Maybe you haven't been reading what happened with some of Romney's "investments". He didn't just take out his initial investment. While he was running the "investment" he was borrowing money against the company in order to pay himself and his company dividends. Thus when the company went belly up, he walked away literally with millions of dollars in paid dividends immune from collection by the bankruptcy court.
Frankly I had no idea that companies could borrow money when they are losing money in order to pay their shell company shareholders dividends. Did you know that this is a practice of companies like Bain? They buy a fledgling company, bleed the company of all its assets, leave a big debt and then go into bankruptcy and are protected from having any Bain or personal assets taken because of corporate loopholes written by politicians who are recipients of their ill gotten loot.
All the benefits with none of the risks. Is this your idea of a working Capitalist system? If everyone ran their businesses in this way, every corporation would end up bankrupt and all their executives would be billionaires.
Can you be more specific and give us the details of when this happened, the name of the company, who loaned them the money, etc.
You do realize that when Bain Capital bought companies, they put a certain sum down and borrowed the rest, usually a lot more than the downpayment. If the company borrowed money, it must have come from a bank or someone who loaned the money to the company based on doing due dilligence about the company. The loaner was taking a risk. Why would they do that if the company was going belly up? If the company went bankrupt, then what happened to Bain's investment, i.e., the downpayment and the loan to purchase the company? Wasn't Bain on the hook since it owned the company?
If this is so easy to do, why isn't everyone doing it? I assume it is all legal. And wouldn't Bain make more money if it could make the company profitable and grow the business and then sell it?
Okay why are we beating up on Romney? He paid himself and pulled dividends. The money he borrowed was either on bond sales or loans from banks. Did he lie on any financial statements? He didn't, or he would have been indicted. Were the loans from banks non-recourse? If so the due diligence should have been very tight.
Frankly I had no idea that companies could borrow money when they are losing money in order to pay their shell company shareholders dividends.
Bankers make dumb loans all the time.
They buy a fledgling company, bleed the company of all its assets, leave a big debt and then go into bankruptcy and are protected from having any Bain or personal assets taken because of corporate loopholes written by politicians who are recipients of their ill gotten loot.
Boy is that a loaded question.
Got to go to bed. We can argue some more tomorrow. :-)
BS. This charge is repeated in the video. Yet no creditor is ever named in any of these cases.
First of all, if such a creditor existed, then they would be first in line during any subsequent bankruptcy. Second, if a creditor got burned like this, then no one else would ever step forward to lend a Bain firm any money. And third, by its very nature, Bain Capital is the company putting up the money. Hence the word 'Capital'. Get it?
There is no substance to this lie. None. Zip. Nada. Not only that, it doesn't even make sense. So put it to rest.