Even Obama Knows The End Is Near

[JoeB131]

Two thing...
First...contrary to what you may believew...if you read your insurance policy, it is a contract.....they will ALWAYS give you the service as listed in the contract (policy)....so it seems to me that if you had to fight them, then you did not read your policy properly.

Right. A contract with a whole lot of legal-ese most of us don't understand. What you forget is that the contract is between your employer and the insurance company. They simply don't give a fuck about you. They don't actually have to make you happy, unlike other businesses.

Second.....what you claim about your employer...... what you are referring to is not something worthy of a lawsuit...it is something worthy of state and/or federal intervention as what you describe is against federal and state laws...soi I dont understand what kind of attorney's your former co-woprkers have....but before a lawsuit, the DA should have intervened.

In other words....what you claim about your employer? I think is BS.

Well, "thinking" isn't one of your more developed skills.

Here in IL, we have what is called "At Will" employment. They don't have to give a reason for firing you.

And, yeah, I did consider a lawsuit. The reason why I didn't bother was I had a new job nailed down in less than two weeks after losing the previous one. They also offered me a $10,000 severance package on the promise not to sue. So oddly, in that respect, I sort of made out.

Other people are currently suing them for medical and age discrimination. If they call me as a witness, I'll have some stories to tell.

Still doesn't mean that I respect the whole, "Let's worship the almighty businessman" bullshit the GOP has become.

 

[Jarhead]

Sorry dude, but anybody "laid off" that many times, it is clearly their fault. I've never been laid off ONCE. Not ONCE. You clearly bring no value to an organization, or they would hold on to you.

Second, if you have "disdain for the way business is done in this country", then why don't you start your own business and run it better? Exactly. Because that would require effort, something liberals refuse to give (which brings us back around to being habitually laid off)....

Uh, no, guy. Three times in 20 years is actually better than average. I look at a lot of resumes, all the time. Average for most people is a new job every four years.

And frankly, I get tired of the businessman telling me how put upon he is. Fuck him.

I deal with small businesses every day, and usually they are trying to blow smoke up my ass.

based on what I put in bold...it seems to me that the common denominator is you...becuase until I retired as a small business owner, I found most small businesses dealt with me on the up and up.

Maybe it is yourcynicism, pessimism and paranoia that is the problem?

 

[JoeB131]

Some insurance companies are good and some insurance companies are awful, really awful. I have no reason to disbelieve JoeAmpad when he said getting service was like wrestling with a snake. In fact, JoeAmpad would do the world a favour by naming the insurance company. The most ardent free market supporters want bad info out so potential customers can avoid the company if it has a bad reputation.

I will happily name the insurance company. It was Cigna.

The same Cigna that denied Natalie Sarkisyan a liver transplant until she died.

The Same Cigna that paid ex-CEO Hanaway a 72 million dollar severance package.

The same Cigna who's former vice president was so disgusted by what he saw that he became an ardent advocate for single payer health care.

former VP?

Are you aware that Cigna has hundreds of VP's?

So one out of hundreds defines the sentiments of an industry?

I don't know, I find what he said pretty compelling. He was the one tasked with countering Michael Moore's Sicko, and realized Moore was right.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=El2wmNV2K_M]Former CIGNA Executive Hails 'SiCKO' on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Samson]

Some insurance companies are good and some insurance companies are awful, really awful. I have no reason to disbelieve JoeAmpad when he said getting service was like wrestling with a snake. In fact, JoeAmpad would do the world a favour by naming the insurance company. The most ardent free market supporters want bad info out so potential customers can avoid the company if it has a bad reputation.

I will happily name the insurance company. It was Cigna.

The same Cigna that denied Natalie Sarkisyan a liver transplant until she died.

The Same Cigna that paid ex-CEO Hanaway a 72 million dollar severance package.

The same Cigna who's former vice president was so disgusted by what he saw that he became an ardent advocate for single payer health care.

former VP?

Are you aware that Cigna has hundreds of VP's?

So one out of hundreds defines the sentiments of an industry?

Just curious, Jar.

Why do you defend this industry?

Frankly, I'm asking myself the same question, because it appears the industry is the main cause of the increasing cost of heathcare, and I want my healthcare cost to reflect the actual cost of the healthcare I receive, NOT:
A. the cost of healthcare I may receive, or
B. the cost of healthcare Others receive.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I think the most interesting story about Obama is just how in the hell does a man like this become the most powerful man in America?
We start with the shear self-aggrandizement it takes for a man to write an autobiography at age 29 before he has accomplished anything!! Who does that?
Then there is his professor years in which his peers have stated that he was unremarkable, and was not very involved with the school or other faculty. He was very popular with the students, but not popular with the adults as he stayed to himself, did not attend lectures and faculty events, with only a few friendships within the facility.
Then there is his community organizer years. He was not very successful. His goal was to join South Chicago churches and form a powerful political force in Chicago...with him at the top. He failed. In fact, he barely got off the ground as no one listened to him. If it wasn't for a chance meeting with Reverend Wright - Obama would probably have never got out of community level politics. It was Wright that formed the Obama we know today.... charismatic, solid orator and carries a sense of importance. Wright had literally 100's of meetings with Obama... surrealistically stupid to try and claim Obama did not know about Wrights anti-Americanism and racism.
Then his years as state Senator and failed congressional run. Again, unremarkable. No great accomplishments other than securing multi-six figure jobs for his wife and a fantastic real estate deal.
Then there was the Democrat convention. Everything changed. A wall of secrecy suddenly enveloped him, suddenly he had the interest of the most powerful Democrats in the country - literally overnight.

Did this man win the office of President over one speech?
I would say - yes.

 

[Jarhead]

Two thing...
First...contrary to what you may believew...if you read your insurance policy, it is a contract.....they will ALWAYS give you the service as listed in the contract (policy)....so it seems to me that if you had to fight them, then you did not read your policy properly.

Right. A contract with a whole lot of legal-ese most of us don't understand. What you forget is that the contract is between your employer and the insurance company. They simply don't give a fuck about you. They don't actually have to make you happy, unlike other businesses.

Second.....what you claim about your employer...... what you are referring to is not something worthy of a lawsuit...it is something worthy of state and/or federal intervention as what you describe is against federal and state laws...soi I dont understand what kind of attorney's your former co-woprkers have....but before a lawsuit, the DA should have intervened.

In other words....what you claim about your employer? I think is BS.

Well, "thinking" isn't one of your more developed skills.

Here in IL, we have what is called "At Will" employment. They don't have to give a reason for firing you.

And, yeah, I did consider a lawsuit. The reason why I didn't bother was I had a new job nailed down in less than two weeks after losing the previous one. They also offered me a $10,000 severance package on the promise not to sue. So oddly, in that respect, I sort of made out.

Other people are currently suing them for medical and age discrimination. If they call me as a witness, I'll have some stories to tell.

Still doesn't mean that I respect the whole, "Let's worship the almighty businessman" bullshit the GOP has become.

NY is an at will state as well.

But if you truly were honest about what you are saying, you would be well aware that at will means that you can fire anyone for any reason....AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT BREAKING THE LAW....

So, in an at will state, if the employee has good reason to believe they were fired for reason of discrimination or for reason of legitimate illness, their attorney FIRST appraoches the DA with the proof...and it is investigated and charges brought against the employer if such truly did seem to happen.

And why do they do that?

Becuase to levy a lawsuit prior to that results in a very cvostkly lawsuit....to levy a lawsuit AFTER the DA finds cause for charges, results in a very hefty settlement.

Joe....you are diggingh a hole for yourself. You do not know the truth...you are regurgitating left wing blog crap that is unfounded.

 

[Samson]

Given that insurance companies operate at a 30% profit margin, I'm sure they can afford it.

Fail.

The profit margins for the top 5 health insurance companies are (ordered by market cap):

•United Health Group: 4.92%
•Express Scripts: 2.67%
•Wellpoint: 4.92%
•Aetna: 5.16%
•Cigna: 6.33%

 

[Toro]

I get pretty tired of the 1% telling me that they are indispensible when they are screwing me.

I just don't buy it anymore. SOrry, just don't.

Given that insurance companies operate at a 30% profit margin, I'm sure they can afford it. When a douchebag like Ed Hanaway gets a 72 million dollar severance package, you know the foxes are in charge of the henhouse.

(If you want to know when I stopped being a Republican, it was pretty much after I had to spend two years wrestling with Cigna to get them to pay for a couple procedures, and ended up losing the job even though I had seniority. Fuck the insurance companies. I hope they all burn in hell.)

Insurance companies don't operate at a 30% profit margin, except perhaps for a few catastrophe reinsurers and specialty carriers such as Lloyds syndicates. Most insurance companies break even or lose money on their insurance operations.

This is difficult to believe.

I'm not saying you're incorrect, Toro, but I would expect Joe's normally foolish assertations to at least be correct once, and find a 30% PM fairly consistant with what I'd guess would be the insurance industry's average PM.

But I'll let him defend the position.

Of course, it depends what line of business, but I've looked at many types of insurance companies, and a typical insurance company will pay out 75 cents in claims and expense 25 cents out of every dollar in premium it receives. It makes money on the investment income on the premium income it takes in before it pays out in claims, which is usually 2-4 cents out of every $1 in revenues. Profit margins are typically 4-7% of revenues.

Saskatchewan has socialized nonprofit insurance for both healthcare and property, such as auto and home, so I've seen the good and the bad. Joe has a point about the egregious and idiotic pay some of these executives receive. The problem with the socialist argument though is if you run the numbers, the savings aren't that great. Even if you assume some mind blowing number for executive comp, ie 20%, and eliminate profits, the savings are only 10-15% for one year, then resumes growing thereafter.

 

[Jarhead]

I will happily name the insurance company. It was Cigna.

The same Cigna that denied Natalie Sarkisyan a liver transplant until she died.

The Same Cigna that paid ex-CEO Hanaway a 72 million dollar severance package.

The same Cigna who's former vice president was so disgusted by what he saw that he became an ardent advocate for single payer health care.

former VP?

Are you aware that Cigna has hundreds of VP's?

So one out of hundreds defines the sentiments of an industry?

Just curious, Jar.

Why do you defend this industry?

Frankly, I'm asking myself the same question, because it appears the industry is the main cause of the increasing cost of heathcare, and I want my healthcare cost to reflect the actual cost of the healthcare I receive, NOT:
A. the cost of healthcare I may receive, or
B. the cost of healthcare Others receive.

I am not dfefending the industry by any means.

I am doing what I can to ensure the industry is evaluated properly...and not judged by the public with false information.

Insurance went through a metamorphosis over the years. It used to be "insurance"...nbow it is covering healthcare costs....

When it was insurance, you put in a claim when you were ill and you got reimbursed...as you would with auto insurance.

Now?

Do to political presure, insurance companies went into the healthcare business. Now everyone gets their annual visits covered. Everyone has a "sniffle" and they run to their doctor for him to say get a days rest and they want the insurance cvompany to cover it.

So politicna changed the industry...insurance companies were forced to adhere...and now are criticizedbecuase premiuims went up.

But of course they went up. They are no longer just covering needs.....now they are covering wants.

We, the people created this....noit the insurance companies.

There was a day where it was insurance...you know...when you NEEDED it.

Now it is like saying that Auto insurance should cover gas, new tires, new plugs, basic maintenance.

Think about it.

 

[HUGGY]

Yeah, because there should never be "layoffs", right? I mean, just like the federal government, a company should just continue to accumulate collapsing levels of debt so long as the bitter, lazy, envious little worker liberal who gives no effort continues to get a stream of income because they are "entitled to it".

You people are the biggest fucking idiots in the universe. No concept on any level of what it takes to be successful. Just full of hate and envy of people who are successful and "wear a suit". Pathetic.

Hey, I'd be more than happy to throw them a "necktie" party.

And frankly, if you have to lay people off, and then get a govenrment bailout, I have very little sympathy when you turn around and pay yourself a bonus, which is considered perfectly acceptable to these guys.

Layoffs are sometimes necessary, and I have no problem firing people with just cause.

So an asshole like Romney can loot a company for millions while workers lose their health insurance, lenders get stiffed in a bankruptcy and the federal government has to bail out the pension fund is not a just cause, and it don't sit right with a lot of folks.

Addressing what is in bold....

Again, you need to understand the topic you are debating before actually debating or it hurts your credibility.

Romney (bain Capital) did not loot successful companies. Instead, they invested in companies that NEEDED outside capital to survive.

Without Bain, those lenders and employees would have been the victims of chapter 11 at best...if not a totla shutdown.

It is way too costly to buy into a successful company simply so you can sell off its assets.

Why?

Becuase a successful company sells out at a ratio of anywhere from 4-7% of margin....making it nearly impossible to break even by simply liquidating it.

If you didn't take your bullshit so seriously it would appear you have a good sense of humor. Saddling a company with outrageous debt after you aquired the legal right to control said company through a leveraged buy out using others money is hardly "investing" as most people understand the term. When the punch line comes in the form of cashing out to the tune of hundreds of millions(in some cases) and leaving the debt to the bankruptsy courts to sort out makes me laugh. Ya...you are a funny guy.

 

[Samson]

Insurance companies don't operate at a 30% profit margin, except perhaps for a few catastrophe reinsurers and specialty carriers such as Lloyds syndicates. Most insurance companies break even or lose money on their insurance operations.

This is difficult to believe.

I'm not saying you're incorrect, Toro, but I would expect Joe's normally foolish assertations to at least be correct once, and find a 30% PM fairly consistant with what I'd guess would be the insurance industry's average PM.

But I'll let him defend the position.

Of course, it depends what line of business, but I've looked at many types of insurance companies, and a typical insurance company will pay out 75 cents in claims and expense 25 cents out of every dollar in premium it receives. It makes money on the investment income on the premium income it takes in before it pays out in claims, which is usually 2-4 cents out of every $1 in revenues. Profit margins are typically 4-7% of revenues.

Saskatchewan has socialized nonprofit insurance for both healthcare and property, such as auto and home, so I've seen the good and the bad. Joe has a point about the egregious and idiotic pay some of these executives receive. The problem with the socialist argument though is if you run the numbers, the savings aren't that great. Even if you assume some mind blowing number for executive comp, ie 20%, and eliminate profits, the savings are only 10-15% for one year, then resumes growing thereafter.

The other problem with the socialist arguement is that private industry profits only approach their wildest dreams BEFORE TAXES.

After being taxed to support public redidstribution of wealth, insurance industry PM is even less.

 

[Jarhead]

Hey, I'd be more than happy to throw them a "necktie" party.

And frankly, if you have to lay people off, and then get a govenrment bailout, I have very little sympathy when you turn around and pay yourself a bonus, which is considered perfectly acceptable to these guys.

Layoffs are sometimes necessary, and I have no problem firing people with just cause.

So an asshole like Romney can loot a company for millions while workers lose their health insurance, lenders get stiffed in a bankruptcy and the federal government has to bail out the pension fund is not a just cause, and it don't sit right with a lot of folks.

Addressing what is in bold....

Again, you need to understand the topic you are debating before actually debating or it hurts your credibility.

Romney (bain Capital) did not loot successful companies. Instead, they invested in companies that NEEDED outside capital to survive.

Without Bain, those lenders and employees would have been the victims of chapter 11 at best...if not a totla shutdown.

It is way too costly to buy into a successful company simply so you can sell off its assets.

Why?

Becuase a successful company sells out at a ratio of anywhere from 4-7% of margin....making it nearly impossible to break even by simply liquidating it.

If you didn't take your bullshit so seriously it would appear you have a good sense of humor. Saddling a company with outrageous debt after you aquired the legal right to control said company through a leveraged buy out using others money is hardly "investing" as most people understand the term. When the punch line comes in the form of cashing out to the tune of hundreds of millions(in some cases) and leaving the debt to the bankruptsy courts to sort out makes me laugh. Ya...you are a funny guy.

I would respond, but your premise is completely wrong. You are a victim of the rhetoric.

I will say it again...thjose companies would have failed without Bain.

If they were successful, they would have sol;.d at 4-7% of NM...anjd it is impossible to liquidate and make money if you bought at that margin.

So you can claim what you want...and all you want....but it is nothing but rhetoric and completely defies business loigic.

Curious...what investor would lend money to a Bain project if they had a reputation of doing what you claim?

 

[HUGGY]

Addressing what is in bold....

Again, you need to understand the topic you are debating before actually debating or it hurts your credibility.

Romney (bain Capital) did not loot successful companies. Instead, they invested in companies that NEEDED outside capital to survive.

Without Bain, those lenders and employees would have been the victims of chapter 11 at best...if not a totla shutdown.

It is way too costly to buy into a successful company simply so you can sell off its assets.

Why?

Becuase a successful company sells out at a ratio of anywhere from 4-7% of margin....making it nearly impossible to break even by simply liquidating it.

If you didn't take your bullshit so seriously it would appear you have a good sense of humor. Saddling a company with outrageous debt after you aquired the legal right to control said company through a leveraged buy out using others money is hardly "investing" as most people understand the term. When the punch line comes in the form of cashing out to the tune of hundreds of millions(in some cases) and leaving the debt to the bankruptsy courts to sort out makes me laugh. Ya...you are a funny guy.

I would respond, but your premise is completely wrong. You are a victim of the rhetoric.

I will say it again...thjose companies would have failed without Bain.

If they were successful, they would have sol;.d at 4-7% of NM...anjd it is impossible to liquidate and make money if you bought at that margin.

So you can claim what you want...and all you want....but it is nothing but rhetoric and completely defies business loigic.

Curious...what investor would lend money to a Bain project if they had a reputation of doing what you claim?

That is impossible to prove. There is a lot of evidense and testimony to suggest that Bain has a reoccuring business model they used repeatedly that gauranteed failure just after they stripped a company of much of it's worth. Loading up a company with huge debt and syphoning off much of the newly found cash cannot be done if the company appears to be failing. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[Jarhead]

I am curious as to whether or not everyone is aware as to why "Pre Existing Conditions" clauses exist in the insurance industry.

It is becuase the public tried to game the game....and not buy insurance until they needed it.

The dental industry countered with the 6 month rule....you take out dental insurance, you can not put in a claim for 6 months...eliminating those that waited until they needed a root canal before buying it.

The homeowners insurers countered with the 30 day rule for flood and hurricane coverage...so people couldnt buy it when they saw a hurricane or flood coming.

I find it interesting that the public holds an induistry responsible for putting in place programs to prevent the public from defrauding them

 

[Jarhead]

If you didn't take your bullshit so seriously it would appear you have a good sense of humor. Saddling a company with outrageous debt after you aquired the legal right to control said company through a leveraged buy out using others money is hardly "investing" as most people understand the term. When the punch line comes in the form of cashing out to the tune of hundreds of millions(in some cases) and leaving the debt to the bankruptsy courts to sort out makes me laugh. Ya...you are a funny guy.

I would respond, but your premise is completely wrong. You are a victim of the rhetoric.

I will say it again...thjose companies would have failed without Bain.

If they were successful, they would have sol;.d at 4-7% of NM...anjd it is impossible to liquidate and make money if you bought at that margin.

So you can claim what you want...and all you want....but it is nothing but rhetoric and completely defies business loigic.

Curious...what investor would lend money to a Bain project if they had a reputation of doing what you claim?

That is impossible to prove. There is a lot of evidense and testimony to suggest that Bain has a reoccuring business model they used repeatedly that gauranteed failure just after they stripped a company of much of it's worth. Loading up a company with huge debt and syphoning off much of the newly found cash cannot be done if the company appears to be failing. You cannot have it both ways.

Huggy...you are wrong. There is PLENTY of evidence to prove it.

A successful company sells at 4-7 percent of NM....

It would be impossible to buy at that rate and sell off the assets and make a profit.

You seem to be ignoring the money side of it.

Look at it this way...

Thjere is a company with 5 million in assets, revenue at 100 million, costs of 90 million and and a profit of 10 million a year.

I buy the company for 50 million...that is about 5 years for me to break even and start reaping the rewards of the investment.

5 years break even is a rational chronological number for investing in a successfukl company.

How can I sell off the assets of 5 million after paying 50 million for the company?

 

[salem.hills]

I think the most interesting story about Obama is just how in the hell does a man like this become the most powerful man in America?
We start with the shear self-aggrandizement it takes for a man to write an autobiography at age 29 before he has accomplished anything!! Who does that?
Then there is his professor years in which his peers have stated that he was unremarkable, and was not very involved with the school or other faculty. He was very popular with the students, but not popular with the adults as he stayed to himself, did not attend lectures and faculty events, with only a few friendships within the facility.
Then there is his community organizer years. He was not very successful. His goal was to join South Chicago churches and form a powerful political force in Chicago...with him at the top. He failed. In fact, he barely got off the ground as no one listened to him. If it wasn't for a chance meeting with Reverend Wright - Obama would probably have never got out of community level politics. It was Wright that formed the Obama we know today.... charismatic, solid orator and carries a sense of importance. Wright had literally 100's of meetings with Obama... surrealistically stupid to try and claim Obama did not know about Wrights anti-Americanism and racism.
Then his years as state Senator and failed congressional run. Again, unremarkable. No great accomplishments other than securing multi-six figure jobs for his wife and a fantastic real estate deal.
Then there was the Democrat convention. Everything changed. A wall of secrecy suddenly enveloped him, suddenly he had the interest of the most powerful Democrats in the country - literally overnight.

Did this man win the office of President over one speech?
I would say - yes.

This is a great post and I agree I often think there's only two things the Dems used him because its obviously easier to cry racism for failures or this guy is undercover Communist KGB loyal at least. I mean his life is surrounded by Communists - period that's a fact. From dad to college profs to Ayers and then that hot mic interview. Kudos to his handler that left that mic on. Rant over lol

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I think the most interesting story about Obama is just how in the hell does a man like this become the most powerful man in America?
We start with the shear self-aggrandizement it takes for a man to write an autobiography at age 29 before he has accomplished anything!! Who does that?
Then there is his professor years in which his peers have stated that he was unremarkable, and was not very involved with the school or other faculty. He was very popular with the students, but not popular with the adults as he stayed to himself, did not attend lectures and faculty events, with only a few friendships within the facility.
Then there is his community organizer years. He was not very successful. His goal was to join South Chicago churches and form a powerful political force in Chicago...with him at the top. He failed. In fact, he barely got off the ground as no one listened to him. If it wasn't for a chance meeting with Reverend Wright - Obama would probably have never got out of community level politics. It was Wright that formed the Obama we know today.... charismatic, solid orator and carries a sense of importance. Wright had literally 100's of meetings with Obama... surrealistically stupid to try and claim Obama did not know about Wrights anti-Americanism and racism.
Then his years as state Senator and failed congressional run. Again, unremarkable. No great accomplishments other than securing multi-six figure jobs for his wife and a fantastic real estate deal.
Then there was the Democrat convention. Everything changed. A wall of secrecy suddenly enveloped him, suddenly he had the interest of the most powerful Democrats in the country - literally overnight.

Did this man win the office of President over one speech?
I would say - yes.

This is a great post and I agree I often think there's only two things the Dems used him because its obviously easier to cry racism for failures or this guy is undercover Communist KGB loyal at least. I mean his life is surrounded by Communists - period that's a fact. From dad to college profs to Ayers and then that hot mic interview. Kudos to his handler that left that mic on. Rant over lol

Again - I am fascinated as to HOW he got into office.
When you look at Presidents rise to the office, you will find several instances of success. It might be personal success, political success or business success - one would hope that a President has a track record of success in his/her life - right?
Not Obama.
Not in his years as a lecturer (he was not a full-time professor) he was not published, he never wrote any important papers - nada.
As a community organizer he had a dream of building a powerful political force in south Chicago of black churches - with him at the top - now...WTF? He was not religious, and had no role among local churches - what kind of a person would see himself successful in this venture?
Then his role as fundraiser for Chicago organizations - again - not particularly successful. It wasn't until, for whatever reason, Jeremiah Wright took him under his wing and gave him connections to powerful Democrats in Chicago did he go anywhere.
The man wanted to run for Mayor (reportedly) - Wright told him to forget about it, he wanted to run for Congress - EVERYONE- told him not to do it - he did it anyway and was trounced.
What I am saying is that until the Democrat convention - the man failed at most things, and was unremarkable at everything else. The only thing he had was connections in the Chicago Democratic machine. Others saw him as "ambitious" and "willing". Make of that as you will.
And then suddenly overnight - every Democrat in Washington gave him access to their office, he was given seats on committees etc. etc. - because of one speech.

I would like to think that a nation would expect their leaders to have success in their lives beyond appointments accomplished through connections only.

 

[HUGGY]

I would respond, but your premise is completely wrong. You are a victim of the rhetoric.

I will say it again...thjose companies would have failed without Bain.

If they were successful, they would have sol;.d at 4-7% of NM...anjd it is impossible to liquidate and make money if you bought at that margin.

So you can claim what you want...and all you want....but it is nothing but rhetoric and completely defies business loigic.

Curious...what investor would lend money to a Bain project if they had a reputation of doing what you claim?

That is impossible to prove. There is a lot of evidense and testimony to suggest that Bain has a reoccuring business model they used repeatedly that gauranteed failure just after they stripped a company of much of it's worth. Loading up a company with huge debt and syphoning off much of the newly found cash cannot be done if the company appears to be failing. You cannot have it both ways.

Huggy...you are wrong. There is PLENTY of evidence to prove it.

A successful company sells at 4-7 percent of NM....

It would be impossible to buy at that rate and sell off the assets and make a profit.

You seem to be ignoring the money side of it.

Look at it this way...

Thjere is a company with 5 million in assets, revenue at 100 million, costs of 90 million and and a profit of 10 million a year.

I buy the company for 50 million...that is about 5 years for me to break even and start reaping the rewards of the investment.

5 years break even is a rational chronological number for investing in a successfukl company.

How can I sell off the assets of 5 million after paying 50 million for the company?

You seem to have at least some grasp on what happened. Why so conveniently leave out the "leveraged" aspect to the equation. Bain NEVER paid full value for anything with thiers or anyone elses money. Try being a tad more honest as to how a leveraged buyout works and how much actual cash Bain used of thier own money.

 

[Jarhead]

That is impossible to prove. There is a lot of evidense and testimony to suggest that Bain has a reoccuring business model they used repeatedly that gauranteed failure just after they stripped a company of much of it's worth. Loading up a company with huge debt and syphoning off much of the newly found cash cannot be done if the company appears to be failing. You cannot have it both ways.

Huggy...you are wrong. There is PLENTY of evidence to prove it.

A successful company sells at 4-7 percent of NM....

It would be impossible to buy at that rate and sell off the assets and make a profit.

You seem to be ignoring the money side of it.

Look at it this way...

Thjere is a company with 5 million in assets, revenue at 100 million, costs of 90 million and and a profit of 10 million a year.

I buy the company for 50 million...that is about 5 years for me to break even and start reaping the rewards of the investment.

5 years break even is a rational chronological number for investing in a successfukl company.

How can I sell off the assets of 5 million after paying 50 million for the company?

You seem to have at least some grasp on what happened. Why so conveniently leave out the "leveraged" aspect to the equation. Bain NEVER paid full value for anything with thiers or anyone elses money. Try being a tad more honest as to how a leveraged buyout works and how much actual cash Bain used of thier own money.

I am.

You be honest and address that part that I addressed earlier...

Who would continue lending money to Bain if they had a reputation of taking the loan and the filing chapter 11?

Bain does not have a bad reputation with lenders...or it would be out of business.

THAT is my proof...and that is why I keep saying "apply business logic".

 

[HUGGY]

Huggy...you are wrong. There is PLENTY of evidence to prove it.

A successful company sells at 4-7 percent of NM....

It would be impossible to buy at that rate and sell off the assets and make a profit.

You seem to be ignoring the money side of it.

Look at it this way...

Thjere is a company with 5 million in assets, revenue at 100 million, costs of 90 million and and a profit of 10 million a year.

I buy the company for 50 million...that is about 5 years for me to break even and start reaping the rewards of the investment.

5 years break even is a rational chronological number for investing in a successfukl company.

How can I sell off the assets of 5 million after paying 50 million for the company?

You seem to have at least some grasp on what happened. Why so conveniently leave out the "leveraged" aspect to the equation. Bain NEVER paid full value for anything with thiers or anyone elses money. Try being a tad more honest as to how a leveraged buyout works and how much actual cash Bain used of thier own money.

I am.

You be honest and address that part that I addressed earlier...

Who would continue lending money to Bain if they had a reputation of taking the loan and the filing chapter 11?

Bain does not have a bad reputation with lenders...or it would be out of business.

THAT is my proof...and that is why I keep saying "apply business logic".

My honesty is contingent on following up on your old statements?

Dude...you are really losing it. I can barely stay interested in your posts when they are right in front of my nose.