FACT CHECK: Romney met Bain partners after exit

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

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. :thup:
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! :)

mine was small potatos compared to Bain...but the legalities are the same.

My attorney suggested NO STOCK transfer until ALL contracts, both vendor AND customer, expired...and one vendor contract expires in 2014....

I passed on it becuase I wanted some cash annually as I was no longer taking cash from the company.

Again...you are out of your league with this debate. You do not understand what takes place when a sole owner transfers ownership to employees.
 
This post reveals how clueless you are. You want to compare your situation to Bain Capital? :lol:

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. :thup:
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! :)

yeah, pretty much, but only because it is.

i've already bought several bars.....for other people :D
 
This post reveals how clueless you are. You want to compare your situation to Bain Capital? :lol:

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!

I have no role in my company at all....none. Ensuring the obligation of my contract with the new owner is met does not mean I am playing a role. I dont care how she pays the venodrs.....I meet with her to ensure they were paid.

You are still making an ass of yourself. But please...continue.....
 
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!

I have no role in my company at all....none. Ensuring the obligation of my contract with the new owner is met does not mean I am playing a role. I dont care how she pays the venodrs.....I meet with her to ensure they were paid.

You are still making an ass of yourself. But please...continue.....
And you continue to want to treat every company, big or small, the same.

You had no further decision-making in your company, so Mitt must have had no further decision-making in his.

Laughable.
 
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!

I have no role in my company at all....none. Ensuring the obligation of my contract with the new owner is met does not mean I am playing a role. I dont care how she pays the venodrs.....I meet with her to ensure they were paid.

You are still making an ass of yourself. But please...continue.....
And you continue to want to treat every company, big or small, the same.

You had no further decision-making in your company, so Mitt must have had no further decision-making in his.

Laughable.

and yet with no evidence, you've decided romney did have a role in decision making after he left.

laughable
 
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!

I have no role in my company at all....none. Ensuring the obligation of my contract with the new owner is met does not mean I am playing a role. I dont care how she pays the venodrs.....I meet with her to ensure they were paid.

You are still making an ass of yourself. But please...continue.....
And you continue to want to treat every company, big or small, the same.

You had no further decision-making in your company, so Mitt must have had no further decision-making in his.

Laughable.

Nope...nopt saying that.

You see...I am staying on topic.

The topic of this thread was about the fact that Mitt was still meeting with Bain even though he said he had no role.

Sallow made a point that it was PROOF that he was lying...

SO I used my situation as an example of how those meetings in noi way are proof of anything.

Why?

Becuase those meetings may very well be Mitt ensuring that the terms and obligations of the sale were being met properly.

My contract has the buyer promising to offer me certain information as it pertains to the deal no less than 10 times a year IN PERSON and with no more than 45 days between each meeting...this allows me to never be more than 30 days in arrears with a vendor.

So again...not saying that is what Mitt was doing....but it most certainly could have.....tasking away the CERTAINTY that the meetings were proof Mitt lied.

So now...what were you saying?
 
Obama should run on his record; record debt, deficits, unemployment, homelessness, foreclosures, people living in poverty and our first ever credit downgrade
 
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.

No..I understand ownership transfer pretty well.

What I don't understand is the nonsense you are spewing.

Because you had some kludgey private deal doesn't mean that traverses every industry.

And was your "service" company, public? I doubt it. Because you probably didn't file with the SEC.

And even with that..it still sounds like you were 100% responsible for what happened to your business.
 
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!

I have no role in my company at all....none. Ensuring the obligation of my contract with the new owner is met does not mean I am playing a role. I dont care how she pays the venodrs.....I meet with her to ensure they were paid.

You are still making an ass of yourself. But please...continue.....

And..why..pray tell..would that even concern you?

:lol:
 
Obama should run on his record; record debt, deficits, unemployment, homelessness, foreclosures, people living in poverty and our first ever credit downgrade

If Romney "did it all himself", he should be telling us everything that happened at Bain, regardless of the date. :cool:
 
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.

No..I understand ownership transfer pretty well.

What I don't understand is the nonsense you are spewing.

Because you had some kludgey private deal doesn't mean that traverses every industry.

And was your "service" company, public? I doubt it. Because you probably didn't file with the SEC.

And even with that..it still sounds like you were 100% responsible for what happened to your business.

my goal was not to prove what Mitt was doing in those meetings.

My goal was to refute your theory that the fact that he attended those meetings is prrof he lied when he said he had no role in the business.

SO I used my sale contract as an example where I, still majority owner of the company on paper has a contractual obligation to STAY OUT OF the day to day operations of the company I am a majority owner of yet the new owner has a contractual obligation to meet with me face to face no less than 10 times a year over the next 5 years..untiul all stock is transferred. This is becuase I, as 100% owner until recently have my name on every vendor and client contract still in effect...and whereas I can not intervene in any decision she (the new owner) makes, I have the right to know if it will have an adverse affect on my personal reputation, credibility and credit rating...and at that point I am permitted to have an independant auditor review the activities if there is evindience of her being in breach of contract.

And that is exactly what I did. I successfully refuted your theory that Mitt attending those meetings is proof he lied about playing a roile in Bain after his departure.

He may have played a role...he may not have. But meetings with the new ownership is by no means proof.
 
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!

I have no role in my company at all....none. Ensuring the obligation of my contract with the new owner is met does not mean I am playing a role. I dont care how she pays the venodrs.....I meet with her to ensure they were paid.

You are still making an ass of yourself. But please...continue.....

And..why..pray tell..would that even concern you?

:lol:

because he signed the contracts with the vendors and his credit is at stake.

maybe you should catch a meeting with tommy?

Alcoholics Anonymous :
 
Is Bain all you have and noone cares how sad is THAT? So what the guys made millions doing business, OMG he increased profits by outsourcing, because American unions jacked up labor costs.....I dont know if he did do these things, but even if he did....HINT NOONE CARES...because liberals that are rich DO THE SAME SHIT...you lose!

You don't speak for "noone". You don't even speak well for yourself. I'm sure you don't "care" about a lot of things that matter to millions of thoughtful Americans.
 
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.

No..I understand ownership transfer pretty well.

What I don't understand is the nonsense you are spewing.

Because you had some kludgey private deal doesn't mean that traverses every industry.

And was your "service" company, public? I doubt it. Because you probably didn't file with the SEC.

And even with that..it still sounds like you were 100% responsible for what happened to your business.

my goal was not to prove what Mitt was doing in those meetings.

My goal was to refute your theory that the fact that he attended those meetings is prrof he lied when he said he had no role in the business.

SO I used my sale contract as an example where I, still majority owner of the company on paper has a contractual obligation to STAY OUT OF the day to day operations of the company I am a majority owner of yet the new owner has a contractual obligation to meet with me face to face no less than 10 times a year over the next 5 years..untiul all stock is transferred. This is becuase I, as 100% owner until recently have my name on every vendor and client contract still in effect...and whereas I can not intervene in any decision she (the new owner) makes, I have the right to know if it will have an adverse affect on my personal reputation, credibility and credit rating...and at that point I am permitted to have an independant auditor review the activities if there is evindience of her being in breach of contract.

And that is exactly what I did. I successfully refuted your theory that Mitt attending those meetings is proof he lied about playing a roile in Bain after his departure.

He may have played a role...he may not have. But meetings with the new ownership is by no means proof.

Stop.

You post falls apart right here.

Romney says..there were no meetings.

Romney says..there was no involvement with Bain..whatsoever.

He's lying.

And what this boils down to is this. Romney is running on his record at Bain. An examination into Bain finds the company was wildly successful at making it's investors a huge profit. But generally at a cost to the average joe and their jobs. This didn't only occur after 1999..mind you. Romney invested in Chinese companies prior to that who's interest it was to move American jobs to China.

I mean..that's fine. He made money doing it. It was nothing illegal.

And the whole focus of the GOP is not Labor..but entrepreneurs, owners and executives.

They say that constantly. I dunno why they run away from it when they are grilled about it.
 
Obama should run on his record; record debt, deficits, unemployment, homelessness, foreclosures, people living in poverty and our first ever credit downgrade

If Romney "did it all himself", he should be telling us everything that happened at Bain, regardless of the date. :cool:

What does this have to do with Obama's abysmal record as President, other than the distraction factor that is?
 
I have no role in my company at all....none. Ensuring the obligation of my contract with the new owner is met does not mean I am playing a role. I dont care how she pays the venodrs.....I meet with her to ensure they were paid.

You are still making an ass of yourself. But please...continue.....

And..why..pray tell..would that even concern you?

:lol:

because he signed the contracts with the vendors and his credit is at stake.

maybe you should catch a meeting with tommy?

Alcoholics Anonymous :

Exactly.

Give this ostrich a cigar.

:eusa_clap:

Excuse me..emu.

Aw what the heck..it's all meat to me.
 
ROMNEY: Jan, I had no involvement with the management of Bain Capital after February of 1999.

And how does having a meeting to ensure that his exit is handled properly consist of "involvement with the managment of Bain Capital.....?"

Answer for those of you still holding on to the thinnest thread of comprehension..... It doesn't.

Rick
 
FACT CHECK: Romney met Bain partners after exit



WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said he had no active role in Bain Capital, the private equity firm he founded, after he exited in February 1999 to take over Salt Lake City's Winter Olympics bid. But according to Bain associates and others familiar with Romney's actions at the time, he stayed in regular contact with his partners over the following months, tending to his partnership interests and negotiating his separation from the company.

Those familiar with Romney's discussions with his Bain partners said the contacts included several meetings in Boston, the company's home base, but were limited to matters that did not affect the firm's investments or other management decisions. Yet Romney continued to oversee his partnership stakes even as he disengaged from the firm, personally signing or approving a series of corporate and legal documents through the spring of 2001, according to financial reports reviewed by The Associated Press.

The details of Romney's contacts with his Bain partners between his 1999 departure and his separation from the company in mid-2001 could show how involved he was - either as CEO or passive investor - in several multimillion-dollar investment deals, bankruptcies and a spate of layoffs and overseas job shifts at Bain-owned companies that reportedly occurred during that span. 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.


*snip*

nothing new here period...and AP starts off with misinformation;

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said he had no active role in Bain Capital, the private equity firm he founded, after he exited in February 1999 to take over Salt Lake City's Winter Olympics bid.


he didn't exit, he was on a leave of absence.

and from your link;

Those familiar with Romney's discussions with his Bain partners said the contacts included several meetings in Boston, the company's home base, but were limited to matters that did not affect the firm's investments or other management decisions.



whats your problem dude? seriously? bored?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top