USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Since you are aware that there are so many, then you would have no problem in listing all the companies that Bain "gutted"
Is Bain their Ace?
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Since you are aware that there are so many, then you would have no problem in listing all the companies that Bain "gutted"
j-mac
Verified User
It sure is...That's because liberals are always awfully good at the blame part of the equation, not so much with the solutions end of things...One thing that article conspicuously leaves out too, Rubin, and Summers both were "advisors" to Obama. Summers in particular an Obama insider advising on the stimulus rip off.....
Summers also served on the Economic advisory board for Bill Clinton....But Yeah, let's not bring that into the mix.....
Now someone earlier brought out Goldman Sachs as though Obama, or liberals would never have a single thing to do with them, however, in spite of the Obama pledge to not bring lobbyist into the administration, take a look at this list of people that now work for, or with the Obama administration, and they are ALL tied to Goldman Sachs....
III. COMBINED LIST OF GOLDIES TIED TO THE OBAMA GOVERNMENT.
This lists compiles the names above and those in the prior diary on this. For more detail on names not annotated in this diary, see the earlier diary linked here):
ALTMAN, ROGER.
BERKOWITZ, HOWARD P.
BIDEN, JOE.
BRAINARD, LAEL.
BUFFETT, WARREN.
CLINTON, HILLARY.
CRAIG, GREGORY. (revolving door)
DONILON, THOMAS.
DUDLEY, WILLIAM C.
EFFRON, BLAIR W.
ELMENDORF, DOUGLAS.
EMANUEL, RAHM.
FARRELL, DIANA.
FRIEDMAN, STEPHEN.
FROMAN, Michael.
FUDGE, ANNE.
FURMAN, JASON.
GALLOGLY, MARK.
GEITHNER, TIMOTHY.
GENSLER, GARY.
GEPHARDT, RICHARD (aka "DICK") A.
GREENSTONE, MICHAEL (revolving door to Hamilton Project)
HAMILTON PROJECT, THE
HORMATS, ROBERT.
KAGAN, ELENA.
KASHKARI, NEEL.
KORNBLUH, KAREN.
LEW, JACOB (AKA "JACK") J.
LIDDY, EDWARD MICHAEL.
LIPTON, DAVID A.
MINDICH, ERIC
MURPHY, PHILLIP.
NIEDERAUER, DUNCAN.
OBAMA, BARACK H.
ORSZAG, PETER.
PATTERSON, MARK.
PERRY, RICHARD.
RATTNER, STEVE.
REISCHAUER, ROBERT D.
RIVLIN, ALICE.
RUBIN, JAMES.
RUBIN, ROBERT.
SHAFRAN, STEVEN.
SPERLING, GENE.
STORCH, ADAM.
SUMMERS, LARRY.
THAIN, JOHN.
TYSON, LAURA D’ANDREA.
http://my.firedoglake.com/fflambeau...ies-to-the-obama-admin-including-elena-kagan/
Seems like liberals really, really like Goldman after all....Who knew..?
Lil mac makes it too easy...
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/20...wall-street-donations-as-obama-s-decline.html
Mitt Romney’s investment background, criticized by some of his Republican presidential rivals, is helping him build a financial advantage over them. In the fourth quarter of last year, eight of the 10 biggest donors to Romney, co-founder of Boston-based Bain Capital LLC, a private-equity firm, worked for banks and investment funds, according to data compiled by Bloomberg based on U.S. Federal Election Commission information released yesterday. Citigroup Inc. (C) employees gave $196,600. Those at JPMorgan Chase & Co. donated $180,518, and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) workers contributed $107580.
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/20...wall-street-donations-as-obama-s-decline.html
Mitt Romney’s investment background, criticized by some of his Republican presidential rivals, is helping him build a financial advantage over them. In the fourth quarter of last year, eight of the 10 biggest donors to Romney, co-founder of Boston-based Bain Capital LLC, a private-equity firm, worked for banks and investment funds, according to data compiled by Bloomberg based on U.S. Federal Election Commission information released yesterday. Citigroup Inc. (C) employees gave $196,600. Those at JPMorgan Chase & Co. donated $180,518, and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) workers contributed $107580.
Last edited:
j-mac
Verified User
wow! thanks for the revelation that Romney has friends and donors in the investment trades...What a blockbuster that is......
OK. Obama is not defending his record, not a lot to defend, so he goes after Bain. Romney attacks Obama's record, but has no clue what to do.
So we're deep in the weeds in inanity -typical POTUS campaign -scorched earth, slime up the other guy, and get everyone thinking "whom is the lessor of 2 evils" to vote against.
SOS. different 4 years. Obama has little to offfer but more of the same -no thanks - he can keep his wars, and constant ideas that we "need to grow jobs" by spending -even though there is little demand.
Romney is all tangled up in Bain, has nothing original to say, all he can do is say "i worked in the private sector." Hey great! did you create any jobs? NO.
WHY IN THE HELL SHOULD I VOTE FOR EITHER OF THESE CLOWN DOGS?? I'm not. I'm going with an honorable an, with a good record as Gov. of NM (Gary Johnson) who wants to end "perpetual war" on everything the US is warriing against ( what's next? war on stop sign running?)
I see nothing in either man to vote FOR, and I'm sick of trying to vote for whom i think is less destructive <end rant> thanks.
So we're deep in the weeds in inanity -typical POTUS campaign -scorched earth, slime up the other guy, and get everyone thinking "whom is the lessor of 2 evils" to vote against.
SOS. different 4 years. Obama has little to offfer but more of the same -no thanks - he can keep his wars, and constant ideas that we "need to grow jobs" by spending -even though there is little demand.
Romney is all tangled up in Bain, has nothing original to say, all he can do is say "i worked in the private sector." Hey great! did you create any jobs? NO.
WHY IN THE HELL SHOULD I VOTE FOR EITHER OF THESE CLOWN DOGS?? I'm not. I'm going with an honorable an, with a good record as Gov. of NM (Gary Johnson) who wants to end "perpetual war" on everything the US is warriing against ( what's next? war on stop sign running?)
I see nothing in either man to vote FOR, and I'm sick of trying to vote for whom i think is less destructive <end rant> thanks.
Vote for Paul!
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I think everybody needs to read this article which points out the difference between venture capital and private equity. Bain Capital was and is decidedly the latter, only about 10% of their projects during Romney's time were venture capital.
The Media Is Confusing Private Equity And Venture Capital — To Mitt Romney’s Benefit
January 23, 2012, 5:32 AM
Reporting from the New Hampshire primary, Fox News’s Carl Cameron observed that Bain Capital was “the venture capital company in which [Romney] both bought and grew companies and occasionally shut a few down.”
But Bain Capital is not, as Cameron said, a venture capital firm. He wasn’t the only reporter to mislabel Bain, either. When Newt Gingrich first ramped up attacks on Romney as a “corporate raider” at Bain, the news media covered the attacks by referring to the company alternately as a venture capital firm and a private equity firm. After a few days, private equity began to be used more often. However, looking over transcripts from Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, TPM found that all three often continue to use the term “venture capital” to refer to Bain and Romney’s private sector experience.
For better or worse, a key feature of this campaign will be Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital. As a result, the understanding the difference between private equity and venture capital will help voters understand the man they may vote for in the primary, and possibly the general election. Because venture capital tends to be regarded as a job-creation industry, confusing the two terms will likely work to Romney’s advantage.
The term private equity simply refers to equity that is not public, like stocks. Venture capital — the practice of investing in the early stages of a company — uses nonpublic equity and is therefore a form of private equity. However, most similarities stop there.
“Venture capital and private equity obviously don’t have technical definitions,” said Edward Kleinbard, a law professor at USC’s Gould School of Law and former chief of staff to the Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation. “But properly used, they point to different business strategies and different points in the life cycle of a business.”
Historically, venture capital is about investing in the early stages of a company in order to help it succeed. With a minority stake in the company, after several years, the venture capital firm will make money by merging the new company or taking it public. If the company doesn’t succeed, they lose their investment.
“Venture capital is all about feeding a toddler of a company; getting it from toddler to early adulthood,” says Kleinbard. Continuing this metaphor, private equity is about improving mature companies.
“Private equity is sort of the successor term to what 20 years ago we called leveraged buyouts,” says Kleinbard. The idea is that the private equity firm buys a company for the purpose of improving profitability and selling the company for a profit. A small percent of the money to buy the firm is raised from investors, but most of it is borrowed. The two pillars of private equity are, says Kleinbard, firstly removing the company from public ownership if they are publicly-traded, and - second - adding a substantial leverage component to the capital structure.
The fact that private equity takes out loans to purchase companies and then puts that debt on the companies’ balance sheets is what earns them criticism. In order to increase profitability, leveraged buyouts — what most private equity firms practice — strip assets from firms, sometimes jobs, in order to make more money. “When you have a ton of debt, particularly high-cost debt, you’re going to try to strip out assets as quickly as possible and extract that value,” says David Min, Associate Director of Financial Markets Policy at the liberal Center for American Progress.
Part of the outrage that Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry until he dropped out, tried to stir up over Bain was the depiction of a “corporate raider” or “vulture capitalist.” And that is exactly how private equity’s critics see things.
“At its best, [private equity] is taking the weak and flabby and putting them on a diet and exercise regimen,” says Kleinbard. “At it’s worst, it’s just financial engineering: buy it, leverage it, hope the economy carries it and sell it in three years.”
Those more sympathetic see private equity as fixing companies in trouble. “I think private equity is an important institutional development that has enabled troubled companies to come back from the dead,” says Robert Litan, vice president for research and policy at the Kauffman Foundation.
“I don’t think private equity firms typically help businesses at all,” says Joshua Kosman, a finance reporter and author of The Buyout of America: How Private Equity Is Destroying Jobs and Killing the American Economy. Kosman says private equity firms like Bain Capital go for companies with “moderate growth” whose profitability can be increased. If you look at the press releases of the companies Bain bought that eventually went bankrupt, they don’t say these companies are in dire straights, Kosman points out, they say they are profitable companies.
To confuse matters more, Bain Capital does dip its toe into venture capital as well — but it only represents a fraction of the total business. Through a venture capital arm of the company called Bain Capital Ventures, Bain has investments in dozens of companies for a total portfolio of $1.5 billion — accounting for 2.5% of Bain Capital’s $60 billion portfolio, according to Bain’s website (Bain Capital did not respond to requests for comment on the size of Bain Capital Ventures). The Wall Street Journal’s assessment of Bain Capital found that “after its initial focus on small firms needing capital,” Bain “later shifted toward the potentially more lucrative business of leveraged buyouts — acquiring control of businesses by using investors’ money amplified by debt.”
Kosman, who has been researching Bain for years, says that during Mitt Romney’s time at the company, over 90% of dollars spent were on private equity projects, not venture capital.
Even though venture capital is a small piece of what Bain does, Mitt Romney is largely selling his Bain Capital experience to voters as venture capital. That’s because the main success stories Romney touts on the trail — and the source of his claim to have created 100,000 jobs at Staples and Sports Authority — were early venture capital investments. “I’m sure there are examples of people using leveraged buyouts to create jobs,” says Min, “but every finance major in America gets taught about leveraged buyouts as an important way to make money.”
“My personal view is that private equity plays a helpful role to some degree, but the explosion in private equity reflects a real shift in the economy that is fortunate for the very wealthy,” says Min. That’s the last thing Romney wants voters to think.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...enture-capital----to-mitt-romneys-benefit.php
The Media Is Confusing Private Equity And Venture Capital — To Mitt Romney’s Benefit
January 23, 2012, 5:32 AM
Reporting from the New Hampshire primary, Fox News’s Carl Cameron observed that Bain Capital was “the venture capital company in which [Romney] both bought and grew companies and occasionally shut a few down.”
But Bain Capital is not, as Cameron said, a venture capital firm. He wasn’t the only reporter to mislabel Bain, either. When Newt Gingrich first ramped up attacks on Romney as a “corporate raider” at Bain, the news media covered the attacks by referring to the company alternately as a venture capital firm and a private equity firm. After a few days, private equity began to be used more often. However, looking over transcripts from Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, TPM found that all three often continue to use the term “venture capital” to refer to Bain and Romney’s private sector experience.
For better or worse, a key feature of this campaign will be Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital. As a result, the understanding the difference between private equity and venture capital will help voters understand the man they may vote for in the primary, and possibly the general election. Because venture capital tends to be regarded as a job-creation industry, confusing the two terms will likely work to Romney’s advantage.
The term private equity simply refers to equity that is not public, like stocks. Venture capital — the practice of investing in the early stages of a company — uses nonpublic equity and is therefore a form of private equity. However, most similarities stop there.
“Venture capital and private equity obviously don’t have technical definitions,” said Edward Kleinbard, a law professor at USC’s Gould School of Law and former chief of staff to the Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation. “But properly used, they point to different business strategies and different points in the life cycle of a business.”
Historically, venture capital is about investing in the early stages of a company in order to help it succeed. With a minority stake in the company, after several years, the venture capital firm will make money by merging the new company or taking it public. If the company doesn’t succeed, they lose their investment.
“Venture capital is all about feeding a toddler of a company; getting it from toddler to early adulthood,” says Kleinbard. Continuing this metaphor, private equity is about improving mature companies.
“Private equity is sort of the successor term to what 20 years ago we called leveraged buyouts,” says Kleinbard. The idea is that the private equity firm buys a company for the purpose of improving profitability and selling the company for a profit. A small percent of the money to buy the firm is raised from investors, but most of it is borrowed. The two pillars of private equity are, says Kleinbard, firstly removing the company from public ownership if they are publicly-traded, and - second - adding a substantial leverage component to the capital structure.
The fact that private equity takes out loans to purchase companies and then puts that debt on the companies’ balance sheets is what earns them criticism. In order to increase profitability, leveraged buyouts — what most private equity firms practice — strip assets from firms, sometimes jobs, in order to make more money. “When you have a ton of debt, particularly high-cost debt, you’re going to try to strip out assets as quickly as possible and extract that value,” says David Min, Associate Director of Financial Markets Policy at the liberal Center for American Progress.
Part of the outrage that Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry until he dropped out, tried to stir up over Bain was the depiction of a “corporate raider” or “vulture capitalist.” And that is exactly how private equity’s critics see things.
“At its best, [private equity] is taking the weak and flabby and putting them on a diet and exercise regimen,” says Kleinbard. “At it’s worst, it’s just financial engineering: buy it, leverage it, hope the economy carries it and sell it in three years.”
Those more sympathetic see private equity as fixing companies in trouble. “I think private equity is an important institutional development that has enabled troubled companies to come back from the dead,” says Robert Litan, vice president for research and policy at the Kauffman Foundation.
“I don’t think private equity firms typically help businesses at all,” says Joshua Kosman, a finance reporter and author of The Buyout of America: How Private Equity Is Destroying Jobs and Killing the American Economy. Kosman says private equity firms like Bain Capital go for companies with “moderate growth” whose profitability can be increased. If you look at the press releases of the companies Bain bought that eventually went bankrupt, they don’t say these companies are in dire straights, Kosman points out, they say they are profitable companies.
To confuse matters more, Bain Capital does dip its toe into venture capital as well — but it only represents a fraction of the total business. Through a venture capital arm of the company called Bain Capital Ventures, Bain has investments in dozens of companies for a total portfolio of $1.5 billion — accounting for 2.5% of Bain Capital’s $60 billion portfolio, according to Bain’s website (Bain Capital did not respond to requests for comment on the size of Bain Capital Ventures). The Wall Street Journal’s assessment of Bain Capital found that “after its initial focus on small firms needing capital,” Bain “later shifted toward the potentially more lucrative business of leveraged buyouts — acquiring control of businesses by using investors’ money amplified by debt.”
Kosman, who has been researching Bain for years, says that during Mitt Romney’s time at the company, over 90% of dollars spent were on private equity projects, not venture capital.
Even though venture capital is a small piece of what Bain does, Mitt Romney is largely selling his Bain Capital experience to voters as venture capital. That’s because the main success stories Romney touts on the trail — and the source of his claim to have created 100,000 jobs at Staples and Sports Authority — were early venture capital investments. “I’m sure there are examples of people using leveraged buyouts to create jobs,” says Min, “but every finance major in America gets taught about leveraged buyouts as an important way to make money.”
“My personal view is that private equity plays a helpful role to some degree, but the explosion in private equity reflects a real shift in the economy that is fortunate for the very wealthy,” says Min. That’s the last thing Romney wants voters to think.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...enture-capital----to-mitt-romneys-benefit.php
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Now what Tom is doing, is taking the fact that the majority of 'investment' is not venture capital investment, and using that to claim Romney is lying. Whether it is Bain or any other firm that handles investment, the percentage of 'venture capital' is always very small. There is a really good reason for this, it's because 'venture capital' is very risky. The investment firm can afford to 'take a chance' or 'roll the dice' with a small percentage of managed investment, but if they allowed that to become their primary investment type, they would run the risk of being wiped out overnight.
Let's use this analogy.. a person who makes 'average' money buys some lottery tickets each week.. this represents the investment firm backing venture capital. Now, the person can afford it, and can justify the risk, of several tickets per week, perhaps as much as 10% of their pay... but they are not wise to spend all their pay on lottery tickets, because why? Because the lottery is a risky investment. They would have to be certain of a win, because if they didn't, game over. Tom is complaining that Romney's company didn't spend their whole paycheck on lottery tickets, and claiming Romney is dishonest for saying he took risks buying lottery tickets, when it doesn't appear he bought that many. It doesn't matter that many of Romney's tickets won, that's beside Tom's point.
Let's use this analogy.. a person who makes 'average' money buys some lottery tickets each week.. this represents the investment firm backing venture capital. Now, the person can afford it, and can justify the risk, of several tickets per week, perhaps as much as 10% of their pay... but they are not wise to spend all their pay on lottery tickets, because why? Because the lottery is a risky investment. They would have to be certain of a win, because if they didn't, game over. Tom is complaining that Romney's company didn't spend their whole paycheck on lottery tickets, and claiming Romney is dishonest for saying he took risks buying lottery tickets, when it doesn't appear he bought that many. It doesn't matter that many of Romney's tickets won, that's beside Tom's point.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I am pointing out that Romney's campaign managers are trying to portray his involvement as being mostly about venture capitalism as exemplified by Staples and Sports Authority rather than straightforward good old fashioned asset stripping which was what Bain did most of the time.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
And you are making this point by showing that his company was "only" involved in 10% venture capital. However, in the world of investment, maybe the "average" is 7-8%, in which case, his company was "heavily" involved, as compared to others? You're taking this low percentage, and playing on the people who are ignorant of investment banking, to make an irrelevant point that just isn't true.
Missing the point is always your forte', dicklicker.