Posted on 01/14/2012 11:12:48 AM PST by raccoonradio
How did that one woman get to ask questions twice?? I’ve never seen that in any forum in any campaign in my life. Strange. And another thing, a few obviously weren’t “undecideds”... one in particular was exposed as a Paulite through and through.
Newt was booed solely for mentioning Romney’s name because people were upset he broke the “rule.” Huckabee explained at the beginning his dumbass rule that no other candidates’ names could be mentioned and the other candidates could not be criticized. Yet he allowed in a question specifically referencing Newt’s criticisms of Mitt Romney. The only way Newt could have avoided mentioning Romney’s name was by calling him something else. Maybe he should have gone with “Massachusetts moderate.”
The idea of not allowing any mention of Mitt Romney’s business practices at Bain Capital in this campaign is for idiots who know nothing about how Mitt Romney pioneered the process by which “private equity” firms socialize their losses and specifically generate profits for themselves by driving acquired firms into bankruptcy.
Can you find one case where Bain Capital lost money on one of their acquisitions, EVEN WHEN that business went bankrupt? Doesn’t that make you suspicious? The “private equity” business is a rigged Wall Street scam in the vein of mortgage-backed securities that was more or less invented by Mitt Romney in the 1980s. The key point is that Bain Capital takes out huge loans on the businesses they acquire, transfers that money as “dividends” to themselves, and then gets to keep it all even if that deeply indebted acquired firm goes bankrupt. Just like other big businesses, they donate mostly to Democrats in order to make sure the laws continue to allow them to rip off everyone they deal with and socialize their losses.
A better definition of “dumb” is someone who doesn’t know the difference between venture capital and private equity. If you don’t know that difference, you reveal yourself as someone who has not researched Bain Capital or Mitt Romney and don’t have a clue the grand scheme they created that rips off the taxpayer.
Don’t smear capitalism or conservatives by implying we are all dumb enough to support crony capitalism, corporate welfare, accounting loopholes, and dishonest schemes concocted on Wall Street that rip off unsuspecting people and institutions.
So Now I’m idiot?
You are completely crazy and don’t Shiite about Venture Capitalism.
I can’t stand defending this guy’s business.
Can I find one business where Bain lost money on their acquisitions?
It doesn’t even make a tangential connection to reality that any business didn’t lose money at some point and on at least a few deals.
But I’ll suspend reason for a second and give you that Bain was the most incredible company in the world with Mitt Romney as the most brilliant leader in that field.
Why wouldn’t Bain or anyone else offer Mitt anything to get him to stay at Bain or jump ship to a competitor?
Do you own a business? Have you EVER lost money?
If you do and you haven’t then hats to you. You are even more incredible than me and I think we have some pretty terrific businesses?
You and everyone else are missing the fundamental point of a business like Bain and that is their primary objective:
Return as much profit back to the stakeholders of Bain investments as possible.
If that means that some companies went bankrupt and Bain managed to return a profit even on a loss then good.
Those companies that went bankrupt were going to go bankrupt with or without Bain and probably stayed in business longer than they reasonably ought to have.
Sorry the employees lost their jobs but that’s life and them holding on to bitterness is a self created and synthetic barrier to their moving forward in their lives.
I once went through 13 jobs in 7 years with each company going bankrupt.
Life’s tough and even tougher if you’re not.
Keep your chin up, soak in the sunshine, be of good cheer(there’s plenty to be thankful for) and keep moving...forward.
BTW, here is reality: Everyone loses money on deals once in a while. Even me and I pride myself on being able to sniff out dogs, with fleas and mange. But, I have managed to muff it up a few times.
Just a fact of life. Ain’t no one perfect but we make more money than our competitors because we have a superior value proposition and I suspect that “Value Proposition” isn’t something they think about much or even deeply.
We do.
Since you asked about MuttTard losing on at some deals here is your answer:
One study of 68 deals that Bain Capital made during Romney’s time there found that the firm lost money or broke even on 33 of them.
Another study that looked at the eight-year period following 77 deals during Romney’s time found that in 17 cases the company went bankrupt or out of business, and in 6 cases Bain Capital lost all its investment. But 10 deals were very successful and represented 70 percent of the total profits.
So one study found Mitt had about a 50% win/loss ratio, while another found that out of 77 deals Bain completely lost money on the deal on six.
Of the 11 remaining companies, that went bankrupt, I wonder what the actual profit was and what’s its % of the investment represented? Might have been about even or not much.
Only 12-13% of the deals represented 70% of the profits?!
12% positive accretive value seems low to me but maybe it’s acceptable to the partners. That’s their thing and if it made a ton of money even at that low win to loss ration then it may make sense.
Only thing important is to stay ahead of your losses and that’s what they did.
If you care to have a curious intellect and challenge the rest of the parrots feel free to Google or do Wiki search.
That’s all I did and I’m sure you can do it too.
I’m comfortable attacking Mutt on any issue of which he is target rich but, this is a loser subject with only Mitt getting free advertising and raising his profile.
Venture capital is a legitimate business and operated in a completely moral realm.
You're the one who brought up the term when you said, "This OWS and class warfare crap is for idiots who know nothing about capitalizing a business." If you're going to use insults against your debating opponents don't expect me to unilaterally disarm.
You are completely crazy and don’t Shiite about Venture Capitalism.
I know enough about it to know that we're discussing private equity firms, not venture capital.
You and everyone else are missing the fundamental point of a business like Bain and that is their primary objective:
Return as much profit back to the stakeholders of Bain investments as possible.
Then you were absolutely fine with people pushing mortgages onto people who couldn't afford them, collecting their fees, getting Fannie and Freddie to back the loans with taxpayer money or transferring the debt in mortgage-backed securities onto people who didn't know any better. This is not a discussion of legality, it's a discussion of ethics and morals and the kind of character we want to see in a President. I want more than someone who sought to take advantage of people, companies and taxpayers to make profits for his firm at any cost.
If that means that some companies went bankrupt and Bain managed to return a profit even on a loss then good.
Even if taxpayers had to bail out the pensions through insurance and banks had to absorb the losses? Of course if a bank fails the federal FDIC insurance has to bail them out or they ended up getting something like TARP to bail them out.
Those companies that went bankrupt were going to go bankrupt with or without Bain and probably stayed in business longer than they reasonably ought to have.
Very nice assumption but you can't back it up because it's not true. Bain wheeled and dealed to get those companies under their control and piled so much debt onto them that they were in far worse of a financial position than they would have been without Bain, according to the analysts I've seen. In some cases, Bain takes their fees off the top before the company turns around, driving these companies into debt. In some cases, they do this when they see the companies are about to fail as a means of cashing out, trying to socialize their losses on the way down...
Bain settled on a common tactic in private equity: In April 1999, it pushed Dade to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars to buy half of Bain’s shares in the company — and half of those of its investment partners.
The strategy of sharply increasing Dade’s debt alarmed several executives. Mr. Garrett, the former chief executive of Dade who stood to gain from the transaction, said he had argued unsuccessfully against it.
“It was too aggressive,” Mr. Garrett said. “It was done right up to the limit of what the company could borrow.”
Creditors, unsettled by deteriorating finances and high debts, began to pounce. More layoffs followed. And in August of 2002, Dade filed for bankruptcy protection.
The creditors threatened litigation against Bain and its investment partners, accusing them of “professional negligence” and “unjust enrichment,” according to bankruptcy documents. Bain and the other investors argued that the claims were baseless, but agreed to forgo about $68 million owed to them by Dade. And seven years after buying the company, Bain forfeited its remaining ownership stake.
Another study that looked at the eight-year period following 77 deals during Romney’s time found that in 17 cases the company went bankrupt or out of business, and in 6 cases Bain Capital lost all its investment.
Fair enough, I will retract my suggestion that they may have never lost money on a deal. The other stat I've seen is that of the top 10 biggest acquisitions Bain made in the '90s under Romney, 4 of them went bankrupt, and they lost money on only 1 of those 4.
I’m comfortable attacking Mutt on any issue of which he is target rich but, this is a loser subject with only Mitt getting free advertising and raising his profile.
It kind of reminds me how no one wanted to admit there was a looming mortgage crisis in the 2000s. The private equity model looks like a ticking time bomb because just like it was with mortgages, the gains are privatized while the losses are to a large degree socialized. I can't speak to whether it's a "loser subject" politically, but then lots of things that hurt the country are popular with voters and vice versa. Even if the voters don't listen, I would want to be able to look them in the eye and tell them I warned them. That would help me get credit later on down the road.
Venture capital is a legitimate business and operated in a completely moral realm.
This is private equity, not venture capital. Even the critics of the private equity model suggest that venture capital is a much more fair, useful and helpful economic activity. Private equity, not so much. There is a moral hazard at play with private equity and much of Romney's gains were taken on the backs of losses that were socialized onto the rest of us.
Fine, we can argue semantic of terms and I will respond in the morning.
I’m on my cell phone and can’t adequately or efficiently respond.
LOL, these tiny little keyboards, on a so called “smart phone”, are just difficult to use.
I’ll have two responses. one to you and one to the Freeper community.
Ill address this post(dont I get credit for answering your demand of proof?)
The other post will explain what is even worse about this stoopid attack from a strategic campaign and how this is a short sighted “tactic” that loses the war and benefits only MuttTard.
Btw, you didn’t acknowledge certain elements that prove Muttering ain’t the d’%*wad everyone thinks..syntheticly.
12% of the investment portfolio represented 70% of the gains.
The rest of the portfolio were near losses or total and complete losses.
Do those numbers mean anything to you?
Do you see that Bain’s profit while great only came from what? 10 or so companies out of 77 they invested in?
That is hardly a majority in terms of wins. So Bain did lose money or made very little on the total number.
Does any of that make sense to you? Do you invest in companies, own a company? if you Do then this has to make sense. its just numbers.
Ridiculous. He’s getting money from Bain and they give money to democrats. Those of us that are not self employed or work for a small business probably work for a company that gives to democrats.
And I really hate the word loophole. If the tax code allows something to happen it is not a loophole. It would be like someone not claiming the earned income tax credit because that would be cheating.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.