Obama Superpac Runs "Romney Killed My Wife" Ad

[thanatos144]

Good point. Explains why German brands are considered quality, doesn't it?

Ever notice that when a conservative talks about "liberty", it usually means the ability of rich people to act like douchebags?

What the fuck do you facists even know about liberty??????? It isnt something that is only for the elite you dumbass.

Now, you see, that's the thing. How do yo define "liberty".

You guys - and not you, because i doubt you do anything all that important- defend the privilage of the wealthy. That was the point.

Real liberty would be Joe Soptic and a bunch of his boys getting Mitt in a back room with baseball bats and no consequences.

But we don't have that. We have "liberty" that just protects Mitt's right to make a fast buck of their livelihoods.

So mitt should be assaulted for a lie Joe told?

 

[Conservative]

Right. That's THEIR priority.

That's not MY Priority.

Being a patriot and a veteran, my priority is THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY.

This is not good for the country in any way, shape or form.

Now, I'll happily send Romney back to the world of investment, but don't put this lowlife scumbag in charge of my country.

So, do you think every company who gets themselves into trouble should get a government bailout?... regardless of whether they have any further potential to return to profitability?

I think we should treat our industries like they are national assets. Which is what every other country- including China - does.

Why do you never hear about the Japanese equivlent of a Romney, a vulture capitalist? Because their societies wouldn't tolerate that sort of thing.

the only trouble GS Steel got into was trusting Bain Capital.

Japan Venture Capital Association JVCA

dumb ass.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, what Romney does really can't be called "Venture Capital"....

Venture Capital takes start ups and develops them. Romney and his boys took established companies and looted the shit out of them.

Which in most of the civilized world, wouldn't be tolerated.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Actually, what Romney does really can't be called "Venture Capital"....

Venture Capital takes start ups and develops them. Romney and his boys took established companies and looted the shit out of them.

Which in most of the civilized world, wouldn't be tolerated.

Bought failing companies to loot their failure ?

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, what Romney does really can't be called "Venture Capital"....

Venture Capital takes start ups and develops them. Romney and his boys took established companies and looted the shit out of them.

Which in most of the civilized world, wouldn't be tolerated.

Bought failing companies to loot their failure ?

GS Steel was around for 105 years before Bain got their hooks into them.

AmPad was around for 100 years and was the leading name in paper products.

They bought these companies, loaded them down with debt, paid themselves shitloads of money, and let the companies go tits up.

And he wants to do the same with America.

 

[Shelzin]

Actually, what Romney does really can't be called "Venture Capital"....

Venture Capital takes start ups and develops them. Romney and his boys took established companies and looted the shit out of them.

Which in most of the civilized world, wouldn't be tolerated.

Bought failing companies to loot their failure ?

Actually... Yes.

When you can take a loan out via the company, to pay yourself, and then have the company go under but to no hit to you... Yes. The companies that they closed, they didn't lose money on. The company did... But they didn't.

Think of it kind of like the 401k managing assholes. They got payed... Even though everyone else got fucked.

 

[candycorn]

Actually, what Romney does really can't be called "Venture Capital"....

Venture Capital takes start ups and develops them. Romney and his boys took established companies and looted the shit out of them.

Which in most of the civilized world, wouldn't be tolerated.

Bought failing companies to loot their failure ?

Actually... Yes.

When you can take a loan out via the company, to pay yourself, and then have the company go under but to no hit to you... Yes. The companies that they closed, they didn't lose money on. The company did... But they didn't.

Think of it kind of like the 401k managing assholes. They got payed... Even though everyone else got fucked.

You know, I'll never understand why the right can't wrap their heads around this concept:

Dunkin' Brands Swimming in Debt - TheStreet

Dunkin' Brands Swimming in Debt

Debra Borchardt
07/26/11 - 03:36 PM EDT
NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- On the positive side of the ledger, Dunkin' Donuts holds the No. 1 position in servings for hot coffee, iced coffee and donuts. The negative? The company is also weighed down with a crippling amount of debt.

The heavy leverage stems from the $2.4 billion buyout of the purveyor of coffee and donuts by a private equity consortium consisting of Bain Capital, Carlyle Group and Thomas H. Lee Partners back in 2006.

Now the parent company of the chain, Dunkin' Brands(DNKN), which also owns the Baskin-Robbins ice cream chain, is looking to raise nearly $400 million in an initial public offering expected to price later Tuesday with the shares seen selling in a range of $16-$18 each. The offering is reportedly heavily subscribed and could very likely price above range at $20 per share.

Part of the strong interest is because of brand recognition. Aside from coffee, Dunkin' Donuts is also the No. 2 seller of breakfast sandwiches, and Baskin-Robbins is No. 1 for servings of hard ice cream. Investors like to buy stock in companies they are familiar with.

Unfortunately, there should be some concern about the debt load, which stood at $1.87 billion as of March 26, according to the company's original S-1 filing on May 24. The service on that debt load is putting major pressure on the business model. In 2010, 58% of operating earnings went to interest payments. In the latest March 2011 quarter those payments have climbed to 75%.

While some of the offering proceeds will go to pay down debt, it won't be enough. This doesn't leave much money left over for growth.

On top of that, the private equity owners have already paid themselves $500 million ahead of the offering. While this isn't uncommon, it's still pushed the book value of Dunkin' Brands shares into negative territory.

Francis Gaskins, the president of the IPO Desktop, says the proposed valuation also looks pricey with the estimated range putting the stock in line with McDonald's(MCD) on a price-to-earnings ratio basis.

"I'd rather own McDonald's than Dunkin'," Gaskins says.

This is the first of several food related companies going public, so it's difficult to gauge the expected performance. Teavana and Chefs Wholesale are also scheduled for offerings during the week.

The quick service sector has performed well this past year with Starbucks (SBUX) up 60% and McDonald's up 24% for the past year. Both companies are aggressively pursuing the coffee crowd.

Dunkin' plans to offer Keurig K-cups to stay on trend, but that is a relatively new development and there's no track record for this initiative yet. Dunkin' also offers Coolatta frozen drinks, a category that's been a big hit at McDonald's.

--Written by Debra Borchardt in New York.

This is what they do.

Again, this is what they do. They take over a company, leverage it down to the doorknobs, pay themselves back then legitimately try to turn a profit with the brand. But it is ALWAYS a "Heads I win, Tails you Lose" proposition; they never take a bath unless they can't arrange for the bank to loan them money against the company's assets. That is arranged well in advance.

If the right were to call Bain and ask them, they would say, "Yes, that sounds right." about the story above. There is nothing illegal about it. Arguably there is nothing immoral. It just has messy consequences.

The message in the ad, in case it has been forgotten, is that Romney doesn't know (or care) about those consequences. Most CEO's don't know and a whole lot of them do not care. It's not in their employer's interest to care.

Again, not illegal; arguably not immoral. Just messy.

As you may have read in the article, it is about the stock roll-out. The Stock is currently a "sell" rec from Schwab. Motley Fool posits the following:

With this in mind, it should be no surprise that most publically traded portfolio companies have significantly more debt relative to size than their competitors do. The experiences of Dunkin' Brands (Nasdaq: DNKN ) , Domino's Pizza (NYSE: DPZ ) , and Burger King (NYSE: BKW ) serve as representative examples, each of which continues to suffer from the one-time affections of private equity firms like Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, Blackstone Group (NYSE: BX ) , or American Capital (Nasdaq: ACAS ) . As you can see in the table below, all of these companies have significantly more debt on their balance sheets than equity. And when you exclude intangible assets, all three have negative book values in excess of $1.4 billion.

Negative Book Values!

The argument about if Bain benefits companies is an open question. They have successes. The "successes" may or may not come at the expense of the workers of those companies. The argument some have that, "They should just be happy they still have jobs" is something to consider; it is better to make $8 than $0.

What isn't an open question is this; Bain always benefits itself first. Always. No exceptions.

 

[chanel]

Don't most companies do that? Or should I say ALL?

 

[candycorn]

Don't most companies do that? Or should I say ALL?

Do what?

 

[Shelzin]

Don't most companies do that? Or should I say ALL?

*blink*blink*

Uhh... No. Most business owners want their business to succeed because it's their livelihood. What Bain does is make tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars if the business succeeds or fails. Failure in business should never have a reward outside of a lesson learned.

"I own this business!!! Oh... it failed. Well... Give myself 10 million for my time"

Is ... bullshit.

 

[thanatos144]

Don't most companies do that? Or should I say ALL?

*blink*blink*

Uhh... No. Most business owners want their business to succeed because it's their livelihood. What Bain does is make tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars if the business succeeds or fails. Failure in business should never have a reward outside of a lesson learned.

"I own this business!!! Oh... it failed. Well... Give myself 10 million for my time"

Is ... bullshit.

You are confusing them with Obama's administration.

 

[Shelzin]

Don't most companies do that? Or should I say ALL?

*blink*blink*

Uhh... No. Most business owners want their business to succeed because it's their livelihood. What Bain does is make tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars if the business succeeds or fails. Failure in business should never have a reward outside of a lesson learned.

"I own this business!!! Oh... it failed. Well... Give myself 10 million for my time"

Is ... bullshit.

You are confusing them with Obama's administration.

No I'm not... I think they are both equally crooked. What's your excuse?

 

[thanatos144]

*blink*blink*

Uhh... No. Most business owners want their business to succeed because it's their livelihood. What Bain does is make tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars if the business succeeds or fails. Failure in business should never have a reward outside of a lesson learned.

"I own this business!!! Oh... it failed. Well... Give myself 10 million for my time"

Is ... bullshit.

You are confusing them with Obama's administration.

No I'm not... I think they are both equally crooked. What's your excuse?

Really? solyndra. Nuff said

 

[Jarhead]

Don't most companies do that? Or should I say ALL?

*blink*blink*

Uhh... No. Most business owners want their business to succeed because it's their livelihood. What Bain does is make tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars if the business succeeds or fails. Failure in business should never have a reward outside of a lesson learned.

"I own this business!!! Oh... it failed. Well... Give myself 10 million for my time"

Is ... bullshit.

So you are criticing a company who does its best to take an ALREADY FAILING company and attempt to turn it around but fails to do so.

Interesting.

 

[Shelzin]

Don't most companies do that? Or should I say ALL?

*blink*blink*

Uhh... No. Most business owners want their business to succeed because it's their livelihood. What Bain does is make tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars if the business succeeds or fails. Failure in business should never have a reward outside of a lesson learned.

"I own this business!!! Oh... it failed. Well... Give myself 10 million for my time"

Is ... bullshit.

So you are criticing a company who does its best to take an ALREADY FAILING company and attempt to turn it around but fails to do so.

Interesting.

I'm criticizing the process where it really doesn't matter if you win or lose, you get paid. Extremely well.

Now... If instead they put that tens, even hundreds at times, million dollars into the business I would venture it would have a much easier time to "turn it around" as you put it. It's all about Risk/Reward. Thing is, there is no risk for this type of shady ass business. They are coming away as rich cocksuckers no matter how it plays out. That's what I call a parasite to a "free market"... The only people who take the loss is the people who actually work for a living.

Edit: I guess I should note here that I don't like unions... Because some idiot is going to think I'm defending them when I am attacking something that is wrong that's on topic.

 

[Shelzin]

You are confusing them with Obama's administration.

No I'm not... I think they are both equally crooked. What's your excuse?

Really? solyndra. Nuff said

Are you daft or something? I just said that Obama is just as crooked as this kind of bullshit.

 

[beagle9]

Bought failing companies to loot their failure ?

Actually... Yes.

When you can take a loan out via the company, to pay yourself, and then have the company go under but to no hit to you... Yes. The companies that they closed, they didn't lose money on. The company did... But they didn't.

Think of it kind of like the 401k managing assholes. They got payed... Even though everyone else got fucked.

You know, I'll never understand why the right can't wrap their heads around this concept:

Dunkin' Brands Swimming in Debt - TheStreet

Dunkin' Brands Swimming in Debt

Debra Borchardt
07/26/11 - 03:36 PM EDT
NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- On the positive side of the ledger, Dunkin' Donuts holds the No. 1 position in servings for hot coffee, iced coffee and donuts. The negative? The company is also weighed down with a crippling amount of debt.

The heavy leverage stems from the $2.4 billion buyout of the purveyor of coffee and donuts by a private equity consortium consisting of Bain Capital, Carlyle Group and Thomas H. Lee Partners back in 2006.

Now the parent company of the chain, Dunkin' Brands(DNKN), which also owns the Baskin-Robbins ice cream chain, is looking to raise nearly $400 million in an initial public offering expected to price later Tuesday with the shares seen selling in a range of $16-$18 each. The offering is reportedly heavily subscribed and could very likely price above range at $20 per share.

Part of the strong interest is because of brand recognition. Aside from coffee, Dunkin' Donuts is also the No. 2 seller of breakfast sandwiches, and Baskin-Robbins is No. 1 for servings of hard ice cream. Investors like to buy stock in companies they are familiar with.

Unfortunately, there should be some concern about the debt load, which stood at $1.87 billion as of March 26, according to the company's original S-1 filing on May 24. The service on that debt load is putting major pressure on the business model. In 2010, 58% of operating earnings went to interest payments. In the latest March 2011 quarter those payments have climbed to 75%.

While some of the offering proceeds will go to pay down debt, it won't be enough. This doesn't leave much money left over for growth.

On top of that, the private equity owners have already paid themselves $500 million ahead of the offering. While this isn't uncommon, it's still pushed the book value of Dunkin' Brands shares into negative territory.

Francis Gaskins, the president of the IPO Desktop, says the proposed valuation also looks pricey with the estimated range putting the stock in line with McDonald's(MCD) on a price-to-earnings ratio basis.

"I'd rather own McDonald's than Dunkin'," Gaskins says.

This is the first of several food related companies going public, so it's difficult to gauge the expected performance. Teavana and Chefs Wholesale are also scheduled for offerings during the week.

The quick service sector has performed well this past year with Starbucks (SBUX) up 60% and McDonald's up 24% for the past year. Both companies are aggressively pursuing the coffee crowd.

Dunkin' plans to offer Keurig K-cups to stay on trend, but that is a relatively new development and there's no track record for this initiative yet. Dunkin' also offers Coolatta frozen drinks, a category that's been a big hit at McDonald's.

--Written by Debra Borchardt in New York.

This is what they do.

Again, this is what they do. They take over a company, leverage it down to the doorknobs, pay themselves back then legitimately try to turn a profit with the brand. But it is ALWAYS a "Heads I win, Tails you Lose" proposition; they never take a bath unless they can't arrange for the bank to loan them money against the company's assets. That is arranged well in advance.

If the right were to call Bain and ask them, they would say, "Yes, that sounds right." about the story above. There is nothing illegal about it. Arguably there is nothing immoral. It just has messy consequences.

The message in the ad, in case it has been forgotten, is that Romney doesn't know (or care) about those consequences. Most CEO's don't know and a whole lot of them do not care. It's not in their employer's interest to care.

Again, not illegal; arguably not immoral. Just messy.

As you may have read in the article, it is about the stock roll-out. The Stock is currently a "sell" rec from Schwab. Motley Fool posits the following:

With this in mind, it should be no surprise that most publically traded portfolio companies have significantly more debt relative to size than their competitors do. The experiences of Dunkin' Brands (Nasdaq: DNKN ) , Domino's Pizza (NYSE: DPZ ) , and Burger King (NYSE: BKW ) serve as representative examples, each of which continues to suffer from the one-time affections of private equity firms like Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, Blackstone Group (NYSE: BX ) , or American Capital (Nasdaq: ACAS ) . As you can see in the table below, all of these companies have significantly more debt on their balance sheets than equity. And when you exclude intangible assets, all three have negative book values in excess of $1.4 billion.

Negative Book Values!

The argument about if Bain benefits companies is an open question. They have successes. The "successes" may or may not come at the expense of the workers of those companies. The argument some have that, "They should just be happy they still have jobs" is something to consider; it is better to make $8 than $0.

What isn't an open question is this; Bain always benefits itself first. Always. No exceptions.

This is exactly simular to or is also happening within another (name *Group*) who had taken over a major corporation or two that I know of, and they did this in the same way I guess, by placing it's eyes upon it's built up assets etc. in which the large lumbering companies had aquirred over the years.. There seems to have become a learned pattern found here in all of this, in which has taken place in America now by these (name*groups*), who undoubtedly knew way back what the Nafta agreement would do to this nations long standing corporations or major companies owned, and this on down the road a ways. These companies would soon become sitting ducks down the road or quickly afterwards, and so they positioned themselves right nicely to take advantage of the fall out when it came to their attention (smelled blood in the water) finally.

What I am hearing now, is that the CEO of this group, told the general managers of these companies who are under him and this group, that there will be no more investment into these companies by the *group*, and therefore the companies will either make it on their own merit now or fall now. So the deal has been sealed and the fall cometh quickly now maybe ? There are rumors floating around that these companies will both fail soon, so I wonder if the process has been completed now by the group, and they are getting out of there in which was the plan all along maybe ? If so then these companies were doomed in the entire situation to begin with. This CEO of this group had one meeting with the companies employee's, and has never showed his face again at any meetings since. All pay and benefits for the employee's began to dissapear quickly over time, where as nothing had gotten better but only worse since the *group* took over a majority ownership, and this by percentage gained through their investment, and that inturn placed the group as the majority owner within these two companies afterwards, so I guess this is where the wicked dance began for which is being spoken of or attempted by some to somehow get a bead on, as is found within this thread.

 

[candycorn]

Actually... Yes.

When you can take a loan out via the company, to pay yourself, and then have the company go under but to no hit to you... Yes. The companies that they closed, they didn't lose money on. The company did... But they didn't.

Think of it kind of like the 401k managing assholes. They got payed... Even though everyone else got fucked.

You know, I'll never understand why the right can't wrap their heads around this concept:

Dunkin' Brands Swimming in Debt - TheStreet


This is what they do.

Again, this is what they do. They take over a company, leverage it down to the doorknobs, pay themselves back then legitimately try to turn a profit with the brand. But it is ALWAYS a "Heads I win, Tails you Lose" proposition; they never take a bath unless they can't arrange for the bank to loan them money against the company's assets. That is arranged well in advance.

If the right were to call Bain and ask them, they would say, "Yes, that sounds right." about the story above. There is nothing illegal about it. Arguably there is nothing immoral. It just has messy consequences.

The message in the ad, in case it has been forgotten, is that Romney doesn't know (or care) about those consequences. Most CEO's don't know and a whole lot of them do not care. It's not in their employer's interest to care.

Again, not illegal; arguably not immoral. Just messy.

As you may have read in the article, it is about the stock roll-out. The Stock is currently a "sell" rec from Schwab. Motley Fool posits the following:

With this in mind, it should be no surprise that most publically traded portfolio companies have significantly more debt relative to size than their competitors do. The experiences of Dunkin' Brands (Nasdaq: DNKN ) , Domino's Pizza (NYSE: DPZ ) , and Burger King (NYSE: BKW ) serve as representative examples, each of which continues to suffer from the one-time affections of private equity firms like Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, Blackstone Group (NYSE: BX ) , or American Capital (Nasdaq: ACAS ) . As you can see in the table below, all of these companies have significantly more debt on their balance sheets than equity. And when you exclude intangible assets, all three have negative book values in excess of $1.4 billion.

Negative Book Values!

The argument about if Bain benefits companies is an open question. They have successes. The "successes" may or may not come at the expense of the workers of those companies. The argument some have that, "They should just be happy they still have jobs" is something to consider; it is better to make $8 than $0.

What isn't an open question is this; Bain always benefits itself first. Always. No exceptions.

This is exactly simular to or is also happening within another (name *Group*) who had taken over a major corporation or two that I know of, and they did this in the same way I guess, by placing it's eyes upon it's built up assets etc. in which the large lumbering companies had aquirred over the years.. There seems to have become a learned pattern found here in all of this, in which has taken place in America now by these (name*groups*), who undoubtedly knew way back what the Nafta agreement would do to this nations long standing corporations or major companies owned, and this on down the road a ways. These companies would soon become sitting ducks down the road or quickly afterwards, and so they positioned themselves right nicely to take advantage of the fall out when it came to their attention (smelled blood in the water) finally.

What I am hearing now, is that the CEO of this group, told the general managers of these companies who are under him and this group, that there will be no more investment into these companies by the *group*, and therefore the companies will either make it on their own merit now or fall now. So the deal has been sealed and the fall cometh quickly now maybe ? There are rumors floating around that these companies will both fail soon, so I wonder if the process has been completed now by the group, and they are getting out of there in which was the plan all along maybe ? If so then these companies were doomed in the entire situation to begin with. This CEO of this group had one meeting with the companies employee's, and has never showed his face again at any meetings since. All pay and benefits for the employee's began to dissapear quickly over time, where as nothing had gotten better but only worse since the *group* took over a majority ownership, and this by percentage gained through their investment, and that inturn placed the group as the majority owner within these two companies afterwards, so I guess this is where the wicked dance began for which is being spoken of or attempted by some to somehow get a bead on, as is found within this thread.

It would be great if the Governor would be asked that and he gave a truthful answer as to the nature of his business (think of the first scene in Gladiator) and just let people decide. If the public is down with the owner of the Bain chop shop being President; more power to him. If not, he'll know soon enough.

 

[beagle9]

You know, I'll never understand why the right can't wrap their heads around this concept:

Dunkin' Brands Swimming in Debt - TheStreet


This is what they do.

Again, this is what they do. They take over a company, leverage it down to the doorknobs, pay themselves back then legitimately try to turn a profit with the brand. But it is ALWAYS a "Heads I win, Tails you Lose" proposition; they never take a bath unless they can't arrange for the bank to loan them money against the company's assets. That is arranged well in advance.

If the right were to call Bain and ask them, they would say, "Yes, that sounds right." about the story above. There is nothing illegal about it. Arguably there is nothing immoral. It just has messy consequences.

The message in the ad, in case it has been forgotten, is that Romney doesn't know (or care) about those consequences. Most CEO's don't know and a whole lot of them do not care. It's not in their employer's interest to care.

Again, not illegal; arguably not immoral. Just messy.

As you may have read in the article, it is about the stock roll-out. The Stock is currently a "sell" rec from Schwab. Motley Fool posits the following:



Negative Book Values!

The argument about if Bain benefits companies is an open question. They have successes. The "successes" may or may not come at the expense of the workers of those companies. The argument some have that, "They should just be happy they still have jobs" is something to consider; it is better to make $8 than $0.

What isn't an open question is this; Bain always benefits itself first. Always. No exceptions.

This is exactly simular to or is also happening within another (name *Group*) who had taken over a major corporation or two that I know of, and they did this in the same way I guess, by placing it's eyes upon it's built up assets etc. in which the large lumbering companies had aquirred over the years.. There seems to have become a learned pattern found here in all of this, in which has taken place in America now by these (name*groups*), who undoubtedly knew way back what the Nafta agreement would do to this nations long standing corporations or major companies owned, and this on down the road a ways. These companies would soon become sitting ducks down the road or quickly afterwards, and so they positioned themselves right nicely to take advantage of the fall out when it came to their attention (smelled blood in the water) finally.

What I am hearing now, is that the CEO of this group, told the general managers of these companies who are under him and this group, that there will be no more investment into these companies by the *group*, and therefore the companies will either make it on their own merit now or fall now. So the deal has been sealed and the fall cometh quickly now maybe ? There are rumors floating around that these companies will both fail soon, so I wonder if the process has been completed now by the group, and they are getting out of there in which was the plan all along maybe ? If so then these companies were doomed in the entire situation to begin with. This CEO of this group had one meeting with the companies employee's, and has never showed his face again at any meetings since. All pay and benefits for the employee's began to dissapear quickly over time, where as nothing had gotten better but only worse since the *group* took over a majority ownership, and this by percentage gained through their investment, and that inturn placed the group as the majority owner within these two companies afterwards, so I guess this is where the wicked dance began for which is being spoken of or attempted by some to somehow get a bead on, as is found within this thread.

It would be great if the Governor would be asked that and he gave a truthful answer as to the nature of his business (think of the first scene in Gladiator) and just let people decide. If the public is down with the owner of the Bain chop shop being President; more power to him. If not, he'll know soon enough.

Now these companies are still running/operating some few or more years later, and this is since it all happened to them, but they are no where near what they were as companies before this happened to them (downward spiral), and Like I said the CEO of the investment group said that he will not place anymore of the investment groups money into them now.

From another perspective lets look at this way also: Now it could be that the former owner in one case, who is now a manager/salesmen/general manager, and in another case the general manager is a long time so called friend of the CEO of the (name*group*) for these two companies, where as they have not taken the bull properly by the horns (disgrunteled for losing their companies to begin with in this way, or angry about having to go out and find a group to invest in them), and so it hasn't been the case where they have went out and tried to get business as they should have for the companies in order for them to go full blast again, and so this has caused the companies now owned by the (name*group*) to begin slowly dying once the (name*group*) took over, and this because their then became to many hands in the cookie jar for one thing under the old and new situation, and therefore still expecting big checks for running these companies for this group (i.e. no longer their money at risk, but the groups money instead at great risk), so as long as they were getting their big checks still, who cared how much money the group would lose over time, just as long as the group kept pumping it to them when they needed it in order to keep these companies pumping in the short term, when they should have been dead and gone long before the group took them over.

The group being an investment company mostly, needs help on the inside to run these things afterwards (dependent upon), so if the former team who knows what to do, becomes hostile to the group, then it becomes a war within in which leads to alot of bad things down the line also.

Somebody needs to go into the anatomy of an investment company, and find out what makes them tick, why they tick, and why the ticker goes wrong for them sooner or later, and also is there a pattern to these ventures they embark upon, where as when they make these investments, is their really the intent on destruction of for profits only in mind (or) is there a real intent on turning these companies around for a more long term profit involved ? What is the real intent found in investment capitalist, when trying to turn their money/investment into a profit be it short term or long term?