So Mitt Didn't Leave Bain in 1999 After All

[Cancel 2016.11]

What are you referring to? Whose sworn testimony? Mitt? Saying he was not running the day to day? According to those SEC filings Dung posted, it would seem that is correct. Look at who signs off for Bain, Inc.... it isn't Mitt. (at least not on any that I have looked at as of yet)

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ned-business-ties-during-olympics.php?ref=fpa

This. I don't think it jives. I also don't see any real explanation of why he was paid 6 figures from Bain for those three years. Of why an acting CEO was not named. I see nothing here that adds up. This is not a truthful account.

 

[Bonestorm]

actually it was the Boston Globe who sourced Mother Jones that first reported it. I am glad to see you just read the journalists take without bothering to actually look at the SEC documents they source.

From Mother Jones (who actually sourced the SEC document they questioned unlike the Globe)

http://www.motherjones.com/documents/392937-stericycle-13d-1999

Take a look at who signed off as managing partner/general partner etc... for the various entities. Oh yeah, it wasn't Mitt. The only time Mitt signed the document was to show that he owned shares. Which given that Bain was investing numerous (if not all) of its various funds into the company, that stands to reason that Mitt's account would also get invested.

That's just one document. And Mitt signed it in his personal capacity on page 36. His signature is certification that the information in the statement is true, complete and correct. Of the things that Mitt so certified are the following:

W. Mitt Romney ("Mr. Romney"), a citizen of the United States, as the sole shareholder, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of BCI, BCP VI Inc., Brookside Inc. and Sankaty Ltd.;

So, you're just wrong, SF.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

In reality, what happened was Rmoney took over the Olympics on short notice but had every intention of returning to Bain at the time that he took over the Olympics. So he wanted to keep his seat warm and didn't want anyone else to take his spot at Bain while he was gone. So he kept his titles and kept his positions and everyone at Bain acted as though Rmoney was going to return to his positions at the helm of the ship, and they acted accordingly. That's also why he is accurately listed as chairman of the board, president and CEO of Bain. Because he was. And in those positions he is responsible for Bain's activities during the period in question.

Moreover, as a practical matter it is entirely inconceivable that Rmoney up and left and didn't communicate with anyone at Bain regarding the business, given his express intent to return as chairman of the board, president and CEO after the Olympics. It is not within the realm of reason for Rmoney to totally and completely remove himself from the activities of the business. That's not to say that Rmoney was intimately involved with the day-to-day operations, but that Bain was operating in accord with Rmoney's wishes and people acted as though he was coming back in carrying out Bain's business.

It wasn't until 2002 that he decided to actually leave Bain and to enter public service. That's why Rmoney received at least $100,000 in compensation from two Bain entities in 2001. And that's why he received a retirement package in 2002 that was dated February 1999.

Other than the bolded, I would say that is a very accurate assessment of what likely occurred. While he would technically be responsible financially for any wrong doings that occurred while he maintained the CEO title, in the VC world it is certainly within reason to think that he had nothing to do with the investment decisions made. The fact that he was running the Salt Lake Olympics is fairly strong evidence that he would not have the time to do the necessary due diligence to make the investment decisions or to offer much input. Which is why we see that when signing the SEC documents, it is not Mitt that is signing off as managing director (there are numerous 'managing directors' at the various Bain entities).

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That's just one document. And Mitt signed it in his personal capacity on page 36. His signature is certification that the information in the statement is true, complete and correct. Of the things that Mitt so certified are the following:

So, you're just wrong, SF.

Yes, it is one article, the one sourced from mother jones. While I was writing that, you posted the other links. At which time I had not had a chance to see them.

No Dung, that does not mean I am wrong. He signed off to certify those were his titles. Take a look at who signed off on the bottom of the document. Mitt signed acknowledging his titles and the shares purchased in his name (which he is required to do when Bain invests his individual account as appears to be the case in Stericycle).

It just shows that the Globe has no comprehension how VC firms work, what the SEC requires etc... and apparently neither do you.

 

[Althea]

I am still looking for a motive, the facts are the facts. (No matter how badly Supercandy wants to pretend otherwise) But without some motive or gain by Mitt, why does it matter?

Romney wants to distance himself from the predation at Bain. He touted his 'experience in the business sector' as an important credential for running the country.

Once the truth came out re. Bain's 'profit above all' mantra, Romney attempted to claim that he:

A. Wasn't with Bain when that took place.

B. Didn't profit from the hardships Bain caused.


As we now know, the predator Romney did indeed profit from the outsourcing of jobs, and the closing of factories.

Is that any way to run the country? I'm sure many on the Right think so.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ned-business-ties-during-olympics.php?ref=fpa

This. I don't think it jives. I also don't see any real explanation of why he was paid 6 figures from Bain for those three years. Of why an acting CEO was not named. I see nothing here that adds up. This is not a truthful account.

Or you just don't understand the SEC and the VC world. Dung provided the likely reason for the retention of titles and the payment. That doesn't mean Mitt was involved in the running of the business.

 

[Bonestorm]

I love it when you try to pull rank, SF. It's hysterical. First you said that Romney signed only to show that he owned shares. But that's just not true. He signed in his personal capacity and certified that he was Chairman of the Board, President and CEO. I know you want to pretend that those titles were mere honorifics or something, but that's just not the case.

 

[Jarod]

Romney is getting Swiftboated.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Romney wants to distance himself from the predation at Bain. He touted his 'experience in the business sector' as an important credential for running the country.

Once the truth came out re. Bain's 'profit above all' mantra, Romney attempted to claim that he:

A. Wasn't with Bain when that took place.

B. Didn't profit from the hardships Bain caused.


As we now know, the predator Romney did indeed profit from the outsourcing of jobs, and the closing of factories.

Is that any way to run the country? I'm sure many on the Right think so.

The above is quite a bit of nonsense. Do you understand the financial condition of the firms that companies like Bain take over? They are typically either start ups that can't get capital to expand from banks or they are firms that are failing. Either way, without VC firms, they go out of business and everyone loses their jobs. When a VC firm comes in, some people may still lose their jobs. But the goal is not 'profit above all'... the goal is 'make this work so we can make money'. There is a difference. They make far more money if they turn the company into an on going success. That is the goal and it is an important part of our economy that VC firms continue to take such risks.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I love it when you try to pull rank, SF. It's hysterical. First you said that Romney signed only to show that he owned shares. But that's just not true. He signed in his personal capacity and certified that he was Chairman of the Board, President and CEO. I know you want to pretend that those titles were mere honorifics or something, but that's just not the case.

Funny, but wasn't it you who just provided the explanation for why Romney would have kept the titles while in Salt Lake? They are just titles. Titles that make him legally responsible. But it doesn't mean he was actually running the deals or a part of the decision making. The SEC filing from mother jones on stericyle indicates that he was not the one running that deal.

 

[Bonestorm]

Or you just don't understand the SEC and the VC world. Dung provided the likely reason for the retention of titles and the payment. That doesn't mean Mitt was involved in the running of the business.

Nor does it mean that Rmoney had nothing to do with the operations of the business. This is particularly telling:

The Romney campaign repeatedly declined to say Thursday evening whether the Republican presidential candidate attended any meetings or had any contact with Bain Capital during the time he ran the Olympic Games

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=FEF9F993-C6AC-4C11-B676-2AC980D522AB

 

[Bonestorm]

Funny, but wasn't it you who just provided the explanation for why Romney would have kept the titles while in Salt Lake? They are just titles. Titles that make him legally responsible. But it doesn't mean he was actually running the deals or a part of the decision making. The SEC filing from mother jones on stericyle indicates that he was not the one running that deal.

I didn't say they were just titles. I said he retained his positions, that the business was run as though he were coming back, that he simply had to have input on decision-making even while working on the Olympics and that Bain was run according to his vision during that period.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

"The Romney campaign repeatedly declined to say Thursday evening whether the Republican presidential candidate attended any meetings or had any contact with Bain Capital during the time he ran the Olympic Games"

Uh-oh.

 

[ekg]

So here is the question I am asking and cant find the answer to...

What was Mitt's motive for either mistating the truth to the American people or to the SEC?

He said he worked at Bain then because he wanted to be Gov and needed to show residency..
He said he didn't work at Bain now because he doesn't want to be responsible for some of the things they have done that don't look very good right now.

If he lied then, he did it to Mass. and the SEC also and that's bad.. not to mention he wouldn't have had residency so his Gov'ship might be in question
If he's lying now, he's lying to the public to get the Presidency..so what's he trying to cover with that lie..

 

[cawacko]

I am way late to this discussion but saw this quote in the local story about this issue. Do these comments add anything to the discussion or are we well past that?


But the independent fact-checkers like the Washington Post’s Fact-checker and Factcheck.org weren’t budging from taking Romney’s side on this one Thursday:

“We would reassess our judgment should somebody come up with evidence that Romney took part in specific management decisions or had any active role (not just a title) at Bain after he left to head the Olympics. But nothing we’ve seen directly contradicts Romney’s statements — which he has certified as true under pain of federal prosecution — that he “has not had any active role” with Bain or “been involved in the operations” of Bain since then.”

http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2012/07/12/so-when-did-mitt-romney-leave-bain/

 

[Jarod]

"The Romney campaign repeatedly declined to say Thursday evening whether the Republican presidential candidate attended any meetings or had any contact with Bain Capital during the time he ran the Olympic Games "


THIS, so why did he lie to the American people?

 

[j-mac]

Romney is getting Swiftboated.

That sure is what it looks like.

 

[Rune]

Like gwb, Romney is catnip for the comedians. He is just such a pathological liar!!!!!!

Gatorman! Welcome back, we have so wonderfull new players.

 

[Althea]

The above is quite a bit of nonsense. Do you understand the financial condition of the firms that companies like Bain take over? They are typically either start ups that can't get capital to expand from banks or they are firms that are failing. Either way, without VC firms, they go out of business and everyone loses their jobs. When a VC firm comes in, some people may still lose their jobs. But the goal is not 'profit above all'... the goal is 'make this work so we can make money'. There is a difference. They make far more money if they turn the company into an on going success. That is the goal and it is an important part of our economy that VC firms continue to take such risks.

I think you need to read up on Bain

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I think you need to read up on Bain

I am familiar with Bain and the VC world. You on the other hand are spouting talking points from people that clearly do not understand the VC world.

If you think otherwise, point to where you think I am wrong and we can discuss in more detail.