NEW ROMNEY VIDEO: In 1985, He Said Bain Would "Harvest" Companies for Profits

page: 1
28
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+3 more 
posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   
NEW ROMNEY VIDEO: In 1985, He Said Bain Would "Harvest" Companies for Profits
(motherjones.com)

Mother Jones is back, and this clip may make the 47% clip look pale in comparison...


This clip shows the young CEO focusing on businesses as targets for his investors, not as job creators or community stakeholders.

—By David Corn | Thu Sep. 27, 2012 3:00 AM PDT

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



But at Bain, Romney's top priority wasn't to boost employment. As the Wall Street Journal recently noted, creating jobs "wasn't the aim of Bain or other private-equity firms, which measure success by returns produced for investors." And, the newspaper reported, Romney's 100,000-jobs claim is tough to evaluate.

Mother Jones has obtained a video from 1985 in which Romney, describing Bain's formation, showed how he viewed the firm's mission. He explained that its goal was to identify potential and hidden value in companies, buy significant stakes in these businesses, and then "harvest them at a significant profit" within five to eight years.


This is not a 'leaked' video or a hidden camera. The video was created by Romney and Bain's marketing department as part of a 1998 promotion to it's investors. It's straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.


The video was included in a CD-ROM created in 1998 to mark the 25th anniversary of Bain & Company, the consulting firm that gave birth to Bain Capital. Here is the full clip, as it appeared on that CD-ROM (the editing occurred within the original)




Partial transcript (see source for full transcript):

TRANSCRIPT: Bain Capital is an investment partnership which was formed to invest in startup companies and ongoing companies, then to take an active hand in managing them and hopefully, five to eight years later, to harvest them at a significant profit…


Additional videos at the source.

"Harvest" companies for profit - yes, well that is an ugly side of capitalism. But Bain's brand of capitalism isn't just 'turning around' unhealthy companies or harvesting them, we have too many examples of what they did to some companies - buy companies using leveraged buyouts, rack up debt in their name or drain them of their capital, bankrupt them and force creditors to take massive losses, sell their assets while forcing the workers to lose their pensions or shares along with laying them off. Close down American factories and re-open them in China, India, or Mexico. Cook the books and shift the profits into offshore blocker corporations. Make millions while the workers, the pension holders go broke. And call yourself an "Patriotic American" while doing all that.

David Corn makes ends his article with this observation:


In this clip, Romney mentioned that it would routinely take up to eight years to turn around a firm—though he now slams the president for failing to revive the entire US economy in half that time.




posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
They're all so flipping crooked. Our system is broken!



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
That's not as bad as harvesting the middle class for conquest by the NWO overlords.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   
The term "harvest" may not mean as much to some, regarding how Bain and Romney intended to extract their wealth from the process of investing in or de-investing in their acquired companies. What made Bain/Romney's practice so destructive to the companies they acquired was HOW they acquired them - maximizing the use of the leveraged buyout - s this Bloomberg article explains, which loaded the companies with debt, "socialized" the risks and privatized the profits:

Romney’s Bain Yielded Private Gains, Socialized Losses
(bloomberg.com)


What’s clear from a review of the public record during his management of the private-equity firm Bain Capital from 1985 to 1999 is that Romney was fabulously successful in generating high returns for its investors. He did so, in large part, through heavy use of tax-deductible debt, usually to finance outsized dividends for the firm’s partners and investors. When some of the investments went bad, workers and creditors felt most of the pain. Romney privatized the gains and socialized the losses.


Thanks to leverage, 10 of roughly 67 major deals by Bain Capital during Romney’s watch produced about 70 percent of the firm’s profits. Four of those 10 deals, as well as others, later wound up in bankruptcy. It’s worth examining some of them to understand Romney’s investment style at Bain Capital.


The article is a must read to begin to understand the more destructive side of this type of vulture capitalism.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 01:39 AM
link   
In retrospect, it looks like he had a good harvest.




posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 


You know that Interesting Man in your avatar is a very vocal Obama supporter, right?



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Relevant to this thread;


In 1992, Bain Capital bought American Pad & Paper by financing 87 percent of the purchase price. In the next three years, Ampad borrowed to make acquisitions, repay existing debt and pay Bain Capital and its investors $60 million in dividends.

As a result, the company’s debt swelled from $11 million in 1993 to $444 million by 1995. The $14 million in annual interest expense on this debt dwarfed the company’s $4.7 million operating cash flow. The proceeds of an initial public offering in July 1996 were used to pay Bain Capital $48 million for part of its stake and to reduce the company’s debt to $270 million.

From 1993 to 1999, Bain Capital charged Ampad about $18 million in various fees. By 1999, the company’s debt was back up to $400 million. Unable to pay the interest costs and drained of cash paid to Bain Capital in fees and dividends, Ampad filed for bankruptcy the following year. Senior secured lenders got less than 50 cents on the dollar, unsecured lenders received two- tenths of a cent on the dollar, and several hundred jobs were lost. Bain Capital had reaped capital gains of $107 million on its $5.1 million investment.


Romney took AmPad's debt from 11 million (prior to being acquired by Bain) to $444 million. Unreal. This is the guy running for president?


I'm reminded of the current situation in Romney's campaign: his campaign is in deep debt, just borrowed another round of millions of dollars - that he then hands out massive bonuses to his staffers.

Mitt Hands Top Staff Hefty Bonuses While Borrowing Millions

Mitt Romney’s campaign handed out more than $200,000 in bonuses last month to senior staffers, according to new disclosure records filed Thursday.

Richard Beeson, Romney’s national political director, received a $37,500 payment on Aug. 31 in addition to his salary, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission.

In addition, records show at least six other top staffers each received $25,000 bonuses on the same date: campaign manager Matt Rhoades, general counsel Kathryn Biber, policy advisor Lanhee Chen, communications director Gail Gitcho, digital director Zach Moffatt and advisor Gabriel Schoenfeld. Two other employees received $10,000 bonuses......

Despite strong fundraising since May, new records show that the campaign was struggling badly for money in August because it had run low on primary funds and was unable to tap into contributions collected for the general election until after the nomination. As a result, the campaign borrowed $20 million.


That is Romney's business acumen- straight from Wall Street - borrow heavily while paying out those big bonuses.




posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Romney personifies what the GOP stands for. Big business and profits.

He is their poster child.

It's sad to see people on ATS cheering on a corporate leech to be president.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   
So basicly, Romeny was just "redistributing" wealth....from a failing company, to a company that was succeding...where the money could be used to help someone else...or another company that could be fixed...instead of a dying one



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
The term "harvest" may not mean as much to some, regarding how Bain and Romney intended to extract their wealth from the process of investing in or de-investing in their acquired companies. What made Bain/Romney's practice so destructive to the companies they acquired was HOW they acquired them - maximizing the use of the leveraged buyout - s this Bloomberg article explains, which loaded the companies with debt, "socialized" the risks and privatized the profits:


It is so disheartening to see this thread as my first thread. Not in quality, but in result.

You wrote facts, backed them all up, and proved everything Romney says makes him a good candidate for POTUS is completely wrong and the first two responses are basically "So....um look at this other thing...."

Romney is the worst thing that can happen to the American Economy ever...or maybe not. I bet he changed his mind about Bain's goal on a daily basis much like he changes all his core beliefs each time the wind shifts.


What his company did is disgusting. I used to live in a nice middle class town with lots of great little stores. Now I live just outside a ghetto with 3 super walmarts. Bain Capital and their ilk have done nothing but shift American money from the middle class to overseas accounts held by rich people who love what they can get from living and working in the US without ever wanting to contribute anything back.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   


It drives me nuts that people find this offensive. Success has become so villified, I'm convinced we have become a nation of lazy-ass, envious, whiners.

'Harvest' means they bought companies, made them more valuable through investment, and later sold them for a profit.

The fact that people are offended by the term is simply stupid.


What should they have done? Bought businesses....invested heavily in them...and then lost money????


edit on 28-9-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


Solyndra employees and Taxpayers agree!




posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro


In retrospect, it looks like he had a good harvest.



My favorite clip artist is back!!!!
I saw you post twice in a row with real words instead of just pictures so I was worried.
Have a source for that pic or any facts to go along with it or are we just supposed to be dazzled by the juxtaposition of opposing colors?

Just looking at your time here and participation level, I would find it exciting to hear what you think in your own words about a topic other than Michelle Obama's looks.

Do you think it is a good idea for the President of the United states to have a history of moving our wealth not only more and more into the top few but also to China?




posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


I don't buy the paint by numbers crap.


Vilify the free markets at your peril.

I think some injustices can be resolved without evicerating the mechanisms that provide the very best opportunities for our prosperity.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Romney took AmPad's debt from 11 million (prior to being acquired by Bain) to $444 million. Unreal. This is the guy running for president?


I'm reminded of the current situation in Romney's campaign: his campaign is in deep debt, just borrowed another round of millions of dollars - that he then hands out massive bonuses to his staffers.



I get it now!

See, all this time he has been telling us how great he would be because his business experience. That means he is a business guy. He wears ties and stuff so of course he was good.
Apparently no one really seemed too interested in finding out his his business was good for the country. I hear there are good businessmen in Iraq. I wonder if that qualifies them as POTUS?

This guy is evil to his core. Hearing him talk sounds exactly like this reality you are spelling out is. He just sounds like someone who does not even remotely understand what it might be like to not be able to afford something you needed.

I will not veer off topic in your thread but this stuff together with what he did during the Vietnam war make a lot of sense together now. I think it says a lot of the same things about that type of personality.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   


Mitt Romney is a parasite.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


By no means would I vilify.

I believe Obama has failed, for the simple fact he doesn't know anything about economics, or how it works.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Fair enough. I didn't mean you.

But i swear the way I read some of the comments in this thread, it's filled with collectivist ideology.

:shk:

Obsessing about a term used in a business context....one that frankly is a term of art...just seems stupid to me.
edit on 28-9-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Romney personifies what the GOP stands for. Big business and profits.

He is their poster child.

It's sad to see people on ATS cheering on a corporate leech to be president.




Isn't it?

I mean of all places. Partisanship, party, even most politics aside. You would think that ATS would not be a place to find cheerleaders for a corporate shill like this man. I get all the people that hate Obama so much they have decided they like Romney but I did not expect them to find ATS. I thought people here were capable of supporting/hating Obama and completely separately also seeing the huge faults Romney has. Most of them fit right in with most of the thread on here.
He stands for things like Monsanto profiting over people getting fat and sick and dead.
He stands for things like poisoning the air with scary toxic chemicals if it makes the company more money.
He stands for supporting Communist regimes if their slave labor can turn him a better, non US taxed profit.
I thought ATS would see through this guy all the way around. Not just some people.
edit on 28-9-2012 by wascurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 03:06 AM
link   
So Romney was highly successful at his job. What a bastard! Obviously we can't have someone that can turn a profit in charge! Was job creation his goal at the time? No. Return on investment was, and he did a great job. He's always done a good job. While in politics he listened to his constituents and did what they asked, even if he didn't agree. Don't let reverse racists warp your mind (even the ones that pretend they don't lick Obama boot), Romney is the only choice.





top topics
 
28
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join