picture for user Skip376
Posts
317
Joined
7/7/2012
Location
USA
Skip376 8/19/2012 4:32pm
8/19/2012 4:32pm Edited Date/Time 8/19/2012 4:33pm
Skip376 wrote:
Or just take away the powers that the forefathers never intended for certain parts of government to get and make them take college level courses teaching...
Or just take away the powers that the forefathers never intended for certain parts of government to get and make them take college level courses teaching the Federalist Papers, etc.

Making everyone serve in the military would have about as much success as trying to take away guns from people. The society as a whole won't support an idea that requires people to do such a thing.
jtomasik wrote:
I guess you're right it is a dumb idea. Seems to me all that Americans want is someone besides themselves to make the sacrifice. Bunch of...
I guess you're right it is a dumb idea. Seems to me all that Americans want is someone besides themselves to make the sacrifice. Bunch of spoiled cowards across this land...
Why do I want to sacrifice my self when;

A. We have plenty of volunteers to fight pointless and endless wars

B. When your idea does not address the problem of pointless wars ex:Vietnam...

It's a dumb idea because it simply gives politicians more " freedom" fighters. You making your kid join the military?
jtomasik
Profile picture for user jtomasik
Posts
12895
Joined
8/17/2006
Location
Golden, CO, USA
jtomasik 8/19/2012 4:57pm
8/19/2012 4:57pm
Skip376 wrote:
Why do I want to sacrifice my self when; A. We have plenty of volunteers to fight pointless and endless wars B. When your idea does...
Why do I want to sacrifice my self when;

A. We have plenty of volunteers to fight pointless and endless wars

B. When your idea does not address the problem of pointless wars ex:Vietnam...

It's a dumb idea because it simply gives politicians more " freedom" fighters. You making your kid join the military?
When every young adult has an equal opportunity of going to war, the public will take an interest into why we're going to war. There's a reason why Vietnam was protested so heavily.

No, not making my child go into the military, even though I served (35th Wild Weasels). Reason why is that I don't agree with all wars we've been involved in since WWII. Not one threatened our sovereignty. Not one.

Surprised you don't see the value in a mandatory draft when the military is used. Odd.

Post a reply to: "Real" story of Romney and Bain Capital: