Reverse Robin Hood

[ClydeR]

A new political ad about Bain addresses the mess with American Pad & Paper in Indiana. After Bain bought the company for $5 million, they piled enough debt on it to withdraw $100 million from the company. Immediately after buying it, they fired 20% of the employees, dropped health insurance, cut wages and eliminated retirement programs. Eventually the company collapsed into bankruptcy under the weight of its debt, and all of the remaining workers were fired.

Even so, Bain made a cool $95 million on the deal, which of course is taxed at a rate less than that paid by Warren Buffett's secretary on her salary.

One of the fired workers said, "Mitt Romney takes from the poor and middle class and gives to the rich. He's just the opposite of Robin Hood."

http://www.romneyeconomics.com/ampad/ampad-intro/video


This is the same company that Ted Kennedy ran ads about when Romney ran against him for the Senate in 1994.

[Parkbandit]

Cory Booker must be hanging out with Chris Christie too much lately... he's starting to tell the truth when asked a question (even though he did a 180 later on in the day when the Obama Administration were done scolding him)

“I have to just say from a very personal level, I’m not about to sit here and indict private equity. If you look at the totality of Bain Capital’s record, they’ve done a lot to support businesses, to grow businesses and this, to me, I’m very uncomfortable.”

Booker did say that he believed that Obama’s policies benefited average Americans and small businesses.

While Booker went on to call the attacks on Bain “nauseating” he said that the Republican Party is no better with their attacks on Jeremiah Wright.

Booker said of the partisan attacks,

“This kind of stuff is nauseating to me on both sides. It’s nauseating to the American public. Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity. Stop attacking Jeremiah Wright. This stuff has got to stop, because what it does is it undermines, to me, what this country should be focused on. It’s a distraction from the real issues.It’s either gonna be a small campaign about this crap, or it’s gonna be a big campaign in my opinion about the issues the American public cares about,”


Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/239839/newark-mayor-cory-booker-calls-obama-attack-on-bain-capital-nauseating/#xzsE1mztxXJoOdZ1.99

[Back]

One of the fired workers said, "Mitt Romney takes from the poor and middle class and gives to the rich. He's just the opposite of Robin Hood."

Thats the Republican party game plan in a nutshell. Rob Main Street to pay Wall Street.

[Parkbandit]

Thats the Republican party game plan in a nutshell. Rob Main Street to pay Wall Street.

Lulz

[AnticorRifling]

Lulz

He buys from Best Buy and not niche computer shops, he's part of the problem man, part of the problem.....man.

[Ryvicke]

Lulz

Why lulz'ing? Randian economic theory suggests this exact thing be done, it's the entire crux of Atlas Shrugged, which Paul Ryan has stated is required reading for everyone that works in his office. Hell--he even said Ayn Rand is the only reason he's in politics. (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/04/audio-surfaces-paul-ryans-effusive-love-ayn-rand/51711/)

There's no one that speaks for the Republican party's economic goals more than Paul Ryan, and Paul Ryan is on record as championing theories to redistribute spending from social services to tax breaks for Wall Street millionaires.

None of them pretty ladies on the fox news tell you this, yet?

[Parkbandit]

Why lulz'ing? Randian economic theory suggests this exact thing be done, it's the entire crux of Atlas Shrugged, which Paul Ryan has stated is required reading for everyone that works in his office. Hell--he even said Ayn Rand is the only reason he's in politics. (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/04/audio-surfaces-paul-ryans-effusive-love-ayn-rand/51711/)

There's no one that speaks for the Republican party's economic goals more than Paul Ryan, and Paul Ryan is on record as championing theories to redistribute spending from social services to tax breaks for Wall Street millionaires.

None of them pretty ladies on the fox news tell you this, yet?

Translation: I get spoon fed my opinions by mediamatters.org, dnc.org and occupywallstreet.com

[Parkbandit]

He buys from Best Buy and not niche computer shops, he's part of the problem man, part of the problem.....man.

He's like the poor version of Al Gore.. he's just preaching what should be done.. not that he actually has to DO what should be done.

[Back]

Wow, want to talk about living a life of cliches... you guys are dragging out all the old hits.

[Back]

Two dollars says someone eventually uses the "too lazy to get a job welfare" anecdote.

[Parkbandit]

Wow, want to talk about living a life of cliches... you guys are dragging out all the old hits.

You realize you posted this gem, right?


Thats the Republican party game plan in a nutshell. Rob Main Street to pay Wall Street.

Stop. It's not any fun picking on you when you are this dumb.

[Kembal]

Cory Booker must be hanging out with Chris Christie too much lately... he's starting to tell the truth when asked a question (even though he did a 180 later on in the day when the Obama Administration were done scolding him)

“I have to just say from a very personal level, I’m not about to sit here and indict private equity. If you look at the totality of Bain Capital’s record, they’ve done a lot to support businesses, to grow businesses and this, to me, I’m very uncomfortable.”

Booker did say that he believed that Obama’s policies benefited average Americans and small businesses.

While Booker went on to call the attacks on Bain “nauseating” he said that the Republican Party is no better with their attacks on Jeremiah Wright.

Booker said of the partisan attacks,

“This kind of stuff is nauseating to me on both sides. It’s nauseating to the American public. Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity. Stop attacking Jeremiah Wright. This stuff has got to stop, because what it does is it undermines, to me, what this country should be focused on. It’s a distraction from the real issues.It’s either gonna be a small campaign about this crap, or it’s gonna be a big campaign in my opinion about the issues the American public cares about,”


Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/239839/newark-mayor-cory-booker-calls-obama-attack-on-bain-capital-nauseating/#xzsE1mztxXJoOdZ1.99

I'm watching private equity wreck one of my competitors right now. It's pretty amusing to me.

Romney's record at Bain is entirely fair to bring up, especially since he's running on that and not his record as Governor of Massachusetts.

[Back]

You realize you posted this gem, right?

Stop. It's not any fun picking on you when you are this dumb.

We definitely have differing views on when something is considered overused. The GOP party line is that... overused AND abused by parrot puppets like yourself.

Retardedly repeating things your millionaire masters tell you while they wave the carrot of a wealthy lifestyle. There are people in high places that actually count on you to repeat their garbage without you even realizing what you are saying makes no sense.

"Cutting taxes on the wealthy creates jobs!"

"Trickle down economics!"

You may as well pull your pants down, hand them the Vasoline, and bend over for them. I don't quite understand people like you who take it and like it.

[Keller]

Romney's record at Bain is entirely fair to bring up, especially since he's running on that.

Best post in the thread.

[AnticorRifling]

We definitely have differing views on when something is considered overused. The GOP party line is that... overused AND abused by parrot puppets like yourself.

Retardedly repeating things your millionaire masters tell you while they wave the carrot of a wealthy lifestyle. There are people in high places that actually count on you to repeat their garbage without you even realizing what you are saying makes no sense.

"Cutting taxes on the wealthy creates jobs!"

"Trickle down economics!"

You may as well pull your pants down, hand them the Vasoline, and bend over for them. I don't quite understand people like you who take it and like it.

You forgot "Hope and Change" on that list. Hope someone changes somethin cause I ain't doin shit just wouldn't fit on the bumper sticker.

[Parkbandit]

I'm watching private equity wreck one of my competitors right now. It's pretty amusing to me.

Why did your competitor contact a private equity firm to begin with?


Romney's record at Bain is entirely fair to bring up, especially since he's running on that and not his record as Governor of Massachusetts.

I'll take Romney's record at Bain Capital vs. Obama's record as far as the free market goes.

[Parkbandit]

We definitely have differing views on when something is considered overused. The DNC party line is that... overused AND abused by parrot puppets like yourself.

Retardedly repeating things your slave masters tell you while they wave the carrot of free stuff like welfare and foodstamps. There are people in high places that actually count on you to repeat their garbage without you even realizing what you are saying makes no sense.

"Rob Main Street to pay Wall Street!"**

"The Rich don't pay their fair share!"

"Hope and Change!"

You may as well pull your pants down, hand them the Vasoline, and bend over for them. I don't quite understand people like you who take it and like it.

** = The cliche you posted prior to complaining about other cliches.
:tool:

[Ryvicke]

Why did your competitor contact a private equity firm to begin with?

:rofl:

It's like watching a monkey try to understand how to match shapes and colors.

Hey PB, you'll get a treat if you read one book about how private equity works, k?

[Keller]

:rofl:

It's like watching a monkey try to understand how to match shapes and colors.

Hey PB, you'll get a treat if you read one book about how private equity works, k?

At this point I think he's trolling us.

[Parkbandit]

:rofl:

It's like watching a monkey try to understand how to match shapes and colors.

Hey PB, you'll get a treat if you read one book about how private equity works, k?

I'll wait to discuss this with another adult like Kembal.. not some Barney and Friends reject. While I don't normally agree with him, at least he's able to hold a conversation and actually brings intelligent thought into the thread.

Go back to playing with your crayons, Simpleton.

[Parkbandit]

At this point I think he's trolling us.

Trolling you would require me to give two shits about anything you post.

I don't and never have.

Sorry.

[Keller]

Trolling you would require me to give two shits about anything you post.

I don't and never have.

Sorry.

You can't troll a troll, sorry buddy.

[AnticorRifling]

Can you triple stamp a double stamp?


Also this thread title sounds like a made up sex position.

[ClydeR]

Also this thread title sounds like a made up sex position.

Whoa there, cowgirl! Let's keep it clean.

[Androidpk]

Also this thread title sounds like a made up sex position.

I think it's when you fuck a prostitute and then take her money.

[Latrinsorm]

There were a lot of Marys, kid.

[Kembal]

Why did your competitor contact a private equity firm to begin with?

They wanted to cash out part of their equity provision while still remaining CEO/senior management of the company.

They did this at the end of 2007, so they ended up performing poorly due to the economic situation. Private equity owners lost patience and pushed the CEO and the VP of Supply Chain out (the two co-founders), and installed their own. They also whacked 30% of the sales force in a bid to cut costs.

Unfortunately, the private equity owners had not realized that our competitor's competitive advantages basically boiled down to the CEO, the VP of Supply Chain, and the long-tenured sales force. Their supply chain has deteriorated to the point that they're buying fill-ins for numerous stockouts from us (at full price!), they've lost a major customer to us because the CEO relationship is no longer present, and they're rapidly losing market share since we've hired some of their fired salespeople and have just taken other customers away because they no longer have the relationships to keep them.

Of course, the private equity guys are still making their money, with the management fee and preferred share dividend. The debt load on our competitor is still pretty high as well, from what we know. It's going to be interesting to see how they orchestrate an exit, but I sense it's not going to end well.


I'll take Romney's record at Bain Capital vs. Obama's record as far as the free market goes.

Not sure how you're comparing the two, but go ahead.

[Parkbandit]

They wanted to cash out part of their equity provision while still remaining CEO/senior management of the company.

They did this at the end of 2007, so they ended up performing poorly due to the economic situation. Private equity owners lost patience and pushed the CEO and the VP of Supply Chain out (the two co-founders), and installed their own. They also whacked 30% of the sales force in a bid to cut costs.

Unfortunately, the private equity owners had not realized that our competitor's competitive advantages basically boiled down to the CEO, the VP of Supply Chain, and the long-tenured sales force. Their supply chain has deteriorated to the point that they're buying fill-ins for numerous stockouts from us (at full price!), they've lost a major customer to us because the CEO relationship is no longer present, and they're rapidly losing market share since we've hired some of their fired salespeople and have just taken other customers away because they no longer have the relationships to keep them.

Of course, the private equity guys are still making their money, with the management fee and preferred share dividend. The debt load on our competitor is still pretty high as well, from what we know. It's going to be interesting to see how they orchestrate an exit, but I sense it's not going to end well.



Sounds like the owners of the company wanted to take advantage of investment capital to reduce their risk in the company they created.

If I were to blame anyone in this scenario, I would place blame at the head of the company and not the investment capital firm.

:shrug:

What was the scenario for Bain to get into companies like GST Steel and the papermill company that Obama is using in his campaign commercials?

[Wrathbringer]

Sounds like the owners of the company wanted to take advantage of investment capital to reduce their risk in the company they created.

If I were to blame anyone in this scenario, I would place blame at the head of the company and not the investment capital firm.

:shrug:

What was the scenario for Bain to get into companies like GST Steel and the papermill company that Obama is using in his campaign commercials?

+1. Everyone acts like these companies are the victims here, but they were big boys and girls who knew the risks going in and decided it was worth a shot.

[Keller]

+1. Everyone acts like these companies are the victims here, but they were big boys and girls who knew the risks going in and decided it was worth a shot.

Can you clarify who the "big boys and girls who knew the risks going in" are? Are these the founders that sold out to PE? Are they the PE fund? Is it the corporation itself as some kind of sentient being?

[Keller]

Sounds like the owners of the company wanted to take advantage of investment capital to reduce their risk in the company they created.

If I were to blame anyone in this scenario, I would place blame at the head of the company and not the investment capital firm.

It is not "investment capital" - it is "private equity." It is distinguishable and very different from venture capital, which is maybe what you were thinking with investment capital. Private equity funds look for established companies that are undervalued or poorly managed and purchase them, often in a hostile manner. They are not venture capital, which start-ups utilize to raise cash to quickly expand their business. Two very, very different sectors of the financial industry. It's sort of like comparing a plumber to an electrician because they both work on components of a house.

Here is what actually happened with GST Steel.

GST Steel was a division of a larger company.

Larger company was cash strapped.

Bain offered to buy GST Steel for $x dollars.

Larger company took the money and no longer owned GST Steel.

Can you please explain to me how anything done from that point forward is the fault of the larger company? The decision they made was binary - sell or hold GST Steel.

If I sell you a car, and then you get drunk and run someone over, is it my fault because I should have known you'd get drunk and run someone over?

[Parkbandit]

Here is what actually happened with GST Steel.

GST Steel was a division of a larger company.

Larger company was cash strapped.

Bain offered to buy GST Steel for $x dollars.

Larger company took the money and no longer owned GST Steel.

Can you please explain to me how anything done from that point forward is the fault of the larger company? The decision they made was binary - sell or hold GST Steel.

So, the company made an executive decision to sell off an asset to a buyer. This happens every day... a company fails and has to sell off assets to other companies. The purchasing company now decides what happens with this asset to make it profitable for the new company.

GST Steel was purchased when American steel was still a profitable business... before all the cheap steel from Asia started pouring in.

And like I earlier stated.. GST Steel was sold off 2 years after Romney already left the company... so I'm not sure how you are still blaming him for the failure of GST Steel. I left Hilton in July '05.. should I be held responsible for the lower profits and layoffs that took place in '08?



If I sell you a car, and then you get drunk and run someone over, is it my fault because I should have known you'd get drunk and run someone over?

In this scenario, the car is an asset of Bain Capital... Mitt Romney used to drive that car, but doesn't any longer.. yet you still want to have Mitt Romney arrested because the car he used to drive ran someone over.

[Parkbandit]

Can you clarify who the "big boys and girls who knew the risks going in" are? Are these the founders that sold out to PE? Are they the PE fund? Is it the corporation itself as some kind of sentient being?

Specifically, Wrathbringer was talking about my response to this post:

"They wanted to cash out part of their equity provision while still remaining CEO/senior management of the company."

[Keller]

I'm going to get whiplash if you keep changing the topic like this.

We're not talking about Mitt, and I've never said Mitt was to blame. In fact, I've defended PE funds in this very thread.

My issue has been, and will continue to be, the ignorance of certain people as to how PE firms work and the really stupid ways they are defending Mitt Romney based on those ignorant views.

Saying things like "If I were to blame anyone in this scenario, I would place blame at the head of the company and not the investment capital firm" is just not grounded in reality and, while convincing to other people who don't know how PE works, isn't helpful to the overall dialogue. It just spreads misinformation, which becomes the accepted narrative.

The very basic truth is that PE firms generally do a very good job of turning an underperforming company around. They don't do this for free, and lots of people have issues with the ways PE firms pull equity out of a company. Sometimes the manner in which they pull equity out of companies causes those companies to go bankrupt. Politicians have isolated those bankruptcies to paint Romney as a failed capitalist. That is not fair.

[Parkbandit]

You are confusing two different scenarios.. one specifically that was posted by Kembal and one that is referring to Bain Capital I assume.

But rather than the round and round.. let's just agree that the current Obama campaign to blame Romney for the failure of GST Steel is a pretty stupid argument to attempt to make.. and be done.

[Keller]

You are confusing two different scenarios.. one specifically that was posted by Kembal and one that is referring to Bain Capital I assume.

But rather than the round and round.. let's just agree that the current Obama campaign to blame Romney for the failure of GST Steel is a pretty stupid argument to attempt to make.. and be done.

You mean I have to go back to work?

[Kembal]

Specifically, Wrathbringer was talking about my response to this post:

"They wanted to cash out part of their equity provision while still remaining CEO/senior management of the company."

Yeah, I'm not crying any tears for the co-founders. I personally don't like them (long story), and I find it humorous they've lost control of the company.

However, PE companies don't always fully understand the industries they're getting into, and thus it's possible to fail badly at the turnaround that they try to execute on. It's even worse when they don't fully understand the company they bought. Thus, the mixed track record for any PE company.

Since Romney has made Bain the centerpiece of his record, he has to be prepared to take some hits here. It's a shame, actually. My impression is that he did a fairly good job as Governor of MA, but since he's chosen to run on a stance of repealing "Obamacare", he can't exactly remind people of that.

The Obama campaign is going to aim everything it has at Romney's record at Bain. Turning around the 2002 Olympics, while frankly amazing considering the hole it was in, isn't enough to build a presidential campaign around. If the Obama campaign is successful at cementing an image of Romney as "job-killing vulture capitalist", the foundation of Romney's campaign is going to be very shaky.

I guess that's what happens when you basically try to hide your signature accomplishment in governance.

[Parkbandit]

Yeah, I'm not crying any tears for the co-founders. I personally don't like them (long story), and I find it humorous they've lost control of the company.

I don't blame you... especially since it's a direct competitor to you.



However, PE companies don't always fully understand the industries they're getting into, and thus it's possible to fail badly at the turnaround that they try to execute on. It's even worse when they don't fully understand the company they bought. Thus, the mixed track record for any PE company.

They are only looking at an under-performing company and believing they will get a ROI if they invest into it. Let's be honest.. they don't care about the failing company as long as they can get a return.



Since Romney has made Bain the centerpiece of his record, he has to be prepared to take some hits here. It's a shame, actually. My impression is that he did a fairly good job as Governor of MA, but since he's chosen to run on a stance of repealing "Obamacare", he can't exactly remind people of that.

With the majority of Americans against Obamacare, that shouldn't be a big surprise. And from most indications, he did a good job at Bain Capital.. they have a relatively good record.



The Obama campaign is going to aim everything it has at Romney's record at Bain. Turning around the 2002 Olympics, while frankly amazing considering the hole it was in, isn't enough to build a presidential campaign around. If the Obama campaign is successful at cementing an image of Romney as "job-killing vulture capitalist", the foundation of Romney's campaign is going to be very shaky. I guess that's what happens when you basically try to hide your signature accomplishment in governance.

If Obama can get elected with his record of being a public agitator and an absentee Senator.. I don't think Romney should have a problem with the character issues. Of course, there could very well be some skeletons in his closet that we don't know about yet.. but currently, all indications are that Romney is a decent human being who gives a crazy fuck ton to charity.

[Wrathbringer]

Can you clarify who the "big boys and girls who knew the risks going in" are? Are these the founders that sold out to PE? Are they the PE fund? Is it the corporation itself as some kind of sentient being?

Pay attention to the context of the conversation. No offense, but this seems to be a pattern for you. I realize you're a lawyer, but I find having to stop the conversation in order to define at length our every single word and then defend the use of those words in the context of the conversation just so you can eventually comment "intelligently" rather tiresome. If you don't understand or don't have time to read what's come before, just don't comment. :yes:

[Keller]

Pay attention to the context of the conversation. No offense, but this seems to be a pattern for you. I realize you're a lawyer, but I find having to stop the conversation in order to define at length our every single word and then defend the use of those words in the context of the conversation just so you can eventually comment "intelligently" rather tiresome. If you don't understand or don't have time to read what's come before, just don't comment. :yes:

So it's the founders that you think are to blame for cashing out?

Can you explain how they are at fault for decisions made by later owners? Should the founders have known that the big, bad PE firm didn't know what they were doing? Seems like a tenuous argument, but I'd be interested to hear you make it.

[Parkbandit]

So it's the founders that you think are to blame for cashing out?

Can you explain how they are at fault for decisions made by later owners? Should the founders have known that the big, bad PE firm didn't know what they were doing? Seems like a tenuous argument, but I'd be interested to hear you make it.

Blame for what.. the predicament they are in now? Absolutely. They invited the PE firm in for what they thought would be the opportunity to reduce the risk and capital that they personally had in the company. Whenever you do that through a third party, there are inherit risks in doing so. Had they not made that decision, then they may/may not be in the situation they currently are in now.

[Keller]

Blame for what.. the predicament they are in now? Absolutely. They invited the PE firm in for what they thought would be the opportunity to reduce the risk and capital that they personally had in the company. Whenever you do that through a third party, there are inherit risks in doing so. Had they not made that decision, then they may/may not be in the situation they currently are in now.

I'm not sure who is in a predicament. The founders? The founders sold their stock. They might be out their jobs, which stinks I guess, but they sold their stock when they could still get top dollar for it. The founders are in a MUCH better position than they would have been had they held on to their stock. If anything, they are the only winners in this situation.

Did the founders owe an obligation to the company to not cash out? Is that what you think they did wrong? They sold their shares and ceded control to the PE firm? What happened to personal responsibility? Why is it the owners fault that the PE firm ran their business poorly?

[Parkbandit]

I'm not sure who is in a predicament. The founders? The founders sold their stock. They might be out their jobs, which stinks I guess, but they sold their stock when they could still get top dollar for it. The founders are in a MUCH better position than they would have been had they held on to their stock. If anything, they are the only winners in this situation.

How do you figure? They lost the company they started.. and I don't know the financial situation, but I doubt they would consider themselves "winners".

And I imagine that the PE firm did their due diligence and has either taken back some/most of their money and still has the assets of the company to get the remaining money back.



Did the founders owe an obligation to the company to not cash out? Is that what you think they did wrong?

I wouldn't give control of any of my companies to another company. I can't say if that is right or wrong as we do not have most of the financial story here. But they took a risk by bringing in the PE firm. They opened the door to what eventually happened to them... they lost their jobs and their company. Perhaps they knew the end was near and decided to cash out and they are now happy as pigs in shit.. or perhaps they only took back a small percentage of the value and are now hating life.. or maybe it's somewhere in between. The only ones who know for sure are the owners.


They sold their shares and ceded control to the PE firm?

No idea the actual details.


What happened to personal responsibility?

This is the side I have been arguing for, so not sure what your point is here (unless you are siding with me)



Why is it the owners fault that the PE firm ran their business poorly?

They were still running the business and were forced out... but it's speculation why the business is now failing.

[Keller]

They didn't "lose" their company - they sold it! The PE firm kept them on to manage the business.

2007 the economic took a turn and the PE firm fired the founders. At that point, the PE firm made strategic decisions that, in the worlds of the person telling the story, removed the company's strategic advantage. The decision to fire those personnel was the PE firm's decision.

Again - how is the decision to fire strategic assets the founders fault when they had (i) sold their ownership to the PE firm and (ii) been fired from their positions before the PE firm made those decisions?

[Parkbandit]

They didn't "lose" their company - they sold it! The PE firm kept them on to manage the business.

You know this how? From Kembal's post.. and so far, he's the only one that I would consider to be slightly more "in the know" than anyone else:


They wanted to cash out part of their equity provision while still remaining CEO/senior management of the company.

Doesn't sound like they sold their company.. just part of it.



2007 the economic took a turn and the PE firm fired the founders. At that point, the PE firm made strategic decisions that, in the worlds of the person telling the story, removed the company's strategic advantage. The decision to fire those personnel was the PE firm's decision.

Again - how is the decision to fire strategic assets the founders fault when they had (i) sold their ownership to the PE firm and (ii) been fired from their positions before the PE firm made those decisions?

You are confusing yourself again... I've only placed blame on the original owners as to them losing control of the company they started. I haven't blamed them for the eventual business' decline.

Businesses fail all the time.. with or without private equity firms. That is just part of life in a capitalist system. I'm sure there are at least three businesses in Tampa that blame me for their failure... should I feel badly? Because I don't.

[Kembal]

They are only looking at an under-performing company and believing they will get a ROI if they invest into it. Let's be honest.. they don't care about the failing company as long as they can get a return.

Yes, though it's not always a turnaround situation. I had forgotten about this, but when the PE firm acquired a majority interest in our competitor, their intent was to use it as a platform company to roll up some more acquisitions in related industry sectors. We were on the target list, though we told them you're better off merging with us and handing us control of the company. :) I think they may be kicking themselves on that one now.

I think when PE firms try to do that is when they fall flat on their faces if they haven't analyzed the company properly.


With the majority of Americans against Obamacare, that shouldn't be a big surprise. And from most indications, he did a good job at Bain Capital.. they have a relatively good record.

What is it that Karl Rove did to John Kerry? "Attack his strength and turn it into a weakness", or something like that? I'd say Obama's team is lifting that maxim out of Rove's playbook.


If Obama can get elected with his record of being a public agitator and an absentee Senator.. I don't think Romney should have a problem with the character issues. Of course, there could very well be some skeletons in his closet that we don't know about yet.. but currently, all indications are that Romney is a decent human being who gives a crazy fuck ton to charity.

I don't think this election is going to turn on character issues. I think it's going to turn on vision, and what each candidate's record informs about their vision for the country.

[Kembal]

You know this how? From Kembal's post.. and so far, he's the only one that I would consider to be slightly more "in the know" than anyone else:

Doesn't sound like they sold their company.. just part of it.

You're both right on the fact point. They sold a majority interest (and thus lost voting control), but they also kept a small piece of equity.

[Parkbandit]

Yes, though it's not always a turnaround situation. I had forgotten about this, but when the PE firm acquired a majority interest in our competitor, their intent was to use it as a platform company to roll up some more acquisitions in related industry sectors. We were on the target list, though we told them you're better off merging with us and handing us control of the company. :) I think they may be kicking themselves on that one now.

I think when PE firms try to do that is when they fall flat on their faces if they haven't analyzed the company properly.


That goes for any company... not just PE firms.



What is it that Karl Rove did to John Kerry? "Attack his strength and turn it into a weakness", or something like that? I'd say Obama's team is lifting that maxim out of Rove's playbook.

I don't see them turning it into a weakness, if factual information is used.



I don't think this election is going to turn on character issues. I think it's going to turn on vision, and what each candidate's record informs about their vision for the country.

Obama would be far better off trying to make this a character issue and stay as far away from his record and his vision for the country. If he is honest about his vision for America and what he wants to accomplish in his 2nd term, it will be a complete Romney landslide.

[Androidpk]

Gotta love these politicians. Romney claims to be pro-life, accepts donations from company that produces a morning after pill. Obama blasts Romney over Bain Capital. Accepts donations from Bain Capital.

The Republirats are at it again! Wait, I mean.. the Demoblicans!

[Archigeek]

Also this thread title sounds like a made up sex position.

The new Godwin's Law.

[Parkbandit]

Gotta love these politicians. Romney claims to be pro-life, accepts donations from company that produces a morning after pill. Obama blasts Romney over Bain Capital. Accepts donations from Bain Capital.

The Republirats are at it again! Wait, I mean.. the Demoblicans!

I don't get the whole donations outrage to be honest. Just because someone accepts donations from someone else doesn't automatically mean that all of the values and principles of the donor are now shared with the candidate.