“Romney made huge fortune while workers lost jobs, stockholders and creditors lost money. Here’s just one example:
In 1992, Mitt Romney was running Bain Capital, a private equity firm. Bain Capital bought American Pad & Paper Co. (Ampad) for $5 million.
Over the next several years Romney’s firm bled the company dry. Hundreds of workers lost their jobs. Stockholders were left with worthless shares. Creditors and vendors were paid less than 50 cents on the dollar. While they were exploiting the company, Romney’s firm charged Ampad millions of dollars in “management fees.” In all, Romney and his investors reaped more than $100 million dollars from the deal.”
[http://www.massresistance.org/romney/ampad_062607/index.html]
SO now The Boston Globe (the source for the article at the link you posted) is the source for conservative facts?
“... bled the company dry. Hundreds of workers lost their jobs. Stockholders were left with worthless shares. Creditors and vendors were paid less than 50 cents on the dollar. While they were exploiting the company, Romney’s firm charged Ampad millions of dollars in “management fees.”
Typical Boston Globe/Occupy crap.
Thanks so much for more boilerplate—I want facts, stats, actual numbers—the whole story, not just carefully-edited Boston Globe/New York Times liberal scare tactics.
From your Boston Globe article:
STOCK PRICE
July 2, 1996: $15.13 - IPO Price
Jan. 27, 1997: $26.00 - Peak
Sep 16, 1997: $13.13 - Stock loses 42% of its value
1996: Ampad completes an initial public offering. Bain sells about 3 million shares, reaping about $45 million to $50 million for investors and itself. It also takes $2 million in fees for arranging the IPO, plus other fees.
· 1998: With Ampad struggling, Bain agrees to cut the annual fee $1.5 million a year. It also agrees to start forgoing payment until the company turns around.
· 1999: Revenues continue to slide. Ampad closes a plant near Buffalo, with up to 185 losing jobs.
Notice something a pro-capitalist (as opposed to a pro-Newt) person would notice?
Hint:Look at the note dated 1996: “reaping about $45 million to $50 million for investors and itself. It also takes $2 million in fees for arranging the IPO, plus other fees.”
What, please explain if you can, is wrong with any of that? All of this was done when the stock was heading towards its peak.
Yet the article is trying to claim that somehow paying ‘investors and itself’ is WRONG—whether it’s done when a company is on the way up or down.
This is exactly what I was talking about—people who know nothing of business are now talking like Obama and Occupy to attack Romney.
Man, this place is turning into Ron Paul/Occupy territory.
Oh, and P.S.—this is what I posted: “Post the evidence that Romney fired people who didn`t have to be fired. Articles, testimony—FACTS not just hyperbole.”
Where is all this evidence of people who DIDN’T HAVE TO BE FIRED? According to the article from the Boston Globe you simply cut and pasted from another site (instead of, you know, answering my very specific question), these folks were let go because the plants where they worked at was shut down-—in which cases were people fired who “didn’t have to be fired”?
I asked a very specific question because of a very specific accusation. Now prove it.