You do realize an 80% success to 20% failure rate is OUTSTANDING in THE REAL WORLD... nevermind the fact that THE BUSINESSES THEY INVESTED IN WERE ALREADY FAILING!!!
The world you live in is dreamland if you think more than 1 in 5 businesses started become profitable over the long term... i think its more like 1 in 20 businesses starting up are bankrupt within 5 years... maybe someone can find the hard numbers on that...
These weren't start up companies -- they were going concerns. I have no idea how Bain's record stacked up relative to other firms.
What! This is crazy! Bain was there to pick off struggling companies, liquidate there assets and get rid of their workers.
I believe some right-wingers here would state that water is dry and dust is wet if the republican leadership (aka Rush Limbaugh) told them to.
Seriously?!? You think this is right-wingers assessment?!?
This is PBS News Hour's assessment... not exactly right-wingers... in fact you can tell Beth Healey is heavily anti-Romney, yet still has to give credit to how successful Bain was...
Only in the sense that every company is started up at some point.They were start-up companies... not all of them, but most of the initial companies he was involved with were start up companies... INCLUDING HIS OWN!!!
They were start-up companies... not all of them, but most of the initial companies he was involved with were start up companies... INCLUDING HIS OWN!!! he started with venture capital, not private equity... they changed their approach to private equity after like 5 years...
Bain stacks up as unbelievably highly rated in the very industry... in fact, the new approach they took became the studied model on how to be successful in business within the industry... He commanded rates 5 times as high as the average venture capital / private equity company...
but nowhere do we find that bain was a job creator.
So for all the companies it helped come out of hard times, or pulled from the brink of bankruptcy (80% of them), some of them being big chain stores that are all over America now, no jobs were created because they were saved and are now successful? Some interesting thinking there... :roll:
Mitt Romney and 100,000 jobs: an untenable figure - The Washington Postwhen Romney ran for the Senate in 1994, his campaign only claimed he had created 10,000 jobs. In one ad, a narrator said: “Mitt Romney has spent his life building more than 20 businesses and helping to create more than 10,000 jobs. So when it comes to creating jobs, he's not just talk. He's done it.”
If it will turn a profit, they will indeed intentionally destroy a company.
As well they should. If a company is unable to make a product people want at a price they can afford, then it's resources should be reallocated to endeavors that can.
Some companies were doing alright until Bain leveraged them to the hilt and sucked off their working capital.
romney was no longer bain CEO after '99. let's look at his own characterization of the jobs he helped to create:
If Bain (or another venture capital firm) did not step in to help failing companies, that may well have closed their doors, would the people that worked there then still have their jobs, or would jobs that were created due to the companies being turned around exist?
Essentially what company’s like these do is look for a business in trouble that they can get for a cut rate price, then try to fix them and make a profit off the now healthy company or resell them at a profit. You could equate this to house flippers buying a dump of a house to fix up and rentor resell at a profit. Usually it works out well but sometimes you find out the house needed more extensive repairs than you anticipated and you end up doing awhole lot of work for little if any profit.
Exceedingly unlikely - companies that are doing well aren't exactly the model that venture capital is looking for - since they are more highly valued, they tend to be too expensive to turn the kind of profit on that justify the risk.
let's continue that analogy and reveal romney's role in it
he would have borrowed much more money than he originally spent buying the real estate under the guise that he was going to fix up and expand that property
then bain would have taken that borrowed money to recoup its investment, resulting in the bankrupting of the entity he set up to handle the property. that would leave the lender with the unrenovated/unexpanded property as inadequate collateral to cover its loan. it would leave the painters and electricians and plumbers and carpenters and vendors whose costs were pointed to as the basis for the loan without any income on that project. but it would leave romney invigorated to go to the next property and do the same thing once more
the reality is romney sucked his profits out of the lenders. he only used the turnaround companies as his justification for getting them to lend the money he would thereafter take out as his profits, leaving the company a shell for the creditors to pick over
That is exactly what he would do: suck the life out of the working class and redistribute it to the .001%.Baine covered it's ass so if things went south they didn't lose but most of the time everyone prospered. If Romney runs the US like Baine was run, profit, profit, profit, I am OK with that.
Bain is not a company that is set out to help other companies either, it is set up to make a profit. If it can make more profit by screwing others out of a job it will do it. If it can make more profit by helping other companies out, it will.
I'm not saying that is necessarily negative, but let's be honest in that Bain isn't out there to help companies either.
Venture capital firms invest in companies of for many different reasons. The only constant is that they think they can make a return on their investment.
So it was simply luck that 80% of its customers showed improvement from the Bain assistance?
That is exactly what he would do: suck the life out of the working class and redistribute it to the .001%.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?