So Mitt Didn't Leave Bain in 1999 After All

Superfreak said:
They are completely relevant to what Bain does. Like I stated long ago... you just wish to cherry pick and parrot left wing nut talking points. You have no interest in the facts or the truth.
Click to expand...

No they're not. I made my point. You justified Bain's 2,000% ROI while creditors got 0.002% and the company went bankrupt. You said 'that happens'.

Those are the facts.
 
cawacko said:
Would you prefer the government step in and essentially ban M&A's or the private equity industry? Or I should ask without making assumptions what would you like to see happen to the industry?
Click to expand...

A multi-pronged approach to reform the industry is in order, but I'm not holding my breath for it.
 
Bijou said:
A multi-pronged approach to reform the industry is in order, but I'm not holding my breath for it.
Click to expand...

Multi-pronged approached such as? (Not a rhetorical question nor am I trying to be a dick. I'm legitimately curious)
 
Bijou said:
No they're not. I made my point. You justified Bain's 2,000% ROI while creditors got 0.002% and the company went bankrupt. You said 'that happens'.

Those are the facts.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are. You are looking at Bain's profit of their investment from start to finish... yet you ignore what the condition of the company was in when they took it over. You ignore the fact that Bain was no longer the majority shareholder when the firm filed for BK. You ignore the fact that the employees kept jobs for those 7 years Bain ran it (plus a couple more after Bain sold the majority of its stake). You ignore the fact that Bain lost everything on its remaining 30+% investment. You are 100% cherry picking data to try and parrot an ignorant talking point.

If you do not wish to actually discuss the issues, simply say so. I will refrain from attempting to do so in the future.
 
Darla said:
I'm just trying to help you out. I know you are trying to get America's first VC President elected and with the kind of oppression VC's have historically faced here, that's no easy job! You need a little PR help SF. :)
Click to expand...

again, I am voting for Johnson. That said, the ignorance of some on this board is amusing. Trying to educate them is quite the challenge. Hard to get the parrots to learn something if it didn't come from their masters.
 
Superfreak said:
Yes, they are. You are looking at Bain's profit of their investment from start to finish... yet you ignore what the condition of the company was in when they took it over. You ignore the fact that Bain was no longer the majority shareholder when the firm filed for BK. You ignore the fact that the employees kept jobs for those 7 years Bain ran it (plus a couple more after Bain sold the majority of its stake). You ignore the fact that Bain lost everything on its remaining 30+% investment. You are 100% cherry picking data to try and parrot an ignorant talking point.

If you do not wish to actually discuss the issues, simply say so. I will refrain from attempting to do so in the future.
Click to expand...

Avoiding the obvious amoral aspects the Ampad story by justifying it because of its 'condition' prior to the vulture swoop-down does nothing for your credibility, Lovey. It does just the opposite, in fact. You're not missing the point - you're deliberately avoiding the point.
 
cawacko said:
Would you prefer the government step in and essentially ban M&A's or the private equity industry? Or I should ask without making assumptions what would you like to see happen to the industry?
Click to expand...


Leverage buyouts serve a useful function, but that doesn't mean we should admire the people who do them. It basically involves using tremendous wealth to take advantage of vulnerable companies and their employees for handsome profits. So, it serves a legitimate function but ain't exactly a noble or admirable way to earn a living.
 
Bijou said:
Avoiding the obvious amoral aspects the Ampad story by justifying it because of its 'condition' prior to the vulture swoop-down does nothing for your credibility, Lovey. It does just the opposite, in fact. You're not missing the point - you're deliberately avoiding the point.
Click to expand...

So you think it would have been best if Bain had simply let Mead fold up in 1992 and let all the Ampad employees lose their jobs back then. Next time just say so in the beginning.

It is quite funny you accusing me of avoidance. I have addressed every single point you have made. You on the other hand continually run away from actually discussing the case and instead keep parroting your cherry picked data.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Leverage buyouts serve a useful function, but that doesn't mean we should admire the people who do them. It basically involves using tremendous wealth to take advantage of vulnerable companies and their employees for handsome profits. So, it serves a legitimate function but ain't exactly a noble or admirable way to earn a living.
Click to expand...

So we should be noble and let those vulnerable companies simply go under rather than try to make the unsuccessful, successful?

It is hilarious the way you word it... claiming they are trying to take advantage of the companies and employees? LMAO.
 
Superfreak said:
So we should be noble and let those vulnerable companies simply go under rather than try to make the unsuccessful, successful?

It is hilarious the way you word it... claiming they are trying to take advantage of the companies and employees? LMAO.
Click to expand...

He didn't say they were 'trying' to take advantage. They DO take advantage.
 
Portfolio of companies Bain has helped over the years:
Accellent HD Supply
Air Medical Group Holdings Hero Investments
AMC Entertainment Himadri
Applied Systems Ideal Standard
ASIMCO IMCD
Bellsystem24 International Market Centers
Bloomin' Brands JinSheng International
Bombardier Recreational Products Lilliput Kidswear
Brakes Group MEI Group
Brenntag Michaels
Bright Horizons MYOB
Broder Bros., Co. NXP
Burlington Coat Factory Physio Control
Cerved Quintiles
China Fire and Security Group, Inc. Securitas Direct
Clear Channel Communications Sensata Technologies
Contec Sinomedia Holding Limited
CRC Health Group SkillSoft
Cumulus Media Skylark
D&M Holdings SquareTrade
Domino's Pizza Japan SUNAC
Dunkin' Brands SunGard
Edcon Suntel
EPOCH Holdings TeamSystem
FCI The Weather Channel
FleetCor Toys "R" Us
GA PACK Trinseo
GOME Unisource
Guitar Center Uniview
Gymboree Warner Chilcott
Gymboree China WorldPay
HCA
 
Superfreak said:
So we should be noble and let those vulnerable companies simply go under rather than try to make the unsuccessful, successful?

It is hilarious the way you word it... claiming they are trying to take advantage of the companies and employees? LMAO.
Click to expand...


I'm not "claiming" anything. That's how it works. Bain doesn't have to structure the deals the way that they structure them and does not have to reap enormous profits regardless of the success or failure of the target businesses. But they do it because they can. And they can because the businesses they invest in are distressed.

Like I said, it isn't legally wrong in any respect, but it isn't exactly the most admirable way to earn a living.
 
Superfreak said:
By helping them keep their jobs... yeah... ok... again, thanks for showing you have no clue what you are talking about on this issue.
Click to expand...


Let's get real. They aren't helping them keep their jobs. They're trying to make the most money they can possibly make. If that means firing every last employee, that's what they'll do. If it means keeping every last employee, they'll do that to. "Helping them keep their jobs" isn't how I would describe it.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
I'm not "claiming" anything. That's how it works. Bain doesn't have to structure the deals the way that they structure them and does not have to reap enormous profits regardless of the success or failure of the target businesses. But they do it because they can. And they can because the businesses they invest in are distressed.

Like I said, it isn't legally wrong in any respect, but it isn't exactly the most admirable way to earn a living.
Click to expand...

You are quite simply wrong. They make far more money on the deals that succeed long term than they do on companies that fail. Look at the Ampad deal Bijou keeps harping on. They lost their remaining third of the company along with the other stockholders. Had the company remained successful, they would have continue to profit with no additional effort.

You are simply spouting nonsense and pretending you understand the industry which you clearly do not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top