FACT CHECK: Romney met Bain partners after exit

[Synthaholic]

and so far there is nothing in that article or anywhere else that shows otherwise.

Playing a role in negotiating your departure is not playing a role in decisions as it pertains to day to day operations.

Pay attention to how your candidtae ius continually lying to you and stop trying to prove that the other candidate an equally pathological liar.

Pathological liar would be someone who said he didn't attend ANY meetings at Bain.

It really is simple. He filed a document with the SEC that identified him as the person responsible for anything that Bain did from 1999 - 2002. And he met with partners.

2 + 2 really does equal 4.

your lack of an understanding of how businesses operate...what constitutes being part of day to day operations...the role of an exiting owner...is not out of the ropdinary...but disturbing when you make believe you know what you are talking about.

I sold my company to an employee.....the buy out will take 5 years to complete. I am still beholden to file as owner with the IRS until the buyout is complete. I meet with her (the new owner) about once a month. I do not tell her what to do nor does she ask. I do, however, give her information regarding issues that arose in the past and how I dealt with them. That is not advising her what to do nor does she discuss her final decision on her current dilemma (whatever it may be)

So I am still an owner on paper...and in the eyes of the IRS....I meet with her monthly....and I have not a clue about any business transactions she is involved with.

Only because you did it that way. There is NOTHING in the law that forces you to take 5 years.

 

[Sallow]

i have an interest in fidelity

having an interest =/= making decisions



but you knew that

i guess romney is really making you nervous

You're the sole stock owner, CEO and President?

Man the people you meet on this site..

Hiya Eddie!

Or do you prefer Mr. Johnson!

ned

i can tell you're totally keyed in to the financial world

eddie

Had friends at Fidelity..but no real hooks there..so I looked it up.

Fidelity Investments: CEO and Executives - Businessweek

Businessweek wrong?

 

[Synthaholic]

Well, no, it's not a different issue. Separation from a company as large as Bain on short notice takes time. Yes he will be signing documents. I wish some knew how to comprehend the SEC report.
His claim was he was not hands on, did not make any decisions...right?

Romney's role became a campaign issue in recent weeks because corporate records from the time showed his interests in some of those deals - despite his insistence that he gave up any decision-making authority once he left Bain.

i have an interest in fidelity

having an interest =/= making decisions



but you knew that

i guess romney is really making you nervous

#1 definition. but you knew that.



Definition of INTEREST

1
a (1) : right, title, or legal share in something (2) : participation in advantage and responsibility b : business, company

2
a : a charge for borrowed money generally a percentage of the amount borrowed b : the profit in goods or money that is made on invested capital c : an excess above what is due or expected <returned the insults with interest>

3
: advantage, benefit; also : self-interest

4
: special interest

5
a : a feeling that accompanies or causes special attention to an object or class of objects : concern b : something that arouses such attention c : a quality in a thing arousing interest

 

[Jarhead]

I understand entirely how the financial business operates.

no offense...but if you did you NEVER would have written what you wrote in your posts in this thread.

Sorry bro...you are making an ass of yourself.

Never written what?

You talk about your personal business...without describing the type of business or why it took so long to sell it.

I owned a bar.

Took three weeks to close it down.

And that's with a huge mess with the IRS.

Closing a business down is not the same as transferring ownership.

Mine was a service company. I was sole shareholder...

I sold it to an employee who was with me for many years.....and I sold it for a relatively nice multiple of net margin.

However, she AS MOST PEOPLE, did not have the cash to buy it outright.....but her potential incvome from the firm over 5 years will allow her to pay about 20% of the sales price a year while still keeping some income so she can maintain her personal expenses.

So I sold it to her for zero dollars upfront....so I was still 100% sharholder at time of sale. My name is still on ALL contracts...with clients and vendors...many of those will expire over time and she will re-sign with her name.

However, per contract AND by my choice....I do not get iunvolved in ANY day to day decisions...EXCEPT ensuring my vendors under MY name are paid timely.....that is all she has the responsibility to show me monthly.

I will be primary shareholder for 2 years...taking a subordinate position in the thrid year....with absolutely NO involvement in day to day operations....

Like I said...you do not understand what is invoved in owenrship transfer.

 

[Synthaholic]

Prove it. That is not what the SEC doc states.
Give me an exact break down of what the SEC doc said, in 25 words or less.
It really is that simple!

The document states that Romney is President, Sole Share holder and CEO of Bain.

That clear enough?

I am currentlyu 80% sharehol;der of the company I sold...and I am in no way permitted to represent myself to the marketplace as owner by contract.

Next year I will be 60% shareholder.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

And that's how you decided to do it. Bully for you.

 

[Synthaholic]

Well, no, it's not a different issue. Separation from a company as large as Bain on short notice takes time. Yes he will be signing documents. I wish some knew how to comprehend the SEC report.
His claim was he was not hands on, did not make any decisions...right?

Romney's role became a campaign issue in recent weeks because corporate records from the time showed his interests in some of those deals - despite his insistence that he gave up any decision-making authority once he left Bain.

You really should stop whacking your head like that...although it explains a lot...

I see that you only ignore rudeness in one direction.

 

[Jarhead]

Pathological liar would be someone who said he didn't attend ANY meetings at Bain.

It really is simple. He filed a document with the SEC that identified him as the person responsible for anything that Bain did from 1999 - 2002. And he met with partners.

2 + 2 really does equal 4.

your lack of an understanding of how businesses operate...what constitutes being part of day to day operations...the role of an exiting owner...is not out of the ropdinary...but disturbing when you make believe you know what you are talking about.

I sold my company to an employee.....the buy out will take 5 years to complete. I am still beholden to file as owner with the IRS until the buyout is complete. I meet with her (the new owner) about once a month. I do not tell her what to do nor does she ask. I do, however, give her information regarding issues that arose in the past and how I dealt with them. That is not advising her what to do nor does she discuss her final decision on her current dilemma (whatever it may be)

So I am still an owner on paper...and in the eyes of the IRS....I meet with her monthly....and I have not a clue about any business transactions she is involved with.

Only because you did it that way. There is NOTHING in the law that forces you to take 5 years.

who said it was law?

But when there is tranfer of ownserhip with a company...it is more than usual to have it happen over time....

I mean....you really think someone...in my case AND IN BAINS case....buys a company and has the money to do it all at oince?

Do you realize how sales work? Multiples of ANNUAL NET MARGIN....

Sometimes 7 times net margin.....

Jeez...no offense....but you and Sallow dont want to learn....you guiys think you know all...

And I got news for you....you dont.

 

[del]

You're the sole stock owner, CEO and President?

Man the people you meet on this site..

Hiya Eddie!

Or do you prefer Mr. Johnson!

ned

i can tell you're totally keyed in to the financial world

eddie

Had friends at Fidelity..but no real hooks there..so I looked it up.

Fidelity Investments: CEO and Executives - Businessweek

Businessweek wrong?

he goes by ned.that would be a a fairly common diminuitive of edward.

i'd bet that 99.99% of people with any sort of connection to the financial world know this.

tell me again about what a financial expert you are.

because i'm totally believing you, really.

eddie

 

[SniperFire]

Romney now vaults to a 4% lead nationwide.

Keep up the assault on free enterprise, commies!

LOL


Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™

 

[Jarhead]

The document states that Romney is President, Sole Share holder and CEO of Bain.

That clear enough?

I am currentlyu 80% sharehol;der of the company I sold...and I am in no way permitted to represent myself to the marketplace as owner by contract.

Next year I will be 60% shareholder.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

And that's how you decided to do it. Bully for you.

True...many do it over 10 years.

I know one company who made a deal over a 20 year period.

OVER TIME IS THE ONLY FEASIBLE WAY TO DO IT....unless it is a takeover by a larger corporation.

 

[Synthaholic]

no offense...but if you did you NEVER would have written what you wrote in your posts in this thread.

Sorry bro...you are making an ass of yourself.

Never written what?

You talk about your personal business...without describing the type of business or why it took so long to sell it.

I owned a bar.

Took three weeks to close it down.

And that's with a huge mess with the IRS.

Closing a business down is not the same as transferring ownership.

Mine was a service company. I was sole shareholder...

I sold it to an employee who was with me for many years.....and I sold it for a relatively nice multiple of net margin.

However, she AS MOST PEOPLE, did not have the cash to buy it outright.....but her potential incvome from the firm over 5 years will allow her to pay about 20% of the sales price a year while still keeping some income so she can maintain her personal expenses.

So I sold it to her for zero dollars upfront....so I was still 100% sharholder at time of sale. My name is still on ALL contracts...with clients and vendors...many of those will expire over time and she will re-sign with her name.

However, per contract AND by my choice....I do not get iunvolved in ANY day to day decisions...EXCEPT ensuring my vendors under MY name are paid timely.....that is all she has the responsibility to show me monthly.

I will be primary shareholder for 2 years...taking a subordinate position in the thrid year....with absolutely NO involvement in day to day operations....

Like I said...you do not understand what is invoved in owenrship transfer.

This post reveals how clueless you are. You want to compare your situation to Bain Capital?

Bain Capital doesn't have the money to buy out Mittens?

Stop embarrassing yourself and back out of this thread.

 

[blastoff]

The more desperate the left gets the more desperate it gets. It's a tough way to campaign, constantly throwing up b.s. hoping something, anything, will stick. But when you're dead in the water like team Barry there's not much else to turn to.

Hey, look on the bright side. Come January Barry can concentrate on his first real job, managing his very own Chick-fil-A in his old Hyde Park neighborhood in Chicago.

 

[del]

Never written what?

You talk about your personal business...without describing the type of business or why it took so long to sell it.

I owned a bar.

Took three weeks to close it down.

And that's with a huge mess with the IRS.

Closing a business down is not the same as transferring ownership.

Mine was a service company. I was sole shareholder...

I sold it to an employee who was with me for many years.....and I sold it for a relatively nice multiple of net margin.

However, she AS MOST PEOPLE, did not have the cash to buy it outright.....but her potential incvome from the firm over 5 years will allow her to pay about 20% of the sales price a year while still keeping some income so she can maintain her personal expenses.

So I sold it to her for zero dollars upfront....so I was still 100% sharholder at time of sale. My name is still on ALL contracts...with clients and vendors...many of those will expire over time and she will re-sign with her name.

However, per contract AND by my choice....I do not get iunvolved in ANY day to day decisions...EXCEPT ensuring my vendors under MY name are paid timely.....that is all she has the responsibility to show me monthly.

I will be primary shareholder for 2 years...taking a subordinate position in the thrid year....with absolutely NO involvement in day to day operations....

Like I said...you do not understand what is invoved in owenrship transfer.

This post reveals how clueless you are. You want to compare your situation to Bain Capital?

Bain Capital doesn't have the money to buy out Mittens?

Stop embarrassing yourself and back out of this thread.

you should probably take your own advice.

depending on what he sold his interest for, i can easily believe that bain's cash flow wouldn't allow a lump sum payment or that romney didn't want to take the tax hit all in one year.

you should check with sallow though; he owned a bar that failed and is a financial expert.

 

[del]

it's good to see that the democrats are comfortable running on president obama's record of accomplishments, especially the fantastic job he's done managing the economy.

 

[Jarhead]

Never written what?

You talk about your personal business...without describing the type of business or why it took so long to sell it.

I owned a bar.

Took three weeks to close it down.

And that's with a huge mess with the IRS.

Closing a business down is not the same as transferring ownership.

Mine was a service company. I was sole shareholder...

I sold it to an employee who was with me for many years.....and I sold it for a relatively nice multiple of net margin.

However, she AS MOST PEOPLE, did not have the cash to buy it outright.....but her potential incvome from the firm over 5 years will allow her to pay about 20% of the sales price a year while still keeping some income so she can maintain her personal expenses.

So I sold it to her for zero dollars upfront....so I was still 100% sharholder at time of sale. My name is still on ALL contracts...with clients and vendors...many of those will expire over time and she will re-sign with her name.

However, per contract AND by my choice....I do not get iunvolved in ANY day to day decisions...EXCEPT ensuring my vendors under MY name are paid timely.....that is all she has the responsibility to show me monthly.

I will be primary shareholder for 2 years...taking a subordinate position in the thrid year....with absolutely NO involvement in day to day operations....

Like I said...you do not understand what is invoved in owenrship transfer.

This post reveals how clueless you are. You want to compare your situation to Bain Capital?

Bain Capital doesn't have the money to buy out Mittens?

Stop embarrassing yourself and back out of this thread.

No sir. Bain capital does not have the money to buy out Romney up front. You do not know how a corporation operates...you just proved that as well.

Companies do not keep millions of dollars "in the bank"...and they most certainly would not liguidate to buy out the sole owner.

Likewise, a sole owner would NEVER want to sell out 100% all at once and lose control of vendor contracts WITH HIS/HER NAME ON THEM......thus why most go with payout over time.

You are the one making an ass of yourself. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and it makes you look silly.
'
As hard as you try, you will NOT be able to out debate oin this topic. But please....continue......I am enjoying it.

 

[Jarhead]

Closing a business down is not the same as transferring ownership.

Mine was a service company. I was sole shareholder...

I sold it to an employee who was with me for many years.....and I sold it for a relatively nice multiple of net margin.

However, she AS MOST PEOPLE, did not have the cash to buy it outright.....but her potential incvome from the firm over 5 years will allow her to pay about 20% of the sales price a year while still keeping some income so she can maintain her personal expenses.

So I sold it to her for zero dollars upfront....so I was still 100% sharholder at time of sale. My name is still on ALL contracts...with clients and vendors...many of those will expire over time and she will re-sign with her name.

However, per contract AND by my choice....I do not get iunvolved in ANY day to day decisions...EXCEPT ensuring my vendors under MY name are paid timely.....that is all she has the responsibility to show me monthly.

I will be primary shareholder for 2 years...taking a subordinate position in the thrid year....with absolutely NO involvement in day to day operations....

Like I said...you do not understand what is invoved in owenrship transfer.

This post reveals how clueless you are. You want to compare your situation to Bain Capital?

Bain Capital doesn't have the money to buy out Mittens?

Stop embarrassing yourself and back out of this thread.

you should probably take your own advice.

depending on what he sold his interest for, i can easily believe that bain's cash flow wouldn't allow a lump sum payment or that romney didn't want to take the tax hit all in one year.

you should check with sallow though; he owned a bar that failed and is a financial expert.

I do not know the terms of his deal....but if it was a low end deal it was likely somewhere around 2 to 3% of netr margin.

That likely amounted to millions of dollars....and I highly doubt the new owners had that kind of cash laying around.

And Bain capital did not buy out Mitt.....the new owners did.

The fact that the business moron referred to how much Bain capital had shows he has no idea what he is talking about.

 

[Jarhead]

well...I guess that is that.
Once again...fact beats out naevity.

 

[Katzndogz]

Is this anything like obama having Solyndra executives kick back major political donations after they got a 535 million dollar stimulus check?

 

[Synthaholic]

Closing a business down is not the same as transferring ownership.

Mine was a service company. I was sole shareholder...

I sold it to an employee who was with me for many years.....and I sold it for a relatively nice multiple of net margin.

However, she AS MOST PEOPLE, did not have the cash to buy it outright.....but her potential incvome from the firm over 5 years will allow her to pay about 20% of the sales price a year while still keeping some income so she can maintain her personal expenses.

So I sold it to her for zero dollars upfront....so I was still 100% sharholder at time of sale. My name is still on ALL contracts...with clients and vendors...many of those will expire over time and she will re-sign with her name.

However, per contract AND by my choice....I do not get iunvolved in ANY day to day decisions...EXCEPT ensuring my vendors under MY name are paid timely.....that is all she has the responsibility to show me monthly.

I will be primary shareholder for 2 years...taking a subordinate position in the thrid year....with absolutely NO involvement in day to day operations....

Like I said...you do not understand what is invoved in owenrship transfer.

This post reveals how clueless you are. You want to compare your situation to Bain Capital?

Bain Capital doesn't have the money to buy out Mittens?

Stop embarrassing yourself and back out of this thread.

you should probably take your own advice.

depending on what he sold his interest for, i can easily believe that bain's cash flow wouldn't allow a lump sum payment or that romney didn't want to take the tax hit all in one year.

you should check with sallow though; he owned a bar that failed and is a financial expert.

So, you are comparing Jarhead's business with Bain? Same thing, different scale? Really?

If Mittens and Bain structured his departure over a 3 year period, that's one thing. If it turns out that during that 3 year interval, Mittens was still involved in decisions, that's quite another.

And your supposition doesn't explain why he would still be listed as President, CEO and SOLE stockholder for the ENTIRETY of the 3 years.

Maybe you should buy a bar!

 

[Synthaholic]

Closing a business down is not the same as transferring ownership.

Mine was a service company. I was sole shareholder...

I sold it to an employee who was with me for many years.....and I sold it for a relatively nice multiple of net margin.

However, she AS MOST PEOPLE, did not have the cash to buy it outright.....but her potential incvome from the firm over 5 years will allow her to pay about 20% of the sales price a year while still keeping some income so she can maintain her personal expenses.

So I sold it to her for zero dollars upfront....so I was still 100% sharholder at time of sale. My name is still on ALL contracts...with clients and vendors...many of those will expire over time and she will re-sign with her name.

However, per contract AND by my choice....I do not get iunvolved in ANY day to day decisions...EXCEPT ensuring my vendors under MY name are paid timely.....that is all she has the responsibility to show me monthly.

I will be primary shareholder for 2 years...taking a subordinate position in the thrid year....with absolutely NO involvement in day to day operations....

Like I said...you do not understand what is invoved in owenrship transfer.

This post reveals how clueless you are. You want to compare your situation to Bain Capital?

Bain Capital doesn't have the money to buy out Mittens?

Stop embarrassing yourself and back out of this thread.

No sir. Bain capital does not have the money to buy out Romney up front. You do not know how a corporation operates...you just proved that as well.

Companies do not keep millions of dollars "in the bank"...and they most certainly would not liguidate to buy out the sole owner.

Likewise, a sole owner would NEVER want to sell out 100% all at once and lose control of vendor contracts WITH HIS/HER NAME ON THEM......thus why most go with payout over time.

You are the one making an ass of yourself. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and it makes you look silly.
'
As hard as you try, you will NOT be able to out debate oin this topic. But please....continue......I am enjoying it.

Then the only conclusion one can come to, based on this post of yours, is that Mitt lied when he said he was out of Bain by 1999 and had "no role whatsoever".

And that, my friend, is the crux of the biscuit!