The Real GST story... not the Obama lie

Cancel 2016.2

The Almighty
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303360504577410573651845802.html

When Bain bought the Kansas City mill in 1993, steel was a scene of carnage. Global players were pouring out cheap products, and America's high-cost steel plants couldn't compete. The industry had lost 200,000 jobs in preceding years. In 1992 alone, the six largest U.S. steel mills had lost a combined $3 billion. Armco, the company Bain would buy the plant from, would lose $641 million in 1993.

The Kansas City plant was itself dying. At its 1970 height it employed 4,500; by the late 1980s it was down to 1,000. A year before acquisition, Armco had laid off another 75. Its equipment was old; it faced fierce competition at home and abroad.

B.C. Huselton, a vice president of the business at the time, tells me that in 1990 the Armco CEO held a meeting. "He told us, 'Look, we either try to sell it, or we've got to shut it down.'" Armco had shut down another Kansas City facility, Union Wire Rope, only a few years before.

The Kansas City plant had two product lines—high-carbon rods and grinding media (used in mining)—that it felt could give it a competitive edge. But it needed investment, and Armco was tapped out. Bain nonetheless saw some potential and in 1993 joined other investors to acquire it for $80 million. Management renamed it GS Technologies (which would become part of a larger GS Industries) and poured an additional $100 million into modernization.

The strategy worked for a time. The market firmed up and GSI became a U.S. leader in steel rods. In 1994 it felt confident enough to distribute a dividend to investors. In both 1996 and 1997, GSI would realize $1 billion in revenue.

Enlarge Image
pw0518
pw0518
Getty Images

Mitt Romney as chief executive of Bain Capital in 1993

And then came the tsunami. The late 1990s saw a new outpouring of cheap steel from elsewhere around the globe. The Asian financial crisis walloped the mining industry, cutting demand for GST products. The price of GST's electricity and natural gas skyrocketed. The union dug in, refusing to make concessions. By April 1997, it was on strike, shooting bottle rockets at guards. Labor costs spiked, and by 1999 GSI was reporting $53 million in net losses.

In 2001 it would become one of 31 steel companies that went bankrupt from 1993 to 2003. (Mr. Romney left Bain in 1999.) The steel crash was the economic drama du jour, with Congress railing about "dumping."

At the time, GST's union blamed the company's bankruptcy on the political class, for failing to hamstring imports. "We can't compete against the steel imports that are being sold under cost," said the president of GST's union in 2001. "Our pleas fell on deaf ears in the political arena." The Bush administration would ultimately slap on giant tariffs.

The bankruptcies were led by unionized companies that, like airlines and textiles and Detroit, had negotiated pay and benefits that helped drive their employers under. GST's pension benefits would get passed on to the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., which in 2002 received $7.5 billion in claims from the steel industry alone. The PBGC covered GST's basic pension payouts.

The Obama ad doesn't note that the broader company, GS Industries, employed 3,500 and that the Kansas City plant (with 750 workers) was the only one shuttered. Other plants were bought and operate today. Nor does it mention Bain's other steel investment in the early 1990s, in an Indiana start-up called Steel Dynamics. The firm touts innovative technology and a nonunion workforce. It today reports $6.3 billion in revenue—25 times what it claimed in its 1996 IPO—and employs 6,000.

A private-equity firm looking to quickly strip value from a company—to "suck" the life out of it—does not do so by investing $100 million in modernization and holding on for eight years, through bankruptcy. Bain has surely made its share of mistakes, and one may well have been trying to resuscitate a traditional steel firm in the grip of industry upheaval. The irony, says Mr. Huselton, is that this plant "wouldn't even be in today's news, if it hadn't been the opportunity that came with Bain. Those jobs would have been gone in 1993."

That's a more revealing story—of the pressures of a global market, the dangers of an inflexible workforce, and the opportunities that come with private equity and risk-taking. It's just not one Team Obama wants to tell.

time till Dung attacks the WSJ... approximately ten seconds after he sees the URL
 
It seems to me that you are about as likely to get the "real story" from an opinion column as you are from a political advertisement. Which isn't to say that what Strassel writes isn't true, just that it's not the whole story by a long shot.

I also love the line "In 1994 it felt confident enough to distribute a dividend to investors." That's awesome, particularly the use of the "it" pronoun. As if the company as a sentient being made a decision for itself to distribute a dividend. What that sentence actually means is that Bain decided to extract capital from the firm that could have otherwise been invested in the operations of the business or *gasp* to pay its employees.
 
Also, too, I love the pre-emptive strike by SF as though it inoculates the column from the fact that its an opinion column written by a person with a particular point of view that uses those facts that support her position while ignoring other that don't and who has no real interest in actually telling "the real story."
 
It seems to me that you are about as likely to get the "real story" from an opinion column as you are from a political advertisement. Which isn't to say that what Strassel writes isn't true, just that it's not the whole story by a long shot.

I also love the line "In 1994 it felt confident enough to distribute a dividend to investors." That's awesome, particularly the use of the "it" pronoun. As if the company as a sentient being made a decision for itself to distribute a dividend. What that sentence actually means is that Bain decided to extract capital from the firm that could have otherwise been invested in the operations of the business or *gasp* to pay its employees.

Not shocking that dear little Dung did exactly as he he always does. Attack the source.

The real story dip shit is that the company was going under. Without an investor, they would have shut doors 8 years earlier than they did. You harp on the dividend? they invested $100mm into the company Dung. Yeah, they want to make money. That is why they turned the company around. What difference would it have made if the money had gone to *gasp* employees vs. shareholders? It isn't as if the union contracts weren't being honored. You fucking hack.
 
Obamabots will never believe der leader lied to them.

goose-stepping_obama_bots.jpg
 
Back
Top