Could someone who understands Wall Street and "high finance" explain how this works?

Chrissy8 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

Chrissy8 wrote:

Chrissy8 wrote:Democrats convened in Charlotte, NC, will double down on their claim that Bain Capital is really the Bain crime family. They will accuse Republican nominee Mitt Romney and Bain’s other “greedy” co-founders of stealing their winnings, evading taxes and lighting cigars with $100 bills on their yachts.

But Bain’s private-equity executives have enriched dozens of organizations and millions of individuals in the Democratic base — including some who scream most loudly for President Obama’s re-election.

Government-worker pension funds are the chief beneficiaries of Bain’s economic stewardship. New York-based Preqin uses public documents, news accounts and Freedom of Information requests to track private-equity holdings. Since 2000, Preqin reports, the following funds have entrusted some $1.56 billion to Bain:





* Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund ($2.2 million)

* Indiana Public Retirement System ($39.3 million)

* Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System ($177.1 million)

* The Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension System ($19.5 million)

* Maryland State Retirement and Pension System ($117.5 million)

* Public Employees’ Retirement System of Nevada ($20.3 million)

* State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio ($767.3 million)

* Pennsylvania State Employees’ Retirement System ($231.5 million)

* Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island ($25 million)

* San Diego County Employees Retirement Association ($23.5 million)

* Teacher Retirement System of Texas ($122.5 million)

* Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System ($15 million)

These funds aggregate the savings of millions of unionized teachers, social workers, public-health personnel and first responders. Many would be startled to learn that their nest eggs are incubated by the company that Romney launched and the financiers he hired.

Leading universities have also profited from Bain’s expertise. According to Infrastructure Investor, Bain Capital Ventures Fund I (launched in 2001) managed wealth for “endowments and foundations such as Columbia, Princeton and Yale universities.”

According to BuyOuts magazine and S&P Capital IQ, Bain’s other college clients have included Cornell, Emory, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Notre Dame and the University of Pittsburgh. Preqin reports that the following schools have placed at least $424.6 million with Bain Capital between 1998 and 2008:

* Purdue University ($15.9 million)

* University of California ($225.7 million)

* University of Michigan ($130 million)

* University of Virginia ($20 million)

* University of Washington ($33 million)

Major, center-left foundations and cultural establishments also have seen their prospects brighten, thanks to Bain Capital. According to the aforementioned sources, such Bain clients have included the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Doris Duke Foundation, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Ford Foundation, the Heinz Endowments and the Oprah Winfrey Foundation.

Why on Earth would government-union leaders, university presidents and foundation chiefs let Bain oversee their precious assets?

“The scrutiny generated by a heated election year matters less than the performance the portfolio generates to the fund,” California State Teachers’ Retirement System spokesman Ricardo Duran said in the Aug. 12 Boston Globe. CalSTRS has pumped some $1.25 billion into Bain.

Since 1988, Duran says, private-equity companies like Bain have outperformed every other asset class to which CalSTRS has allocated the cash of its 856,360 largely unionized members.

Is Bain really a gang of corporate buccaneers who plunder their ill-gotten gains by outsourcing, euthanizing feeble portfolio companies and giving cancer to the spouses of those whom they fired? If so, union bosses, government retirees, liberal foundations and elite universities thrive on the wages of Bain’s economic Darwinism.

If, however, these institutions relish the yields that Bain Capital generates by supporting start-ups and rescuing distressed companies, 80 percent of which have prospered, then this money is honest — and Team Obama isn’t.



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/look_who_parks_their_cash_at_bain_88KSQrw8BXciEidja2ZQXN#ixzz25FB2VwUN

What. No reply to these FACTS?

Because someone writes an opinion article doesn't mean it's a fact.

The pension information is NOT opinion. I'm sure you can tell which part is opinion and not, right?

Chrissy8 wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-callahan/bad-debts-big-profits-how_b_1539328.html

One big question at the center of the private equity debate is whether firms like Bain Capital intentionally set out to burden the companies they take over with debt -- or whether things just sometimes go sour amid failed turnaround efforts.

Defenders of private equity say that piling up debt is nobody's idea of a good business model. People like David Brooks, who yesterday depicted private equity firms as heroic reformers of a bloated business sector, seem unable to imagine that "vampire capitalism" could yield much of a payday.

But, of course, if we have learned anything over the past few decades, it's exactly the opposite: predatory behavior with no productive purpose often does pay in an era of advanced financial engineering and perverse incentives. The leveraged buyout artists of the 1980s famously discovered this and made vast fortunes. Private equity firms, the rebranded heirs to the LBO movement, have found the same thing and one path to riches, it turns out, is by creating bad debt.

The financial reporter Josh Kosman has documented how this works in great detail in his book on private equity, The Buyout of America. Kosman covered the private equity world up close for years as a writer and editor for Buyouts Newsletter, The Deal, and Mergermarket.com. He had exceptional access to leaders in the private equity world and a ringside seat to numerous private equity deals.

A key point that Kosman makes in his book is that, in fact, it can be quite profitable for private equity firms to drive the companies they take over into debt, regardless of whether those companies then end up bankrupt. By taking over companies and having them borrow a lot of money, private equity firms create a pile of cash, some of which they can direct their own way in the form of management fees and dividends. And because interest on the debt is tax deductible, the consequences of reckless borrowing can be kicked down the line. This is exactly what happened with some of the companies that Bain Capital took over. Bain managed to make a huge return on its investments even in cases where companies failed. Creation of new debt made those profits possible.

David Brooks scoffs that "banks would not be lending money to private equity-owned companies, decade after decade, if those companies weren't generally prosperous and creditworthy." But, again, if we have learned anything in recent decades it is that financial institutions are happy to hand out easy money when well-connected insiders who stand to profit are pushing hard for that cash and somebody else can be left holding the bag. We learned that from the S&L scandal, when banks made billions in bad loans so insiders could profit and taxpayers paid the tab; we learned that from the Long-Term Capital Management meltdown when a bunch of "genuises" lost a fortune in borrowed money and almost wrecked the financial system; we learned it from the Internet bubble, when venture capitalists invested in anything with a .com suffix, cashed out after IPOs, and clueless investors took the hit; and we learned this hard lesson yet again from the real estate bubble.

Borrowing lots of money and incurring bad debts is not how real businesses make money in a normal world. But we don't live in such innocent times. Modern American capitalism is rife with sophisticated financial intermediaries who exploit flaws and complexity in the system, as well as insider connections, to make profits off of predatory behavior -- which brings us back to why the attacks on Bain Capital are both accurate and fair.

When Bain took over GS Technologies, the Kansas City steel firm, it put up $8 million of its own money, according to PolitiFact. The rest was put up by partners. Once it controlled the company, Bain had GS Technologies borrow $125 million by issuing corporate bonds. Bain then had the company pay out $65 million to shareholders -- including a $36 million dividend to Bain. GS Technologies then borrowed another $125 million, much of which was spent on modernizing its operations. Bain also reinvested nearly half of its earlier dividends.

The story gets more complex from there, according to PolitiFact, but the bottom line is this: When GS Technologies finally went bankrupt in 2001 it had $554 million in debt. Bain ultimately invested $24 million and ended up with a $50 million return, according to the Los Angeles Times.

PolitiFact's verdict: The Obama campaign's claim that Bain loaded GS Technologies with debt and hurt the company is "mostly true."

Something similar happened with Ampad, another company Bain took over and another focus of Obama attack ads. As Politico has noted, "The company went into bankruptcy in 2000, holding a debt load of more than $400 million. Bain's return on its $5 million investment was $100 million."

apparently a 80% success rate isnt good enough for you when talking about saving failed companies. I sure wish obama had a 80% success rate. we would all be a lot better off.

Whats the real agenda here with this thread? Did you really wwant to understand what this company does, and if you did find that out, you would find out as youve seen here they are not the devil.

But I know you guys want to make them the devil because of romneys association with them. and the harder you try, the more people learn about this company, the more people realize some of you just aint that smart and even people in your OWN party have tried to explain it to you. But who cares about the truth when a good old fashioned scheme of LIES and distortions works on most of the stupid assed population anyway.

There's nothing wrong with this company.

Carry on

Dreamsglore wrote:

Chrissy8 wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-callahan/bad-debts-big-profits-how_b_1539328.html

One big question at the center of the private equity debate is whether firms like Bain Capital intentionally set out to burden the companies they take over with debt -- or whether things just sometimes go sour amid failed turnaround efforts.

Defenders of private equity say that piling up debt is nobody's idea of a good business model. People like David Brooks, who yesterday depicted private equity firms as heroic reformers of a bloated business sector, seem unable to imagine that "vampire capitalism" could yield much of a payday.

But, of course, if we have learned anything over the past few decades, it's exactly the opposite: predatory behavior with no productive purpose often does pay in an era of advanced financial engineering and perverse incentives. The leveraged buyout artists of the 1980s famously discovered this and made vast fortunes. Private equity firms, the rebranded heirs to the LBO movement, have found the same thing and one path to riches, it turns out, is by creating bad debt.

The financial reporter Josh Kosman has documented how this works in great detail in his book on private equity, The Buyout of America. Kosman covered the private equity world up close for years as a writer and editor for Buyouts Newsletter, The Deal, and Mergermarket.com. He had exceptional access to leaders in the private equity world and a ringside seat to numerous private equity deals.

A key point that Kosman makes in his book is that, in fact, it can be quite profitable for private equity firms to drive the companies they take over into debt, regardless of whether those companies then end up bankrupt. By taking over companies and having them borrow a lot of money, private equity firms create a pile of cash, some of which they can direct their own way in the form of management fees and dividends. And because interest on the debt is tax deductible, the consequences of reckless borrowing can be kicked down the line. This is exactly what happened with some of the companies that Bain Capital took over. Bain managed to make a huge return on its investments even in cases where companies failed. Creation of new debt made those profits possible.

David Brooks scoffs that "banks would not be lending money to private equity-owned companies, decade after decade, if those companies weren't generally prosperous and creditworthy." But, again, if we have learned anything in recent decades it is that financial institutions are happy to hand out easy money when well-connected insiders who stand to profit are pushing hard for that cash and somebody else can be left holding the bag. We learned that from the S&L scandal, when banks made billions in bad loans so insiders could profit and taxpayers paid the tab; we learned that from the Long-Term Capital Management meltdown when a bunch of "genuises" lost a fortune in borrowed money and almost wrecked the financial system; we learned it from the Internet bubble, when venture capitalists invested in anything with a .com suffix, cashed out after IPOs, and clueless investors took the hit; and we learned this hard lesson yet again from the real estate bubble.

Borrowing lots of money and incurring bad debts is not how real businesses make money in a normal world. But we don't live in such innocent times. Modern American capitalism is rife with sophisticated financial intermediaries who exploit flaws and complexity in the system, as well as insider connections, to make profits off of predatory behavior -- which brings us back to why the attacks on Bain Capital are both accurate and fair.

When Bain took over GS Technologies, the Kansas City steel firm, it put up $8 million of its own money, according to PolitiFact. The rest was put up by partners. Once it controlled the company, Bain had GS Technologies borrow $125 million by issuing corporate bonds. Bain then had the company pay out $65 million to shareholders -- including a $36 million dividend to Bain. GS Technologies then borrowed another $125 million, much of which was spent on modernizing its operations. Bain also reinvested nearly half of its earlier dividends.

The story gets more complex from there, according to PolitiFact, but the bottom line is this: When GS Technologies finally went bankrupt in 2001 it had $554 million in debt. Bain ultimately invested $24 million and ended up with a $50 million return, according to the Los Angeles Times.

PolitiFact's verdict: The Obama campaign's claim that Bain loaded GS Technologies with debt and hurt the company is "mostly true."

Something similar happened with Ampad, another company Bain took over and another focus of Obama attack ads. As Politico has noted, "The company went into bankruptcy in 2000, holding a debt load of more than $400 million. Bain's return on its $5 million investment was $100 million."

apparently a 80% success rate isnt good enough for you when talking about saving failed companies. I sure wish obama had a 80% success rate. we would all be a lot better off.

Whats the real agenda here with this thread? Did you really wwant to understand what this company does, and if you did find that out, you would find out as youve seen here they are not the devil.

But I know you guys want to make them the devil because of romneys association with them. and the harder you try, the more people learn about this company, the more people realize some of you just aint that smart and even people in your OWN party have tried to explain it to you. But who cares about the truth when a good old fashioned scheme of LIES and distortions works on most of the stupid assed population anyway.

There's nothing wrong with this company.

Carry on

You would be the last persons word I would take on this because I don't think you're too smart.Sorry but that's just my opinion.

Chrissy8 wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-callahan/bad-debts-big-profits-how_b_1539328.html

One big question at the center of the private equity debate is whether firms like Bain Capital intentionally set out to burden the companies they take over with debt -- or whether things just sometimes go sour amid failed turnaround efforts.

Defenders of private equity say that piling up debt is nobody's idea of a good business model. People like David Brooks, who yesterday depicted private equity firms as heroic reformers of a bloated business sector, seem unable to imagine that "vampire capitalism" could yield much of a payday.

But, of course, if we have learned anything over the past few decades, it's exactly the opposite: predatory behavior with no productive purpose often does pay in an era of advanced financial engineering and perverse incentives. The leveraged buyout artists of the 1980s famously discovered this and made vast fortunes. Private equity firms, the rebranded heirs to the LBO movement, have found the same thing and one path to riches, it turns out, is by creating bad debt.

The financial reporter Josh Kosman has documented how this works in great detail in his book on private equity, The Buyout of America. Kosman covered the private equity world up close for years as a writer and editor for Buyouts Newsletter, The Deal, and Mergermarket.com. He had exceptional access to leaders in the private equity world and a ringside seat to numerous private equity deals.

A key point that Kosman makes in his book is that, in fact, it can be quite profitable for private equity firms to drive the companies they take over into debt, regardless of whether those companies then end up bankrupt. By taking over companies and having them borrow a lot of money, private equity firms create a pile of cash, some of which they can direct their own way in the form of management fees and dividends. And because interest on the debt is tax deductible, the consequences of reckless borrowing can be kicked down the line. This is exactly what happened with some of the companies that Bain Capital took over. Bain managed to make a huge return on its investments even in cases where companies failed. Creation of new debt made those profits possible.

David Brooks scoffs that "banks would not be lending money to private equity-owned companies, decade after decade, if those companies weren't generally prosperous and creditworthy." But, again, if we have learned anything in recent decades it is that financial institutions are happy to hand out easy money when well-connected insiders who stand to profit are pushing hard for that cash and somebody else can be left holding the bag. We learned that from the S&L scandal, when banks made billions in bad loans so insiders could profit and taxpayers paid the tab; we learned that from the Long-Term Capital Management meltdown when a bunch of "genuises" lost a fortune in borrowed money and almost wrecked the financial system; we learned it from the Internet bubble, when venture capitalists invested in anything with a .com suffix, cashed out after IPOs, and clueless investors took the hit; and we learned this hard lesson yet again from the real estate bubble.

Borrowing lots of money and incurring bad debts is not how real businesses make money in a normal world. But we don't live in such innocent times. Modern American capitalism is rife with sophisticated financial intermediaries who exploit flaws and complexity in the system, as well as insider connections, to make profits off of predatory behavior -- which brings us back to why the attacks on Bain Capital are both accurate and fair.

When Bain took over GS Technologies, the Kansas City steel firm, it put up $8 million of its own money, according to PolitiFact. The rest was put up by partners. Once it controlled the company, Bain had GS Technologies borrow $125 million by issuing corporate bonds. Bain then had the company pay out $65 million to shareholders -- including a $36 million dividend to Bain. GS Technologies then borrowed another $125 million, much of which was spent on modernizing its operations. Bain also reinvested nearly half of its earlier dividends.

The story gets more complex from there, according to PolitiFact, but the bottom line is this: When GS Technologies finally went bankrupt in 2001 it had $554 million in debt. Bain ultimately invested $24 million and ended up with a $50 million return, according to the Los Angeles Times.

PolitiFact's verdict: The Obama campaign's claim that Bain loaded GS Technologies with debt and hurt the company is "mostly true."

Something similar happened with Ampad, another company Bain took over and another focus of Obama attack ads. As Politico has noted, "The company went into bankruptcy in 2000, holding a debt load of more than $400 million. Bain's return on its $5 million investment was $100 million."

apparently a 80% success rate isnt good enough for you when talking about saving failed companies. I sure wish obama had a 80% success rate. we would all be a lot better off.

Whats the real agenda here with this thread? Did you really wwant to understand what this company does, and if you did find that out, you would find out as youve seen here they are not the devil.

But I know you guys want to make them the devil because of romneys association with them. and the harder you try, the more people learn about this company, the more people realize some of you just aint that smart and even people in your OWN party have tried to explain it to you. But who cares about the truth when a good old fashioned scheme of LIES and distortions works on most of the stupid assed population anyway.

There's nothing wrong with this company.

Carry on

Floridatexan wrote:

Chrissy8 wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-callahan/bad-debts-big-profits-how_b_1539328.html

One big question at the center of the private equity debate is whether firms like Bain Capital intentionally set out to burden the companies they take over with debt -- or whether things just sometimes go sour amid failed turnaround efforts.

Defenders of private equity say that piling up debt is nobody's idea of a good business model. People like David Brooks, who yesterday depicted private equity firms as heroic reformers of a bloated business sector, seem unable to imagine that "vampire capitalism" could yield much of a payday.

But, of course, if we have learned anything over the past few decades, it's exactly the opposite: predatory behavior with no productive purpose often does pay in an era of advanced financial engineering and perverse incentives. The leveraged buyout artists of the 1980s famously discovered this and made vast fortunes. Private equity firms, the rebranded heirs to the LBO movement, have found the same thing and one path to riches, it turns out, is by creating bad debt.

The financial reporter Josh Kosman has documented how this works in great detail in his book on private equity, The Buyout of America. Kosman covered the private equity world up close for years as a writer and editor for Buyouts Newsletter, The Deal, and Mergermarket.com. He had exceptional access to leaders in the private equity world and a ringside seat to numerous private equity deals.

A key point that Kosman makes in his book is that, in fact, it can be quite profitable for private equity firms to drive the companies they take over into debt, regardless of whether those companies then end up bankrupt. By taking over companies and having them borrow a lot of money, private equity firms create a pile of cash, some of which they can direct their own way in the form of management fees and dividends. And because interest on the debt is tax deductible, the consequences of reckless borrowing can be kicked down the line. This is exactly what happened with some of the companies that Bain Capital took over. Bain managed to make a huge return on its investments even in cases where companies failed. Creation of new debt made those profits possible.

David Brooks scoffs that "banks would not be lending money to private equity-owned companies, decade after decade, if those companies weren't generally prosperous and creditworthy." But, again, if we have learned anything in recent decades it is that financial institutions are happy to hand out easy money when well-connected insiders who stand to profit are pushing hard for that cash and somebody else can be left holding the bag. We learned that from the S&L scandal, when banks made billions in bad loans so insiders could profit and taxpayers paid the tab; we learned that from the Long-Term Capital Management meltdown when a bunch of "genuises" lost a fortune in borrowed money and almost wrecked the financial system; we learned it from the Internet bubble, when venture capitalists invested in anything with a .com suffix, cashed out after IPOs, and clueless investors took the hit; and we learned this hard lesson yet again from the real estate bubble.

Borrowing lots of money and incurring bad debts is not how real businesses make money in a normal world. But we don't live in such innocent times. Modern American capitalism is rife with sophisticated financial intermediaries who exploit flaws and complexity in the system, as well as insider connections, to make profits off of predatory behavior -- which brings us back to why the attacks on Bain Capital are both accurate and fair.

When Bain took over GS Technologies, the Kansas City steel firm, it put up $8 million of its own money, according to PolitiFact. The rest was put up by partners. Once it controlled the company, Bain had GS Technologies borrow $125 million by issuing corporate bonds. Bain then had the company pay out $65 million to shareholders -- including a $36 million dividend to Bain. GS Technologies then borrowed another $125 million, much of which was spent on modernizing its operations. Bain also reinvested nearly half of its earlier dividends.

The story gets more complex from there, according to PolitiFact, but the bottom line is this: When GS Technologies finally went bankrupt in 2001 it had $554 million in debt. Bain ultimately invested $24 million and ended up with a $50 million return, according to the Los Angeles Times.

PolitiFact's verdict: The Obama campaign's claim that Bain loaded GS Technologies with debt and hurt the company is "mostly true."

Something similar happened with Ampad, another company Bain took over and another focus of Obama attack ads. As Politico has noted, "The company went into bankruptcy in 2000, holding a debt load of more than $400 million. Bain's return on its $5 million investment was $100 million."

apparently a 80% success rate isnt good enough for you when talking about saving failed companies. I sure wish obama had a 80% success rate. we would all be a lot better off.

Whats the real agenda here with this thread? Did you really wwant to understand what this company does, and if you did find that out, you would find out as youve seen here they are not the devil.

But I know you guys want to make them the devil because of romneys association with them. and the harder you try, the more people learn about this company, the more people realize some of you just aint that smart and even people in your OWN party have tried to explain it to you. But who cares about the truth when a good old fashioned scheme of LIES and distortions works on most of the stupid assed population anyway.

There's nothing wrong with this company.

Carry on

No one has to explain anything to me, except how someone like you could be so stupid.

Chrissy8 wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

Chrissy8 wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-callahan/bad-debts-big-profits-how_b_1539328.html

One big question at the center of the private equity debate is whether firms like Bain Capital intentionally set out to burden the companies they take over with debt -- or whether things just sometimes go sour amid failed turnaround efforts.

Defenders of private equity say that piling up debt is nobody's idea of a good business model. People like David Brooks, who yesterday depicted private equity firms as heroic reformers of a bloated business sector, seem unable to imagine that "vampire capitalism" could yield much of a payday.

But, of course, if we have learned anything over the past few decades, it's exactly the opposite: predatory behavior with no productive purpose often does pay in an era of advanced financial engineering and perverse incentives. The leveraged buyout artists of the 1980s famously discovered this and made vast fortunes. Private equity firms, the rebranded heirs to the LBO movement, have found the same thing and one path to riches, it turns out, is by creating bad debt.

The financial reporter Josh Kosman has documented how this works in great detail in his book on private equity, The Buyout of America. Kosman covered the private equity world up close for years as a writer and editor for Buyouts Newsletter, The Deal, and Mergermarket.com. He had exceptional access to leaders in the private equity world and a ringside seat to numerous private equity deals.

A key point that Kosman makes in his book is that, in fact, it can be quite profitable for private equity firms to drive the companies they take over into debt, regardless of whether those companies then end up bankrupt. By taking over companies and having them borrow a lot of money, private equity firms create a pile of cash, some of which they can direct their own way in the form of management fees and dividends. And because interest on the debt is tax deductible, the consequences of reckless borrowing can be kicked down the line. This is exactly what happened with some of the companies that Bain Capital took over. Bain managed to make a huge return on its investments even in cases where companies failed. Creation of new debt made those profits possible.

David Brooks scoffs that "banks would not be lending money to private equity-owned companies, decade after decade, if those companies weren't generally prosperous and creditworthy." But, again, if we have learned anything in recent decades it is that financial institutions are happy to hand out easy money when well-connected insiders who stand to profit are pushing hard for that cash and somebody else can be left holding the bag. We learned that from the S&L scandal, when banks made billions in bad loans so insiders could profit and taxpayers paid the tab; we learned that from the Long-Term Capital Management meltdown when a bunch of "genuises" lost a fortune in borrowed money and almost wrecked the financial system; we learned it from the Internet bubble, when venture capitalists invested in anything with a .com suffix, cashed out after IPOs, and clueless investors took the hit; and we learned this hard lesson yet again from the real estate bubble.

Borrowing lots of money and incurring bad debts is not how real businesses make money in a normal world. But we don't live in such innocent times. Modern American capitalism is rife with sophisticated financial intermediaries who exploit flaws and complexity in the system, as well as insider connections, to make profits off of predatory behavior -- which brings us back to why the attacks on Bain Capital are both accurate and fair.

When Bain took over GS Technologies, the Kansas City steel firm, it put up $8 million of its own money, according to PolitiFact. The rest was put up by partners. Once it controlled the company, Bain had GS Technologies borrow $125 million by issuing corporate bonds. Bain then had the company pay out $65 million to shareholders -- including a $36 million dividend to Bain. GS Technologies then borrowed another $125 million, much of which was spent on modernizing its operations. Bain also reinvested nearly half of its earlier dividends.

The story gets more complex from there, according to PolitiFact, but the bottom line is this: When GS Technologies finally went bankrupt in 2001 it had $554 million in debt. Bain ultimately invested $24 million and ended up with a $50 million return, according to the Los Angeles Times.

PolitiFact's verdict: The Obama campaign's claim that Bain loaded GS Technologies with debt and hurt the company is "mostly true."

Something similar happened with Ampad, another company Bain took over and another focus of Obama attack ads. As Politico has noted, "The company went into bankruptcy in 2000, holding a debt load of more than $400 million. Bain's return on its $5 million investment was $100 million."

apparently a 80% success rate isnt good enough for you when talking about saving failed companies. I sure wish obama had a 80% success rate. we would all be a lot better off.

Whats the real agenda here with this thread? Did you really wwant to understand what this company does, and if you did find that out, you would find out as youve seen here they are not the devil.

But I know you guys want to make them the devil because of romneys association with them. and the harder you try, the more people learn about this company, the more people realize some of you just aint that smart and even people in your OWN party have tried to explain it to you. But who cares about the truth when a good old fashioned scheme of LIES and distortions works on most of the stupid assed population anyway.

There's nothing wrong with this company.

Carry on

No one has to explain anything to me, except how someone like you could be so stupid.

someone like me? Thats gonna take a lot of explainin, im very diversed intelectually. But I wish you the best of luck trying to get that explained to you.

Dreamsglore wrote:

Chrissy8 wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

Chrissy8 wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-callahan/bad-debts-big-profits-how_b_1539328.html

One big question at the center of the private equity debate is whether firms like Bain Capital intentionally set out to burden the companies they take over with debt -- or whether things just sometimes go sour amid failed turnaround efforts.

Defenders of private equity say that piling up debt is nobody's idea of a good business model. People like David Brooks, who yesterday depicted private equity firms as heroic reformers of a bloated business sector, seem unable to imagine that "vampire capitalism" could yield much of a payday.

But, of course, if we have learned anything over the past few decades, it's exactly the opposite: predatory behavior with no productive purpose often does pay in an era of advanced financial engineering and perverse incentives. The leveraged buyout artists of the 1980s famously discovered this and made vast fortunes. Private equity firms, the rebranded heirs to the LBO movement, have found the same thing and one path to riches, it turns out, is by creating bad debt.

The financial reporter Josh Kosman has documented how this works in great detail in his book on private equity, The Buyout of America. Kosman covered the private equity world up close for years as a writer and editor for Buyouts Newsletter, The Deal, and Mergermarket.com. He had exceptional access to leaders in the private equity world and a ringside seat to numerous private equity deals.

A key point that Kosman makes in his book is that, in fact, it can be quite profitable for private equity firms to drive the companies they take over into debt, regardless of whether those companies then end up bankrupt. By taking over companies and having them borrow a lot of money, private equity firms create a pile of cash, some of which they can direct their own way in the form of management fees and dividends. And because interest on the debt is tax deductible, the consequences of reckless borrowing can be kicked down the line. This is exactly what happened with some of the companies that Bain Capital took over. Bain managed to make a huge return on its investments even in cases where companies failed. Creation of new debt made those profits possible.

David Brooks scoffs that "banks would not be lending money to private equity-owned companies, decade after decade, if those companies weren't generally prosperous and creditworthy." But, again, if we have learned anything in recent decades it is that financial institutions are happy to hand out easy money when well-connected insiders who stand to profit are pushing hard for that cash and somebody else can be left holding the bag. We learned that from the S&L scandal, when banks made billions in bad loans so insiders could profit and taxpayers paid the tab; we learned that from the Long-Term Capital Management meltdown when a bunch of "genuises" lost a fortune in borrowed money and almost wrecked the financial system; we learned it from the Internet bubble, when venture capitalists invested in anything with a .com suffix, cashed out after IPOs, and clueless investors took the hit; and we learned this hard lesson yet again from the real estate bubble.

Borrowing lots of money and incurring bad debts is not how real businesses make money in a normal world. But we don't live in such innocent times. Modern American capitalism is rife with sophisticated financial intermediaries who exploit flaws and complexity in the system, as well as insider connections, to make profits off of predatory behavior -- which brings us back to why the attacks on Bain Capital are both accurate and fair.

When Bain took over GS Technologies, the Kansas City steel firm, it put up $8 million of its own money, according to PolitiFact. The rest was put up by partners. Once it controlled the company, Bain had GS Technologies borrow $125 million by issuing corporate bonds. Bain then had the company pay out $65 million to shareholders -- including a $36 million dividend to Bain. GS Technologies then borrowed another $125 million, much of which was spent on modernizing its operations. Bain also reinvested nearly half of its earlier dividends.

The story gets more complex from there, according to PolitiFact, but the bottom line is this: When GS Technologies finally went bankrupt in 2001 it had $554 million in debt. Bain ultimately invested $24 million and ended up with a $50 million return, according to the Los Angeles Times.

PolitiFact's verdict: The Obama campaign's claim that Bain loaded GS Technologies with debt and hurt the company is "mostly true."

Something similar happened with Ampad, another company Bain took over and another focus of Obama attack ads. As Politico has noted, "The company went into bankruptcy in 2000, holding a debt load of more than $400 million. Bain's return on its $5 million investment was $100 million."

apparently a 80% success rate isnt good enough for you when talking about saving failed companies. I sure wish obama had a 80% success rate. we would all be a lot better off.

Whats the real agenda here with this thread? Did you really wwant to understand what this company does, and if you did find that out, you would find out as youve seen here they are not the devil.

But I know you guys want to make them the devil because of romneys association with them. and the harder you try, the more people learn about this company, the more people realize some of you just aint that smart and even people in your OWN party have tried to explain it to you. But who cares about the truth when a good old fashioned scheme of LIES and distortions works on most of the stupid assed population anyway.

There's nothing wrong with this company.

Carry on

No one has to explain anything to me, except how someone like you could be so stupid.

someone like me? Thats gonna take a lot of explainin, im very diversed intelectually. But I wish you the best of luck trying to get that explained to you.

Best of luck to you trying to convince someone you're "diversed intelectually".

Floridatexan wrote:
Oh, BS, Chrissy. Everyone who doesn't agree with your posts is personally attacking you, according to...you. Think really hard about how Willard made his money and where he stashed it.

Chrissy8 wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
Oh, BS, Chrissy. Everyone who doesn't agree with your posts is personally attacking you, according to...you. Think really hard about how Willard made his money and where he stashed it.

williard hasnt done anything illegal. many rich people from all political spectrums do the same things he does.

I dont tend to hate people because they are wealthy and I feel like thats what ya'll are trying to get people to do, hate him because he's wealthy.

wouldnt it just be more honest to say you just dont like any republicans?

I know how you guys are feeling right now, I felt this way last election. I htink at this point we really need to put all this silly partisan politics aside and be grown ups becuase this country needs a better leader. romney wouldnt have been my first choice but I know what we have now is a complete and utter failure. sorry

Floridatexan wrote:

Chrissy8 wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
Oh, BS, Chrissy. Everyone who doesn't agree with your posts is personally attacking you, according to...you. Think really hard about how Willard made his money and where he stashed it.

williard hasnt done anything illegal. many rich people from all political spectrums do the same things he does.

I dont tend to hate people because they are wealthy and I feel like thats what ya'll are trying to get people to do, hate him because he's wealthy.

wouldnt it just be more honest to say you just dont like any republicans?

I know how you guys are feeling right now, I felt this way last election. I htink at this point we really need to put all this silly partisan politics aside and be grown ups becuase this country needs a better leader. romney wouldnt have been my first choice but I know what we have now is a complete and utter failure. sorry

It's not "silly partisan politics". The idiots (yes, I do call them idiots) who support Romney because he's the nominee with the R next to his name need to take a hard look at him, including you. I have a business degree; I also have many years of experience in many types of business. If you want the economy to tank, then vote for Romney. It's really that simple.

Floridatexan wrote:
It's not "silly partisan politics". The idiots (yes, I do call them idiots) who support Romney because he's the nominee with the R next to his name need to take a hard look at him, including you. I have a business degree; I also have many years of experience in many types of business. If you want the economy to tank, then vote for Romney. It's really that simple.

Floridatexan wrote:

Chrissy8 wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
Oh, BS, Chrissy. Everyone who doesn't agree with your posts is personally attacking you, according to...you. Think really hard about how Willard made his money and where he stashed it.

williard hasnt done anything illegal. many rich people from all political spectrums do the same things he does.

I dont tend to hate people because they are wealthy and I feel like thats what ya'll are trying to get people to do, hate him because he's wealthy.

wouldnt it just be more honest to say you just dont like any republicans?

I know how you guys are feeling right now, I felt this way last election. I htink at this point we really need to put all this silly partisan politics aside and be grown ups becuase this country needs a better leader. romney wouldnt have been my first choice but I know what we have now is a complete and utter failure. sorry

It's not "silly partisan politics". The idiots (yes, I do call them idiots) who support Romney because he's the nominee with the R next to his name need to take a hard look at him, including you. I have a business degree; I also have many years of experience in many types of business. If you want the economy to tank, then vote for Romney. It's really that simple.

Gunz wrote:If you want the economy to tank, then vote for Romney. It's really that simple. >FT


Where the hell have you been for the last 4 years? Under a rock?

NaNook wrote:

Gunz wrote:If you want the economy to tank, then vote for Romney. It's really that simple. >FT


Where the hell have you been for the last 4 years? Under a rock?

Gunz,

Just ask the question, How many major US Corporations moved offshore this year? How many plan to ? Why no one talks about our corporate tax structure is a waiting debate. MCD does the majority of their business offshore. We're screwed under the current tax code, period.

NaNook wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

Chrissy8 wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
Oh, BS, Chrissy. Everyone who doesn't agree with your posts is personally attacking you, according to...you. Think really hard about how Willard made his money and where he stashed it.

williard hasnt done anything illegal. many rich people from all political spectrums do the same things he does.

I dont tend to hate people because they are wealthy and I feel like thats what ya'll are trying to get people to do, hate him because he's wealthy.

wouldnt it just be more honest to say you just dont like any republicans?

I know how you guys are feeling right now, I felt this way last election. I htink at this point we really need to put all this silly partisan politics aside and be grown ups becuase this country needs a better leader. romney wouldnt have been my first choice but I know what we have now is a complete and utter failure. sorry

It's not "silly partisan politics". The idiots (yes, I do call them idiots) who support Romney because he's the nominee with the R next to his name need to take a hard look at him, including you. I have a business degree; I also have many years of experience in many types of business. If you want the economy to tank, then vote for Romney. It's really that simple.

A college degree means nothing. It depends upon the degree, the Dems say everyone needs a free college degree. A degree in what?

Check out your labor cost per hour for car repairs. Check out the cost per hour of plumbers, electricians, roofers, etc.

We need less college degree debt and more Tech-School........Heck, a landscaper wants to charge me $75 to cut my yard, a 1 1/2 job.

Forget useless degrees and student debt. There is nothing wrong working with your hands and making +50k with benefits a year. The Dems are on the wrong side of the issue. Everyone can't be a white-collar worker, so what?

Floridatexan wrote:

Chrissy8 wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
Oh, BS, Chrissy. Everyone who doesn't agree with your posts is personally attacking you, according to...you. Think really hard about how Willard made his money and where he stashed it.

williard hasnt done anything illegal. many rich people from all political spectrums do the same things he does.

I dont tend to hate people because they are wealthy and I feel like thats what ya'll are trying to get people to do, hate him because he's wealthy.

wouldnt it just be more honest to say you just dont like any republicans?

I know how you guys are feeling right now, I felt this way last election. I htink at this point we really need to put all this silly partisan politics aside and be grown ups becuase this country needs a better leader. romney wouldnt have been my first choice but I know what we have now is a complete and utter failure. sorry

It's not "silly partisan politics". The idiots (yes, I do call them idiots) who support Romney because he's the nominee with the R next to his name need to take a hard look at him, including you. I have a business degree; I also have many years of experience in many types of business. If you want the economy to tank, then vote for Romney. It's really that simple.

Markle wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

Chrissy8 wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
Oh, BS, Chrissy. Everyone who doesn't agree with your posts is personally attacking you, according to...you. Think really hard about how Willard made his money and where he stashed it.

williard hasnt done anything illegal. many rich people from all political spectrums do the same things he does.

I dont tend to hate people because they are wealthy and I feel like thats what ya'll are trying to get people to do, hate him because he's wealthy.

wouldnt it just be more honest to say you just dont like any republicans?

I know how you guys are feeling right now, I felt this way last election. I htink at this point we really need to put all this silly partisan politics aside and be grown ups becuase this country needs a better leader. romney wouldnt have been my first choice but I know what we have now is a complete and utter failure. sorry

It's not "silly partisan politics". The idiots (yes, I do call them idiots) who support Romney because he's the nominee with the R next to his name need to take a hard look at him, including you. I have a business degree; I also have many years of experience in many types of business. If you want the economy to tank, then vote for Romney. It's really that simple.

Well that settles the whole argument.

How is a person with a law degree and vast experience leading ACORN meetings better suited to lead an economic recovery. Former Gov. Mitt Romney also has a law degree, and his MBA and extensive experience rescuing companies, turning them around and making them profitable. Along with the Winter Olympics.

Suppose you had a $200 million company which was in trouble. Who would you select to turn it around? Someone who has a proven track record for solving problems such as yours or someone whose total business experience was as a low level attorney and ACORN trainer?

The pathetic Progressives HATE people who have played by the rules, been successful and BUILT THIS COUNTRY. Why? Who knows. Obviously they demand a far lower standard of living for our country which is sad.

President Barack Hussein Obama has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt what does NOT work, even he said if he couldn't turn this economy around in three years he was a one term president. For a change, it is time he kept his word.

Bob wrote:
It's getting harder and harder to get around all the propaganda that comes from both sides. I'm just not smart enough to be able to decide who is telling the truth about all this.

Floridatexan wrote:

Bob wrote:
It's getting harder and harder to get around all the propaganda that comes from both sides. I'm just not smart enough to be able to decide who is telling the truth about all this.

Yes, you are smart enough to fgure it out. All you have to do is look back a few years to how it was. That should explain everything to you, Bob.

Unfortunately, some people will never understand what happened under Bush, or what might happen, should some serious shenanigans occur that would give Romney the presidency. If that were to happen, I promise you that I would absolutely leave the country and only look back to make sure my family was safe.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.


Mark Twain