Venture Capitalism, in a nutshell

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Productivity has risen at the expense of the middle class. It isn't a coincidence that the middle class has shrunk and wages are stagnant along side the rise in productivity.

liberals have attacked the middle class. They support the unions that drove 30 million middle class jobs overseas. They support the budget deficits that allow the Chinese and Japanese to buy our debt rather than our products. They allow 20 million illegals in to lower everyones wages and take 20 million jobs, they tax business and venture capital so there is far less for business investment plus they caused this huge recession by getting everyone into a house after the Republican free market said they could not afford it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You're right that productivity has risen "forever." That's why America is the richest country on earth. But if only a few benefit, then the 99% would still be living like they were in 1810.

And you know how people lived in 1810? Can we have a comparison based on facts or are you going to still sidestep and dance around proof?

I mean, really. C'mon. You can't be serious.

So, how many poor people had TV's in 1810? How many of them were vaccinated? How many had Internet access? How many of them had cars? Want to bet that the poor have more of those today than they did 200 years ago? I'll even give you 2:1 odds!

not to mention that the poor have free state of the art health care today that alone makes them far richer than almost anyone just 50 years ago. Jobs, Gates and Ford got rich by making stuff everyone could afford to buy.

Trickle down capitalism might better be described as a Tsunami that blesses everyone no matter how trivial their contribution.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Productivity has risen at the expense of the middle class.

Rati, you truly are an idiot.

Most morons figured out that those evil computers weren't really taking over, somewhere around 1970.

No, automation didn't end the middle class.

It isn't a coincidence that the middle class has shrunk and wages are stagnant along side the rise in productivity.

It isn't a coincidence, nor is it a fact.

LOL, it almost sounds like communism.

LOL, you sound just like a half-wit.

So you are being asked to choose....running the government like a business or running the government as for the people (like it was meant to be run).

Like it was meant to be run? ROFL

Mean by whom? Hugo Chavez? Karl Marx?

Scamper off now, little Rati.

 

[Toro]

Meet Paul S. Levy.

He is a low-key private equity executive and former lawyer who helped co-found a midsize firm, JLL Partners, in 1988. It manages about $4 billion on behalf of pension funds and endowments like the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System and Harvard University. ...

You can clearly debate the merits of private equity — the outsize fees, the debt, the special tax treatment for executives. But there seems to be a fundamental myth that has developed that says the vast majority of private equity firms, Bain included, are all out to strip companies to their bare bones.

“We want to build businesses,” Mr. Levy said earnestly. “Nobody wants to fire people. We want to retain all of the value-added, high-quality people that work at these companies. But it’s like any other endeavor. If there are more people there to make the shoes than needed, you can’t keep the people. It’s not about wanting to get rid of people. It’s about wanting to make the company operate on a size and scale that’s commensurate with its opportunities and its revenues such that it can make profits and then build the business. It’s as simple as that.”

Mr. Levy said he felt compelled to speak out because nobody else has. He said his motivation was not about politics, but about standing up for the industry that he works in. “I wouldn’t say that I’m a big Romney fan,” he explained, though he said he would most likely vote for him over President Obama if he were the Republican nominee.

He can’t understand why Bain or Mr. Romney don’t defend themselves. “I don’t have to tell you that the Bain reputation in the industry is excellent. They are viewed as very good people, honest people. It’s sort of like everyone’s picking on the wrong guy.”

Indeed, there are more Gordon Gekko-like firms in private equity that get involved with more troubled companies that require severe cuts. Small, scrappy firms, like Sun Capital Partners and the Gores Group, have a history of looking for nearly bankrupt companies to fix. And yes, for every big success, there is a trail littered with failures.

Speaking about these bottom-feeding firms, Mr. Levy said, “They have more of a crapshoot approach, so they’ll buy companies that have zero or negative Ebitda,” referring to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. “I think in the past two to three years they’ve had 20 or 30 companies go bankrupt, but mind you, they were digging in on companies that were on their way to bankruptcy anyway, and they figured they would take a shot.”

Of course, the biggest criticism of private equity firms is that they sometimes lard companies up with so much debt that it pushes them into bankruptcy — meanwhile having already taken money out of the business for themselves, effectively rewarding their own failure.

“Not everybody is perfect; we’ve had our mistakes as well, but I don’t think there’s a predatory attitude in doing these deals,” Mr. Levy said. ...

Indeed, as “private” as private equity may sound, the beneficiaries are often the public.

“It’s been said any number of times in the press, but I don’t think it’s really gotten through.”

One Way to Look at Private Equity - NYTimes.com

 

[Toro]

A few recent deals show how leveraged-buyout barons can fund innovation and growth, create jobs and sometimes rebuild companies in challenging industries. Other times, private-equity deals result in onerous debt loads, losses and deep layoffs.

In early 2010, Gloucester Engineering Co., which manufactures machines that make thin plastics like those used in trash bags, was saddled with debt and hurtling toward bankruptcy. The Massachusetts company's management informed union officials it planned layoffs and needed concessions from remaining workers. Word of the company's distress reached customers, who began canceling orders.

A union representative, Mike Vartabedian, knew a lawyer who put him in touch with Blue Wolf Capital Partners, a New York private-equity firm with a reputation for teaming up with labor in its investments. He asked Blue Wolf to step in.

Blue Wolf, which manages a $118 million fund, invested in Gloucester just as it went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, and bought the entire company when it re-emerged from bankruptcy in late 2010. "If we could fix the operational issues, there was no reason we couldn't see this grow," said Blue Wolf managing partner Adam Blumenthal.

Blue Wolf brought in a new management team, installed a computer system that helped better manage inventory and estimate job costs, and built up a business to service Gloucester equipment around the world. It also struck a deal with union workers that Mr. Vartabedian says kept pay and pensions unchanged but mandated employees perform a wider range of tasks than their previous job descriptions allowed.

"The one goal we had was to make the company successful," said Joe Orlando, who took on multiple roles, including maintenance and truck driving under the new union agreement. "There were a lot of people that live in Gloucester and wanted to keep the jobs here."

A mechanic at Gloucester Engineering, which benefitted from turnaround efforts by private-equity firm Blue Wolf Capital Partners.

Gloucester now employs about 100 workers, up from 30 at the time of the bankruptcy. Mr. Blumenthal said he expects substantial job growth over the next several years.

Other deals aren't as satisfying to all parties.

When KKR & Co. and TPG Holdings purchased TXU Corp., Texas' largest power generator, in a $45 billion leveraged buyout in 2007—then the largest ever such deal—the private-equity firms left the utility with $35 billion in debt, up from $11 billion before the takeover.

All that debt has put pressure on the utility, since renamed Energy Future Holdings. At the same time, a plunge in natural-gas prices has eaten into revenues by reducing prices the utility charges for its power. Today, Energy Future's debt trades at less than 50 cents on the dollar, suggesting that investors anticipate a default.

Despite the difficulties, Energy Future has added jobs by adding three new coal units since the buyout, expanding its employee base by 25% to about 9,400, the company says.

One problem with assessing buyouts is that it is hard to tell what a company's fate would have been had a buyout not taken place. It is especially tough because buyout specialists often target troubled industries.

Customers at a going-out-of-business sale at a Miami Linens 'N Things in 2008. Apollo Global Management and other leveraged-buyout specialists failed to improve operations quickly enough to turn the company around.

In 2006, Apollo Global Management and other leveraged-buyout specialists purchased Linens 'N Things for $1.3 billion. They used $260 million of cash and added more than $1 billion of debt to the already-struggling company.

Apollo and the other buyers failed to improve operations quickly enough to turn the company around. The economic downturn compounded the problems, as did all the debt the firms piled onto the retailer.

In 2008, New Jersey-based Linens 'N Things filed for bankruptcy protection. Apollo, the other buyout firms and the firms' investors, together lost the $260 million they had invested.

Appetite for (Creative?) Destruction - WSJ.com

 

[Ravi]

Productivity has risen at the expense of the middle class.

Rati, you truly are an idiot.

Most morons figured out that those evil computers weren't really taking over, somewhere around 1970.

No, automation didn't end the middle class.

It isn't a coincidence that the middle class has shrunk and wages are stagnant along side the rise in productivity.

It isn't a coincidence, nor is it a fact.

LOL, it almost sounds like communism.

LOL, you sound just like a half-wit.

So you are being asked to choose....running the government like a business or running the government as for the people (like it was meant to be run).

Like it was meant to be run? ROFL

Mean by whom? Hugo Chavez? Karl Marx?

Scamper off now, little Rati.

Next time you vomit, clean it up.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

“We want to build businesses,” Mr. Levy said earnestly.

of course thats true! a going business sells for around 15 times earnings. If you buy a company thats losing money or breaking even for 10 million and make it a going concern again you can immediately sell it for $150 million.

Only a liberal could find fault with profitable businesses that make products to sustain our lives and provide our jobs.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Next time you vomit, clean it up.

In all fairness, anyone reading your sophomoric idiocy is going to vomit.

 

[Valerie]

Even if a liberal does have some understanding the concept and benefit of successful enterprise, they can still be manipulated by avarice.

Having been an employer and been the manager of other businesses, there are very, very few workers who understand successful business practices. VERY few workers see a connection between the work that they do and the health of the company. One of the most difficult aspects of managing any business was convincing the workers that what they did had a direct connection to their paycheck. Mostly it was a game of "How much can I get away with". Followed by complaints because someone made more money than they did. When some secretary or other reminded me that as the owner I made far more money than she did, I never failed to offer a week's exchange. She could do what I did, and get whatever money I would have made. I would take her 9-5 and get her salary. With the same caveat that I had. If there was no income for that week, she would have to pay me my salary out of her own pocket, the same way I had to do for her.

Funny, no one ever wanted to take me up on it. I guess working 18 hours a day was objectionable. Making those decisions rather than walking out the door wasn't for her.

You keep trying - along with the idiot TruthMocker - to make this a partisan issue. You do realize that there are many liberals who are venture capitalists, right? It is not a fucking partisan issue. It is just fucking business. Nothing more, nothing less. Engage the rational side of your brain - if you can find it.

CA Senator Dianne Fienstein (D) is married to one of the country's foremost private equity investors, Richard Blum of Blum Capital.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

CA Senator Dianne Fienstein (D) is married to one of the country's foremost private equity investors, Richard Blum of Blum Capital.

Warren Buffett is essentially in private equity as are any of us who buy stocks low with the hope to sell high!

 

[Valerie]

Even if they understand, it wouldn't make a difference.

Maybe. But we should at least try to find a common ground, rational, approach.

What bothers me is that people do not seem to understand what VCs do - not just on this forum but across the media too. Unless they are deliberately using a perfectly legitimate - and hugely valuable - business service as a stick just because they dislike Romney.

Also, many people have been deflecting about Romney's 100,000 jobs comment AS IF his job at Bain was to "create jobs". So, the tangential nit pick that he somehow LIED about how many jobs HE created is just silly... I would bet the true result of all the effective work he did while at Bain actually helped secure even more jobs than that by extension, but since that is an unprovable number the deflective rhetoric tends to rule the day.


Romney's record at Bain is part of his impressive resume but citing it in this campaign does not mean he intends to run the government like a business, it just shows that he is a proven executive who understands first-hand the challenges of running a business.

 

[Valerie]

Even if they understand, it wouldn't make a difference.

Maybe. But we should at least try to find a common ground, rational, approach.

What bothers me is that people do not seem to understand what VCs do - not just on this forum but across the media too. Unless they are deliberately using a perfectly legitimate - and hugely valuable - business service as a stick just because they dislike Romney.

Also, many people have been deflecting about Romney's 100,000 jobs comment AS IF his job at Bain was to "create jobs". So, the tangential nit pick that he somehow LIED about how many jobs HE created is just silly... I would bet the true result of all the effective work he did while at Bain actually helped secure even more jobs than that by extension, but since that is an unprovable number the deflective rhetoric tends to rule the day.


Romney's record at Bain is part of his impressive resume but citing it in this campaign does not mean he intends to run the government like a business, it just shows that he is a proven executive who understands first-hand the challenges of running a business.

Cue the misleading smear ads with crying workers holding pink slips...awwwww

Mitt is EEEEvil cuz he is successful and <gasp> RICH!





FACT is, within his one and only Government job, Mitt Romney actually deferred his own salary and worked tirelessly to tackle his state's budget deficit and actually managed to balance the budget and provide a surplus! In a state where he was tremendously politically outnumbered, he has proven himself to be an effective bi-partisan practitioner...

 

[Ravi]

Even if they understand, it wouldn't make a difference.

Maybe. But we should at least try to find a common ground, rational, approach.

What bothers me is that people do not seem to understand what VCs do - not just on this forum but across the media too. Unless they are deliberately using a perfectly legitimate - and hugely valuable - business service as a stick just because they dislike Romney.

Also, many people have been deflecting about Romney's 100,000 jobs comment AS IF his job at Bain was to "create jobs". So, the tangential nit pick that he somehow LIED about how many jobs HE created is just silly... I would bet the true result of all the effective work he did while at Bain actually helped secure even more jobs than that by extension, but since that is an unprovable number the deflective rhetoric tends to rule the day.


Romney's record at Bain is part of his impressive resume but citing it in this campaign does not mean he intends to run the government like a business, it just shows that he is a proven executive who understands first-hand the challenges of running a business.

If it's unprovable, he shouldn't have made the claim.

I myself have created over 200,000 jobs!

 

[Valerie]

Maybe. But we should at least try to find a common ground, rational, approach.

What bothers me is that people do not seem to understand what VCs do - not just on this forum but across the media too. Unless they are deliberately using a perfectly legitimate - and hugely valuable - business service as a stick just because they dislike Romney.

Also, many people have been deflecting about Romney's 100,000 jobs comment AS IF his job at Bain was to "create jobs". So, the tangential nit pick that he somehow LIED about how many jobs HE created is just silly... I would bet the true result of all the effective work he did while at Bain actually helped secure even more jobs than that by extension, but since that is an unprovable number the deflective rhetoric tends to rule the day.


Romney's record at Bain is part of his impressive resume but citing it in this campaign does not mean he intends to run the government like a business, it just shows that he is a proven executive who understands first-hand the challenges of running a business.

If it's unprovable, he shouldn't have made the claim.

I myself have created over 200,000 jobs!

I'd vote for you, Rav...Really, I would!




Got a quote for said "claim"............?


(Quotes of others repeatedly referencing said "claim" do not count.)

 

[Ravi]

Also, many people have been deflecting about Romney's 100,000 jobs comment AS IF his job at Bain was to "create jobs". So, the tangential nit pick that he somehow LIED about how many jobs HE created is just silly... I would bet the true result of all the effective work he did while at Bain actually helped secure even more jobs than that by extension, but since that is an unprovable number the deflective rhetoric tends to rule the day.


Romney's record at Bain is part of his impressive resume but citing it in this campaign does not mean he intends to run the government like a business, it just shows that he is a proven executive who understands first-hand the challenges of running a business.

If it's unprovable, he shouldn't have made the claim.

I myself have created over 200,000 jobs!

I'd vote for you, Rav...Really, I would!




Got a quote for said "claim"............?


(Quotes of others repeatedly referencing said "claim" do not count.)

It was already posted in the thread but I'll be nice.

Back in December, Romney told Time magazine, “…so I’ll compare my experience in the private sector where, net-net, we created over 100,000 jobs. We created over 100,000 jobs.”

A couple weeks later, he told Fox News, “And I’m very happy in my former life; we helped create over 100,000 new jobs.”

Is Romney backtracking on his 100,000 jobs created claim? | The Daily Caller

 

[Valerie]

If it's unprovable, he shouldn't have made the claim.

I myself have created over 200,000 jobs!

I'd vote for you, Rav...Really, I would!




Got a quote for said "claim"............?


(Quotes of others repeatedly referencing said "claim" do not count.)

It was already posted in the thread but I'll be nice.

Back in December, Romney told Time magazine, “…so I’ll compare my experience in the private sector where, net-net, we created over 100,000 jobs. We created over 100,000 jobs.”

A couple weeks later, he told Fox News, “And I’m very happy in my former life; we helped create over 100,000 new jobs.”

Is Romney backtracking on his 100,000 jobs created claim? | The Daily Caller

Notice he said WE...meaning the firm he was working for...And no one can prove it is not true, but don't let that get in the way..........

Back in December, Romney told Time magazine, “…so I’ll compare my experience in the private sector where, net-net, we created over 100,000 jobs. We created over 100,000 jobs.”

A couple weeks later, he told Fox News, “And I’m very happy in my former life; we helped create over 100,000 new jobs.”

Those claims, of course, came under fire, and it was interesting to note that during last night’s debate, Romney’s talking points changed slightly, when he said: “And four of the companies that we invested in, they weren’t businesses I ran, but we invested in, ended up today having some 120,000 jobs.”

It is, of course, possible that both things are true — that Bain had a “net-net” effect of creating over 100,000 jobs during his tenure — and that four of the companies they invested in “ended up” creating 120,000 jobs.

 

[PoliticalChic]

hump hump hump

guys this countries voters are no longer buying the greed is good meme.

Washington (CNN) - Former president Bill Clinton enjoyed his most lucrative year ever on the speaking circuit in 2010, capping a decade of paid speaking events that has earned him $75.6 million since leaving office in 2001, according to a CNN analysis of federal financial records.

Clinton received $10.7 million for 52 paid speaking engagements last year, a sizable increase from the 36 paid speeches he delivered in 2009 for a total of $7.5 million. The most the former president had previously earned in one year was in 2006 when he earned $10.2 million for 57 events. His 2010 speaking fees were detailed in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's annual financial disclosure report released Monday.
Clinton surpasses $75 million in speech income after lucrative 2010 &#8211; CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Them greedy millionaires!!!!

 

[Ravi]

I'd vote for you, Rav...Really, I would!




Got a quote for said "claim"............?


(Quotes of others repeatedly referencing said "claim" do not count.)

It was already posted in the thread but I'll be nice.



Is Romney backtracking on his 100,000 jobs created claim? | The Daily Caller

Notice he said WE...meaning the firm he was working for...And no one can prove it is not true, but don't let that get in the way..........

Back in December, Romney told Time magazine, “…so I’ll compare my experience in the private sector where, net-net, we created over 100,000 jobs. We created over 100,000 jobs.”

A couple weeks later, he told Fox News, “And I’m very happy in my former life; we helped create over 100,000 new jobs.”

Those claims, of course, came under fire, and it was interesting to note that during last night’s debate, Romney’s talking points changed slightly, when he said: “And four of the companies that we invested in, they weren’t businesses I ran, but we invested in, ended up today having some 120,000 jobs.”

It is, of course, possible that both things are true — that Bain had a “net-net” effect of creating over 100,000 jobs during his tenure — and that four of the companies they invested in “ended up” creating 120,000 jobs.

I didn't claim he said "I."

If the claim is unprovable, he shouldn't make the claim.

 

[California Girl]

Maybe. But we should at least try to find a common ground, rational, approach.

What bothers me is that people do not seem to understand what VCs do - not just on this forum but across the media too. Unless they are deliberately using a perfectly legitimate - and hugely valuable - business service as a stick just because they dislike Romney.

Also, many people have been deflecting about Romney's 100,000 jobs comment AS IF his job at Bain was to "create jobs". So, the tangential nit pick that he somehow LIED about how many jobs HE created is just silly... I would bet the true result of all the effective work he did while at Bain actually helped secure even more jobs than that by extension, but since that is an unprovable number the deflective rhetoric tends to rule the day.


Romney's record at Bain is part of his impressive resume but citing it in this campaign does not mean he intends to run the government like a business, it just shows that he is a proven executive who understands first-hand the challenges of running a business.

If it's unprovable, he shouldn't have made the claim.

I myself have created over 200,000 jobs!

If you look at their business investments, it's would be quite rational to equate their investment with the jobs created within those companies. It is also quite reasonable to surmise that 100,000 is a realistic number. As Val said, and I as I have pointed out... he has never claimed to be personally responsible... that's a liberal 'spin'... (if by 'spin' one actually means lie).

 

[California Girl]

It was already posted in the thread but I'll be nice.



Is Romney backtracking on his 100,000 jobs created claim? | The Daily Caller

Notice he said WE...meaning the firm he was working for...And no one can prove it is not true, but don't let that get in the way..........

Back in December, Romney told Time magazine, &#8220;&#8230;so I&#8217;ll compare my experience in the private sector where, net-net, we created over 100,000 jobs. We created over 100,000 jobs.&#8221;

A couple weeks later, he told Fox News, &#8220;And I&#8217;m very happy in my former life; we helped create over 100,000 new jobs.&#8221;

Those claims, of course, came under fire, and it was interesting to note that during last night&#8217;s debate, Romney&#8217;s talking points changed slightly, when he said: &#8220;And four of the companies that we invested in, they weren&#8217;t businesses I ran, but we invested in, ended up today having some 120,000 jobs.&#8221;

It is, of course, possible that both things are true &#8212; that Bain had a &#8220;net-net&#8221; effect of creating over 100,000 jobs during his tenure &#8212; and that four of the companies they invested in &#8220;ended up&#8221; creating 120,000 jobs.

I didn't claim he said "I."

If the claim is unprovable, he shouldn't make the claim.

Didn't you?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/203193-just-how-many-jobs-did-romney-create.html

^^^ That's not a claim that Romney claimed to have created jobs?


Obama once claimed 'Selma got me born'. That wasn't true - but apparently he didn't mean it as 'Selma got me born'.

Logic. It is a good thing. Don't be afraid to use it.