Romney at Bain: Big gains, some busts

[JoeB131]

Bain lost $100 million on CST, moron. Your claims are blatant lies.

How many would have "made it" if they hadn't been there? We don't know.

What happens when Bain takes over was explained by Planet Money a few weeks ago. Basically they instantly take on more debt to pay themselves back for buying controlling interest and then attempt to rehab the company.

What of course isn't understood or, much less, admitted is that the situation for Bain is always "heads they win, tails they don't lose". I would imagine most venture capitalists worth that way.

If you were to look into the Duncan Donuts balance sheet you would see what Bain Does. I hope they "make it" but their debt looks insurmountable. Maybe not. They did start selling their coffee in super markets which was a good move. This may be a Bain save.

So if Bain lost 100 Million on a company, doesn't that kind of disqualify Romney from being a "genius"?

 

[zeke]

This is gonna screw up your conservative brain.

But it was private companies that called in government to protect them from people that were organizing unions.


You mean they called in the government to protect them from thugs who were trespassing on their property and assaulting their employees?

Isn't that what government is supposed to do?

Yea. Guvmint is bad till the companies want them to intervene of their behalf. Wonder why the companies couldn't just deal with it themselves? The companies have the money. Can borrow more from the banks. According to the rethugs, that is all a company needs to be successful. Borrowed money.

Don't worry about workers. Who needs em?

Makes you wonder what was wrong with Henry Ford. Wanting to pay his workers a wage that would enable his workers to buy the cars they were building. How did Ford know that workers with money to spend create the demand that makes a successful businss. But todays Rethugs can't figure that out.

Hypocite.

 

[code1211]

The two most dazzling examples of this are Boeing that got sued by the Federal Government when it tried to create 2500 non-union jobs in South Carolina, a right to work state, and the shut down of Gibson guitars idling 450 non-union workers for importing Rosewood from India.

This is all you've got?

First, Gibson Guitars (which I have and love) knew they were playing with fire when the head of Gibson decided he didn't like Obama. So he kind of manufactured the "crisis". BTW, things are all better now and Gibson continues to make fine instrument. In a "sustainable" way. Which is exactly what the guitar compaies of the world want. Reasonable harvest standards for high quality tone woods.

Boeing is a different issue. I don't think it was quite the "attack" on business that you seem to believe it was. One thing for sure. Boeing has no problem taking guvmint money whenever they can. And wasn't Boeing just trying to bust the Aerospace and Machinist Union? I would much rather fly on a plane Boeing built with labor that gets paid minimum wage (or a little better) than to have a union aerospace worker that has been on the job for 20 years and wants his job to go on till he retires. And because the union man/woman makes a living wage, they are much more likely to want to deliver a high quality product. Because most union people take great pride in their work. Minimum wage workers, not so much.

Here is a pretty good article that accurately explains the attack on Gibson. It rises from the Tree Hugger faction of the democrat party and was obviously a grab for campaign contributions by the corrupt Obama machine.

If you can see the Boeing attacks and the subsequent pay off to be left alone anything but a crony motivated, union thug approach to politics, you are dreaming. Nothing changed in SC. Boeing agreed to build a plant in Washington and hire more union thugs there. Interesting, no? When the company does nothing to change the activities being attacked but makes a pay off to the union, the government backs off. Cronyism?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903895904576542942027859286.html

http://news.investors.com/article/5...-union-settle-nlrb-lawsuit-south-carolina.htm

 

[Seawytch]

Exactly how does this apply to Staples?

and that's all you got, Staples. Great quality jobs there at Staples eh? What's the pay, $7-$8 an hour with no benefits? How's their retirement plan? Good pensions there at Staples?

You want to know why there is a shrinking middle class in this country? Companies like Bain.

Not to burst your bubble, but managers at Staples make a pretty good living.

Staples Sales Manager Salary | Glassdoor

Managers make a good living pretty much everywhere. McDonald's managers make a decent living.

Our (non-union, I might add) manager makes 5 times over what we make, has no cost share of benefits and gets them for life. Me, one of those union, "bloated", government employees gets my cost share of benefits increased, only get the benefits as long as I have sick leave on the books when I retire and keep getting forced to take furlough days every year.

Management isn't the guy on the line turning a screw and year after year getting screwed.

CEOs Make 244 Times a Typical Worker's Salary

But keep cheering as Bain eats up more "Mom and Pop" stores and wants to pay you lower wages or ship your jobs overseas just so they can buy more elevators for their CARS and hide their money in Swiss Bank accounts and PO Boxes in the Cayman Islands. Brilliant.

 

[Seawytch]

Creating Jobs Wasn't Romney's Job

So, why is he touting his success at Bain to give him "cred" as a Presidential candidate?

 

[zeke]

Government has become the main predator of the American people.

I know what you mean. Why, just this morning I had to get up and look under the bed. And guess what; there they were. The guvmint I mean. Not the underwear I was looking for. SO I just had to drag the guvmint out from under the bed and drown it in the bath tub. One more predator down the drain.
We will get them all yet. Just stay at it. Be afraid be very afraid. And check under your bed EVERY night.
You just can't tell when you might be next for the "re education" camps.

 

[Seawytch]

I don't know what your point is.

In a changing business climate, these things happen. I have worked for and with various companies that no longer exist. That's the way it is.

Is it your thesis that no company should ever change in any way?

They happen a lot faster when Bain takes over. Bain didn't try to save the company or save the jobs...that isn't what they are in business for. They are in business to make money for their investors.

But, hey, it's business. It's what it is. It's not illegal.

The point, however, is that Romney touting his business acumen (which makes Bain "Fair Game"), has ZERO to do with running a county. They are in no way, shape or form, similar. Romney can't sell off parts of a state to leverage the buyout of another.

And why is the good Governor only talking about his time at Bain since business and government are so dissimilar? Why wouldn't he be talking about his record as a Governor, his ACTUAL experience when it comes to governing a country?

Gee, I wonder...

Romney ran Bain. Did Bain show a profit or a loss while Romney was in charge?

Don't know, don't care. How does that qualify him to run a county? Government isn't in the business of making a profit. His experiences at Bain don't translate to government. He can't do ANY of the things he did at Bain to the country.

Why isn't he running on his record that DOES relate to being President?

 

[code1211]

and that's all you got, Staples. Great quality jobs there at Staples eh? What's the pay, $7-$8 an hour with no benefits? How's their retirement plan? Good pensions there at Staples?

You want to know why there is a shrinking middle class in this country? Companies like Bain.

Not to burst your bubble, but managers at Staples make a pretty good living.

Staples Sales Manager Salary | Glassdoor

Managers make a good living pretty much everywhere. McDonald's managers make a decent living.

Our (non-union, I might add) manager makes 5 times over what we make, has no cost share of benefits and gets them for life. Me, one of those union, "bloated", government employees gets my cost share of benefits increased, only get the benefits as long as I have sick leave on the books when I retire and keep getting forced to take furlough days every year.

Management isn't the guy on the line turning a screw and year after year getting screwed.

CEOs Make 244 Times a Typical Worker's Salary

But keep cheering as Bain eats up more "Mom and Pop" stores and wants to pay you lower wages or ship your jobs overseas just so they can buy more elevators for their CARS and hide their money in Swiss Bank accounts and PO Boxes in the Cayman Islands. Brilliant.

What is your solution to the problems you cite?

 

[code1211]

Creating Jobs Wasn't Romney's Job

So, why is he touting his success at Bain to give him "cred" as a Presidential candidate?

Was Bain a profitable company while he was there?

 

[bripat9643]

Or we just dont' take the Limbaugh whining about these.

Let's review, shall we.

Boeing gets a crapload of money from the Federal Government. Once you sup with the devil, no spoon is long enough. The reason why teh government could crack down on Boeing is because they sold out a long time ago. So there's an argument fail.

So if a company ever sells anything to the government, then the government is entitled to destroy it? That's pure distilled liberal idiocy.

Gibson. Sorry, this was the second offense on the importing of wood from restricted regions.

"Restricted regions?" That isn't even what they are accused of, moron. The actual complaint is that the wood was fraudulently labeled. Gibson wasn't responsible for the labeling. A broker in India did that.

For the Auto Bailout. Yeah, actually saving the industry was a bit more important than making sure the guys who bet on GM to fail got their payout... If all bankruptcies were managed that way, you'd have a lot less shennanigans on Wall Street.

The government didn't save the auto industry. It only saved the UAW extortion contracts with the auto industry, and it screwed the bond holders and the taxpayers in the process. So what you endorsed is government acting like a thug to assist another group of thugs.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Like any business you have ups and downs. Now the govt on the other hand.......mostly downs.

and thank you for pointing out the disease that now infects the Republican Party.

Gummit is bad. Gummit is always bad. Even when it does exactly what it was set up to do, we'll compalin because it's the Gummit.

What disease is it you speak of. Certainly not the lipsonass that you seem to have caught. Also please list the profitable ventures of the govt.

 

[code1211]

They happen a lot faster when Bain takes over. Bain didn't try to save the company or save the jobs...that isn't what they are in business for. They are in business to make money for their investors.

But, hey, it's business. It's what it is. It's not illegal.

The point, however, is that Romney touting his business acumen (which makes Bain "Fair Game"), has ZERO to do with running a county. They are in no way, shape or form, similar. Romney can't sell off parts of a state to leverage the buyout of another.

And why is the good Governor only talking about his time at Bain since business and government are so dissimilar? Why wouldn't he be talking about his record as a Governor, his ACTUAL experience when it comes to governing a country?

Gee, I wonder...

Romney ran Bain. Did Bain show a profit or a loss while Romney was in charge?

Don't know, don't care. How does that qualify him to run a county? Government isn't in the business of making a profit. His experiences at Bain don't translate to government. He can't do ANY of the things he did at Bain to the country.

Why isn't he running on his record that DOES relate to being President?

The business of government, especially now after the disastrous and crippling financial failure of the Obama Administration is to make a profit.

We are 15+ trillion dollars in debt and Obama and his thieves are demanding that the rich and our children pay their fair share to support his failure.

Romney may not have proven that he can run the country. That's not the point. The point is this:

Obama has proven that he cannot run the country.

If Romney fails miserably, he cannot fail as completely as Obama has failed.

 

[zeke]

he law ensnaring Gibson is the Lacey Act of 1900, originally passed to regulate trade in bird feathers used for hats and amended in 2008 to cover wood and other plant products. It requires companies to make detailed disclosures about wood imports and bars the purchase of goods exported in violation of a foreign country's laws.Leonard Krause, a consultant in Eugene, Ore., who advises companies on complying with the Lacey Act, is telling clients they should hire lawyers in countries where they obtain products. "How many people know the statutes in India?" Mr. Krause said. "The net effect is that it raises everybody's cost of doing business."

LMAO. From your link. Which I had already read. But don't you find it odd that the Obama adminastration was complying with international law from 1900? What the hell is the matter with people who follow the laws of the land? Or laws of other lands.

And if you want a more nucanced version of the Lacey Act and how it effects guitar makers, go to the web site of Taylor Guitars and see what the owner (Bob Taylor) has to say about the protections that are being put in place for high quality tone woods. He supports the effort fully.

But you know that, with the exception of Ted Nugent, most musicians are left wing commie facists.
So you can't trust shit of what they say.


I couldn't make out your point about Boeing, so I won't comment.

 

[code1211]

he law ensnaring Gibson is the Lacey Act of 1900, originally passed to regulate trade in bird feathers used for hats and amended in 2008 to cover wood and other plant products. It requires companies to make detailed disclosures about wood imports and bars the purchase of goods exported in violation of a foreign country's laws.Leonard Krause, a consultant in Eugene, Ore., who advises companies on complying with the Lacey Act, is telling clients they should hire lawyers in countries where they obtain products. "How many people know the statutes in India?" Mr. Krause said. "The net effect is that it raises everybody's cost of doing business."

LMAO. From your link. Which I had already read. But don't you find it odd that the Obama adminastration was complying with international law from 1900? What the hell is the matter with people who follow the laws of the land? Or laws of other lands.

And if you want a more nucanced version of the Lacey Act and how it effects guitar makers, go to the web site of Taylor Guitars and see what the owner (Bob Taylor) has to say about the protections that are being put in place for high quality tone woods. He supports the effort fully.

But you know that, with the exception of Ted Nugent, most musicians are left wing commie facists.
So you can't trust shit of what they say.


I couldn't make out your point about Boeing, so I won't comment.

Why was the company shut down as opposed to simply having the records examined?

The point about Boeing was this:

The NLRB sued them because they were opening a plant outside of Washington in a Right to Work State and where they did not need to hire union employees. The Federal Government sued them to prevent this from moving forward.

Boeing agreed to also open a plant in Washington and hire union workers.

There was no change to the plant in SC. This was a pay off to the union and the government back off their suit as a result.

Boeing was forced by the government of the USA to pay off a union in order to do business.

 

[candycorn]

Romney did nothing wrong as it relates to BAIN.

Just business as ususal.

But telling people that what Bain did was JOB creation is a bit of an overstatement.

If there were jobs being created--and the number of which is debatable--it is also debatable that the jobs would have been gained/lost either way. You're right, venture capital is a business that is best described as cruel and heartless. Where as many (if not most) who start a business want to pass it down to their next generation; Bain and other venture firms have no such desire. Capitalism isn't always the stuff of folk songs not that anyone ever claimed it was. But it goes back to your thesis; if it creates jobs; it's a byproduct not the goal and not done out of some concern for the greater good.

Politically, does Romney have that concern for the greater good? I think so. Is his experience as a corporate raider an example of it? Uh.....NO!

Good post.

 

[JoeB131]

Creating Jobs Wasn't Romney's Job

So, why is he touting his success at Bain to give him "cred" as a Presidential candidate?

Was Bain a profitable company while he was there?

It probably was.

The purpose of the government is not to turn a profit, though.

It's to provide needed services to the people they can't provide for themselves.

Today on Chris Matthews show, Major Garrett was talking about the interviews the Obama folks did with people who worked for Bain Companies that were raided and looted. He said there's stuff there about suicides and ruined lives that were so incendiary even the Obama folks couldn't put them on TV.

Bain is Willie Horton Riding in on a Swiftboat.

 

[candycorn]

Tony Soprano Explains Bain Capital

It's an uncharitable look but essentially correct if you accept a book's rough draft and outline as the entire text. The business model is designed to make sure Bain makes and the partners make it big. Nothing more, nothing less. Collateral damage/benefit is just a byproduct of the venture.

But while we're piling on Bain, would it be any different if you took out a loan from a local bank or one of the big 4 banks? Or any other group of investors?

At some point, you have to hold the corporate managers accountable; do you not?

The politics of it is that Romeny's assertions that these were white knight ventures is as incorrect as the video's assertion is uncharitable.

 

[Toro]

What of course isn't understood or, much less, admitted is that the situation for Bain is always "heads they win, tails they don't lose". I would imagine most venture capitalists worth that way.

I think that characterization is incorrect, and I will tell you why. I can't speak specifically to Bain, but I would be very, very surprised if it was "always" that way with Bain, or any firm for that matter.

First, let's clear up the nomenclature. "Venture capital" means funding early stage, fast growing businesses. Usually, these companies are very small, and very high risk. Often times, they may only have a few million dollars in sales. "Venture capital" is not funding broken businesses that are turnarounds. Funding Facebook eight years ago is "venture capital." Funding GS Technologies is not. Investments in venture capital often go bust. Even the most successful VC firms will lose all their money on investments 30%-40% of the time. Debt is not used, or used in small amounts, for VC. So the characterization that a venture capital firm doesn't lose money is incorrect. When someone says that Bain buys companies that are broken and therefore is a "venture capital" firm, that person generally does not understand what is venture capital.

When a company like Bain buys a mature business, this is known as a "buyout," or "private equity." Private equity investments in companies that are broken are called "turnarounds." "Private equity" is used to broadly describe the stages of funding privately held businesses, whether they are venture capital, growth capital, or buyouts. However, the term "private equity" is also used interchangeably with "buyout" because most capital going into private equity investments are buyouts. Buyouts are usually control investments, i.e. the buyout firm takes control of the company. Growth capital is private equity used to fund a growing business but is not a control investment, i.e. the firm will take a 15%-20% stake. Staples was a "growth equity" investment for Bain. Debt is used for both buyouts and growth equity. If you were to break-down the allocation of capital within the industry, it would look something like 75%-80% buyout, 15%-20% growth capital, and 5% venture capital.

When a company pays for the equity of the firm, then puts debt on a firm to pay itself back, that is called a "recapitalization," or a "recap." There are cases when all of the equity is paid back by the debt, but that is not usually how it works because banks that lend to private equity buyouts generally want the private equity firm to have some skin in the game. So, for example, a private equity company may make a $100 million equity investment in a company, then take debt out on the company to recoup some of their investment - say, for example in this case, $75 million - but they usually don't take it all back. Sometimes they do, but usually they do not. It is a legitimate criticism that private equity firms take on too much debt to make their investments but it is not correct that it is always a "heads I win, tails you lose" proposition, because lenders will not consistently take on all the risk to fund such an investment. IOW, lenders do not want to take equity risk while receiving all the downside and give all the upside to someone else. What can happen is that the private equity firm will do a recap then pay itself dividends from the company over a few years which then pays off all its investments, but usually when it is doing that, it is also paying back some of the debt too. However, if a company starts out of the gate with a recap, the PE firm still has some skin in the game, and can lose everything it has remaining. Thus, though the downside can be limited if structured a particular way, it is usually not zero. Thus the private equity firm can still lose all their equity in the firm, which, in the case above, would be $25 million.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Tony Soprano Explains Bain Capital

It's an uncharitable look but essentially correct if you accept a book's rough draft and outline as the entire text. The business model is designed to make sure Bain makes and the partners make it big. Nothing more, nothing less. Collateral damage/benefit is just a byproduct of the venture.

But while we're piling on Bain, would it be any different if you took out a loan from a local bank or one of the big 4 banks? Or any other group of investors?

At some point, you have to hold the corporate managers accountable; do you not?

The politics of it is that Romeny's assertions that these were white knight ventures is as incorrect as the video's assertion is uncharitable.

So does that mean all the democrats at/or supporting bain are in the maffia business too?

 

[Toro]

Bain lost $100 million on CST, moron. Your claims are blatant lies.

How many would have "made it" if they hadn't been there? We don't know.

What happens when Bain takes over was explained by Planet Money a few weeks ago. Basically they instantly take on more debt to pay themselves back for buying controlling interest and then attempt to rehab the company.

What of course isn't understood or, much less, admitted is that the situation for Bain is always "heads they win, tails they don't lose". I would imagine most venture capitalists worth that way.

If you were to look into the Duncan Donuts balance sheet you would see what Bain Does. I hope they "make it" but their debt looks insurmountable. Maybe not. They did start selling their coffee in super markets which was a good move. This may be a Bain save.

So if Bain lost 100 Million on a company, doesn't that kind of disqualify Romney from being a "genius"?

No.

Warren Buffett has lost lots of money on investments also. It happens with investing.