Obama Campaign Ad....A lie.

[Trajan]

They also fault Bain for putting inexperienced managers in place and spurning a buyout offer from a competitor. Workers say efforts to cut corners often backfired, driving costs higher.The Kansas City millworkers, meanwhile, are still fuming, after being left with no health benefits and a reduced pension check.

"Romney cost me lots and lots of sleepless nights and lots and lots of money," said Ed Stanger, who worked at the plant for nearly 30 years.


Special report: Romney's steel skeleton in the Bain closet | Reuters

Please provide some support for this claim. All we hear is that this happened. I have never seen it documented.

Now, why would they spurn a buyout and what does that have to do with anything anyway.

GTS would have done well if steel from China hadn't gotten so cheap....the kind of products that GTS made.

you're wasting your time, seriously. she just bleats like the rest of them.

 

[Toro]

On this point, you and I would agree....IF

things are as you described them.

And your last question is telling in that it does not seem like it would be.

So, if they are not prosecuted, it leads me to believe the story isn't as you simply described it.

But the problem is, these sorts of things are perfectly legal... and thus why our economy is in the mess it's in.

Now once upon a time, Capitalism worked in such a way that you made a product, you marketted it, you sold it, you made a profit.

Today, it works in such a way that it's all about manipulating the system to make a buck, which is why accounting departments and legal departments of companies are sometimes bigger than operations.

What you say is true.

And Romney did not set it up that way. He simply got involved.

That being said, steel companies are not shell games or wall street money movers. They make something. Bain seemed interested in helping manufacturing.

One thing Dr.Doofus won't acknowledge is that while Bain made money on GST....it was not the kind of money they were looking to make. It was obviously in Bain's best interest if a company succeeded.

Most private equity firms are set up to make at least 20% per year. In the 90s it was higher, around 30%. At Bain, it was even higher. That is hard to do stripping assets on a broad scale. Bain has a reputation as being a very high quality shop and extremely good at improving operations.

Some of the criticisms of Private Equity are legit - they sometimes put on too much debt for example. But the idea that the MO of these guys is to strip assets and drive firms into bankruptcy a la Gordon Gekko is pure horseshit spewed by ignoramuses who don't know WTF they're talking about.

 

[Sallow]

But the problem is, these sorts of things are perfectly legal... and thus why our economy is in the mess it's in.

Now once upon a time, Capitalism worked in such a way that you made a product, you marketted it, you sold it, you made a profit.

Today, it works in such a way that it's all about manipulating the system to make a buck, which is why accounting departments and legal departments of companies are sometimes bigger than operations.

What you say is true.

And Romney did not set it up that way. He simply got involved.

That being said, steel companies are not shell games or wall street money movers. They make something. Bain seemed interested in helping manufacturing.

One thing Dr.Doofus won't acknowledge is that while Bain made money on GST....it was not the kind of money they were looking to make. It was obviously in Bain's best interest if a company succeeded.

Most private equity firms are set up to make at least 20% per year. In the 90s it was higher, around 30%. At Bain, it was even higher. That is hard to do stripping assets on a broad scale. Bain has a reputation as being a very high quality shop and extremely good at improving operations.

Some of the criticisms of Private Equity are legit - they sometimes put on too much debt for example. But the idea that the MO of these guys is to strip assets and drive firms into bankruptcy a la Gordon Gekko is pure horseshit spewed by ignoramuses who don't know WTF they're talking about.

Well it isn't actually.

Because that's exactly what happened. Even with places that "operations got better", they got better by cutting benefits and reducing workforce.

And it's not like the additional profit was re-invested into the economy. It was extracted. Which is even more of a slap in the face, given that it's up to tax payers to foot the bill for things like modernizing companies. And one of Romney's areas of expertise was being able to shake down the government for money.

There's been a huge movement in this country. And that's been the movement to completely privatize profit and assign liablities to the public.

That's what is bullshit.

 

[Trajan]

Special report: Romney's steel skeleton in the Bain closet | Reuters


"They looked like a bunch of high school kids to me. A bunch of Wall Street preppies," says Jim Linson, an electronics repairman who worked at the plant for 40 years. "They came in, they were in awe."

Apparently they liked what they saw. Soon after, in October 1993, Bain Capital, co-founded by Mitt Romney, became majority shareholder in a steel mill that had been operating since 1888.

It was a gamble. The old mill, renamed GS Technologies, needed expensive updating, and demand for its products was susceptible to cycles in the mining industry and commodities markets.

Less than a decade later, the mill was padlocked and some 750 people lost their jobs. Workers were denied the severance pay and health insurance they'd been promised, and their pension benefits were cut by as much as $400 a month.

What's more, a federal government insurance agency had to pony up $44 million to bail out the company's underfunded pension plan. Nevertheless, Bain profited on the deal, receiving $12 million on its $8 million initial investment and at least $4.5 million in consulting fees

add reuters to the garbage msm...what dolts.

 

[Listening]

What you say is true.

And Romney did not set it up that way. He simply got involved.

That being said, steel companies are not shell games or wall street money movers. They make something. Bain seemed interested in helping manufacturing.

One thing Dr.Doofus won't acknowledge is that while Bain made money on GST....it was not the kind of money they were looking to make. It was obviously in Bain's best interest if a company succeeded.

Most private equity firms are set up to make at least 20% per year. In the 90s it was higher, around 30%. At Bain, it was even higher. That is hard to do stripping assets on a broad scale. Bain has a reputation as being a very high quality shop and extremely good at improving operations.

Some of the criticisms of Private Equity are legit - they sometimes put on too much debt for example. But the idea that the MO of these guys is to strip assets and drive firms into bankruptcy a la Gordon Gekko is pure horseshit spewed by ignoramuses who don't know WTF they're talking about.

Well it isn't actually.

Because that's exactly what happened. Even with places that "operations got better", they got better by cutting benefits and reducing workforce.

And it's not like the additional profit was re-invested into the economy. It was extracted. Which is even more of a slap in the face, given that it's up to tax payers to foot the bill for things like modernizing companies. And one of Romney's areas of expertise was being able to shake down the government for money.

There's been a huge movement in this country. And that's been the movement to completely privatize profit and assign liablities to the public.

That's what is bullshit.

Borrowing 100 million to modernize a run down facility is extracting profity ?

Wow, I need to throw my finance book away.

 

[Listening]

Special report: Romney's steel skeleton in the Bain closet | Reuters


"They looked like a bunch of high school kids to me. A bunch of Wall Street preppies," says Jim Linson, an electronics repairman who worked at the plant for 40 years. "They came in, they were in awe."

Apparently they liked what they saw. Soon after, in October 1993, Bain Capital, co-founded by Mitt Romney, became majority shareholder in a steel mill that had been operating since 1888.

It was a gamble. The old mill, renamed GS Technologies, needed expensive updating, and demand for its products was susceptible to cycles in the mining industry and commodities markets.

Less than a decade later, the mill was padlocked and some 750 people lost their jobs. Workers were denied the severance pay and health insurance they'd been promised, and their pension benefits were cut by as much as $400 a month.

What's more, a federal government insurance agency had to pony up $44 million to bail out the company's underfunded pension plan. Nevertheless, Bain profited on the deal, receiving $12 million on its $8 million initial investment and at least $4.5 million in consulting fees

add reuters to the garbage msm...what dolts.

If you look, you'll see I posted this already in the hopes we could further discuss some of the details. TruthhasherheadupherassMatters only posts it because it has to be true.

The mill was dump....it was going under as it was.

And maybe the morons who got it there shouldn't be to quick to critisize managers who didn't do things their way.

 

[BDBoop]

Mitt needs counter-ads. Like this one.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IkC4gM6QX4]Stephanie Cutter: Get the facts on Mitt Romney, Big Oil, and the Koch Brothers - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Listening]

Mitt needs counter-ads. Like this one.

Stephanie Cutter: Get the facts on Mitt Romney, Big Oil, and the Koch Brothers - YouTube

Well, if you read the thread, you'd see it was already out there.

It was timed just perfectly to make Obama look like the liar he is.

 

[Toro]

Well it isn't actually.

Because that's exactly what happened. Even with places that "operations got better", they got better by cutting benefits and reducing workforce.

Let's cut through the partisan bullshit and see what really happens.

according to a recent study titled "Private Equity and Employment" by University of Chicago Booth School of Business professor Steven J. Davis; John Haltiwanger of the University of Maryland; Josh Lerner of Harvard Business School; and Ron Jarmin and Javier Miranda, both of the U.S. Census Bureau. ...

Private equity groups take over troubled companies that subsequently undergo a more rapid pace of change--higher job creation and higher job destruction--than at other firms ...

Davis's and his coauthors' study ... uses data that encompasses a much larger set of firms and private equity transactions to show the impact of private equity on employment. The sample contains about 5,000 U.S. firms acquired in private equity deals from 1980 to 2005, and about 200,000 U.S. establishments operated by these firms at the time of the transaction. The authors match each of these "target" firms and establishments to similar "control" firms and establishments. They track and compare employment changes for both targets and controls for several years before and after a buyout.

The study shows that there is some truth to claims by both camps. Private equity buyouts are followed by bigger job losses at target establishments than at similar business units not backed by private equity. However, a narrow focus on this point misses a big part of the full story. Companies owned by private equity groups also add new jobs at new facilities at a much higher rate than other firms. Thus, bigger job losses at target establishments after a buyout are at least partly offset by bigger job gains at new establishments.

More interestingly, the large jumps in both job destruction and creation rates after a buyout transaction suggest that private equity acts as a catalyst for "creative destruction." Employment falls rapidly as private equity groups shrink lower value segments of underperforming firms, but they also speed up the expansion of these firms in new and higher value directions after a buyout. ...

The study by Davis and his co-authors tracks employment changes at target establishments five years before and five years after a buyout transaction. They compare job change outcomes at buyout targets with job changes at other facilities that are similar in terms of industry, size, and age. ...

Taking job gains and losses together, the study finds that net job growth rates at target establishments are lower compared to other establishments in the first three years after a buyout. The gaps widen to as much as four percent in the second and third years. The pattern reverses, however, in the fourth and fifth years, when net jobs at target facilities increase at a slightly faster rate. Both target and control establishments shed jobs in the first three years following a buyout. This highlights the importance of comparing targets with controls. If one looked at employment changes at target establishments alone, one would draw the misleading conclusion that only these facilities shrink substantially after a private equity transaction.

Another interesting result is that net job growth rates at target establishments are lower relative to controls in the year prior to and in the year of the buyout. This is consistent with depictions of private equity groups investing in ailing companies. "Many targets were already on the downhill slide in terms of employment even before the buyout event," says Davis.

Previous research by Davis, Haltiwanger and Scott Schuh of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston emphasized the large gross flows of jobs relative to net changes that underlie employment dynamics in the United States. Thus, an important part of the story is missed by looking at just net changes. "Job creation and destruction are much more informative about reallocation responses to private equity buyouts than the net employment change," says Davis. This also is what matters most to an employee. "From the perspective of a worker employed by a buyout target, the risk of job loss rises with the job destruction rate, not the net employment change," Davis says.

According to the study's results, job creation rates are roughly the same for both target and control establishments after a buyout. However, targets have much higher job destruction rates in the first three years before rapidly dropping off. ...

The authors look at the contribution of each of these activities to the overall job growth rate over the two-year period following a buyout. The results are striking, particularly the size of the changes. Private equity–backed firms create many more jobs at newly opened facilities--about 15 percent of initial employment for targets compared with only 9.9 percent for controls. However, target firms also have a very high establishment exit rate, roughly double the exit rate of similar firms that were not acquired in private equity deals. ...

The study's results suggest that private equity is a force for creative destruction. Private equity groups take over troubled companies that subsequently undergo a more rapid pace of change--higher job creation and higher job destruction--than at other firms. Indeed, the authors' preliminary findings in a related study indicate that private equity targets rapidly move jobs and capital to more productive business units, and that they are especially aggressive in closing the least productive establishments. "It appears that private equity buyouts accelerate the reallocation of capital and labor to more productive uses and raise overall productivity in the process," Davis says.

Creative or destructive? The impact of private equity on employment - Economics - AEI

IOW, for those who are too lazy to read the whole thing, private equity firms buy troubled companies, lay off workers at a faster rate than similar companies in the first three years, then job growth is faster thereafter. They also hire more workers in newer plants than similar companies but lay off more workers in older plants.

There is also another study out there which shows that there is net job growth at private equity owned firms but it is lower than in the economy in general, which is what you'd expect given that private equity owns more troubled companies.

 

[Trajan]

Well it isn't actually.

Because that's exactly what happened. Even with places that "operations got better", they got better by cutting benefits and reducing workforce.

Let's cut through the partisan bullshit and see what really happens.

according to a recent study titled "Private Equity and Employment" by University of Chicago Booth School of Business professor Steven J. Davis; John Haltiwanger of the University of Maryland; Josh Lerner of Harvard Business School; and Ron Jarmin and Javier Miranda, both of the U.S. Census Bureau. ...

Private equity groups take over troubled companies that subsequently undergo a more rapid pace of change--higher job creation and higher job destruction--than at other firms ...

Davis's and his coauthors' study ... uses data that encompasses a much larger set of firms and private equity transactions to show the impact of private equity on employment. The sample contains about 5,000 U.S. firms acquired in private equity deals from 1980 to 2005, and about 200,000 U.S. establishments operated by these firms at the time of the transaction. The authors match each of these "target" firms and establishments to similar "control" firms and establishments. They track and compare employment changes for both targets and controls for several years before and after a buyout.

The study shows that there is some truth to claims by both camps. Private equity buyouts are followed by bigger job losses at target establishments than at similar business units not backed by private equity. However, a narrow focus on this point misses a big part of the full story. Companies owned by private equity groups also add new jobs at new facilities at a much higher rate than other firms. Thus, bigger job losses at target establishments after a buyout are at least partly offset by bigger job gains at new establishments.

More interestingly, the large jumps in both job destruction and creation rates after a buyout transaction suggest that private equity acts as a catalyst for "creative destruction." Employment falls rapidly as private equity groups shrink lower value segments of underperforming firms, but they also speed up the expansion of these firms in new and higher value directions after a buyout. ...

The study by Davis and his co-authors tracks employment changes at target establishments five years before and five years after a buyout transaction. They compare job change outcomes at buyout targets with job changes at other facilities that are similar in terms of industry, size, and age. ...

Taking job gains and losses together, the study finds that net job growth rates at target establishments are lower compared to other establishments in the first three years after a buyout. The gaps widen to as much as four percent in the second and third years. The pattern reverses, however, in the fourth and fifth years, when net jobs at target facilities increase at a slightly faster rate. Both target and control establishments shed jobs in the first three years following a buyout. This highlights the importance of comparing targets with controls. If one looked at employment changes at target establishments alone, one would draw the misleading conclusion that only these facilities shrink substantially after a private equity transaction.

Another interesting result is that net job growth rates at target establishments are lower relative to controls in the year prior to and in the year of the buyout. This is consistent with depictions of private equity groups investing in ailing companies. "Many targets were already on the downhill slide in terms of employment even before the buyout event," says Davis.

Previous research by Davis, Haltiwanger and Scott Schuh of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston emphasized the large gross flows of jobs relative to net changes that underlie employment dynamics in the United States. Thus, an important part of the story is missed by looking at just net changes. "Job creation and destruction are much more informative about reallocation responses to private equity buyouts than the net employment change," says Davis. This also is what matters most to an employee. "From the perspective of a worker employed by a buyout target, the risk of job loss rises with the job destruction rate, not the net employment change," Davis says.

According to the study's results, job creation rates are roughly the same for both target and control establishments after a buyout. However, targets have much higher job destruction rates in the first three years before rapidly dropping off. ...

The authors look at the contribution of each of these activities to the overall job growth rate over the two-year period following a buyout. The results are striking, particularly the size of the changes. Private equity–backed firms create many more jobs at newly opened facilities--about 15 percent of initial employment for targets compared with only 9.9 percent for controls. However, target firms also have a very high establishment exit rate, roughly double the exit rate of similar firms that were not acquired in private equity deals. ...

The study's results suggest that private equity is a force for creative destruction. Private equity groups take over troubled companies that subsequently undergo a more rapid pace of change--higher job creation and higher job destruction--than at other firms. Indeed, the authors' preliminary findings in a related study indicate that private equity targets rapidly move jobs and capital to more productive business units, and that they are especially aggressive in closing the least productive establishments. "It appears that private equity buyouts accelerate the reallocation of capital and labor to more productive uses and raise overall productivity in the process," Davis says.

Creative or destructive? The impact of private equity on employment - Economics - AEI

IOW, for those who are too lazy to read the whole thing, private equity firms buy troubled companies, lay off workers at a faster rate than similar companies in the first three years, then job growth is faster thereafter. They also hire more workers in newer plants than similar companies but lay off more workers in older plants.

There is also another study out there which shows that there is net job growth at private equity owned firms but it is lower than in the economy in general, which is what you'd expect given that private equity owns more troubled companies.

thx for that Toro, I was going to post a similar precis, but , well, it won't matter. they want to see Bain as evil because they have been told to see them as evil, so*shrugs*..........of course Blackstone is magnitudes bigger but just gave Obama a pot of cash so, its all good.

And I am not sure if these folks are old enough or understand that Bain was not KKR ( Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) and don't understand either they are Not a Drexel Burnham......

 

[Trajan]

What you say is true.

And Romney did not set it up that way. He simply got involved.

That being said, steel companies are not shell games or wall street money movers. They make something. Bain seemed interested in helping manufacturing.

One thing Dr.Doofus won't acknowledge is that while Bain made money on GST....it was not the kind of money they were looking to make. It was obviously in Bain's best interest if a company succeeded.

Most private equity firms are set up to make at least 20% per year. In the 90s it was higher, around 30%. At Bain, it was even higher. That is hard to do stripping assets on a broad scale. Bain has a reputation as being a very high quality shop and extremely good at improving operations.

Some of the criticisms of Private Equity are legit - they sometimes put on too much debt for example. But the idea that the MO of these guys is to strip assets and drive firms into bankruptcy a la Gordon Gekko is pure horseshit spewed by ignoramuses who don't know WTF they're talking about.

Well it isn't actually.

Because that's exactly what happened. Even with places that "operations got better", they got better by cutting benefits and reducing workforce.

And it's not like the additional profit was re-invested into the economy. It was extracted. Which is even more of a slap in the face, given that it's up to tax payers to foot the bill for things like modernizing companies. And one of Romney's areas of expertise was being able to shake down the government for money.

There's been a huge movement in this country. And that's been the movement to completely privatize profit and assign liablities to the public.

That's what is bullshit.

and how did they assign what to whom?wtf?


and hey, whats with the Uncle Sam Equity co. backed by the full faith and credit of...us, on oh, Ener1, Solyndra et al?

 

[francoHFW]

To review: Not a lie LOL. Made a ton of money for himself and corp top brass while putting all the workers out on the street...

Just what we need, a W clone chickenhawk serial flip flopper vulture capitalist whose big success is a giant min. wage Walmart killer of stationary stores LOL.

 

[Meister]

To review: Not a lie LOL. Made a ton of money for himself and corp top brass while putting many workers out on the street...

Just what we need, a W clone chickenhawk serial flip flopper vulture capitalist whose big success is a giant min. wage Walmart killer of stationary stores LOL.

Have even read any of this, Frankie?

Do they only let you out long enough from the wingnut echo chamber to post in this forum and then reel you back in when it's done?

 

[JoeB131]

Those "unionized steel companies" helped build this country.

and the influx of cheap Chinese steel (as well as from other countries) is what killed the ones who went under.

and again, who insisted on all those free trade treaties.

Romney was happy to move Jobs to China, but now he whines China is a "currency manipulator"...

 

[francoHFW]

I have read ALL your irrelevant BS talking points, dupe. LOL

 

[francoHFW]

Obama's administration is going after China trade practices- especially dumping solar panels on Solyndra...Shhhh...

 

[francoHFW]

To review: Not a lie LOL. Made a ton of money for himself and corp top brass while putting many workers out on the street...

Just what we need, a W clone chickenhawk serial flip flopper vulture capitalist whose big success is a giant min. wage Walmart killer of stationary stores LOL.

Have even read any of this, Frankie?

Do they only let you out long enough from the wingnut echo chamber to post in this forum and then reel you back in when it's done?

Actually, no, Pubtroll. Any actual argument?

 

[Trajan]

Those "unionized steel companies" helped build this country.

and the influx of cheap Chinese steel (as well as from other countries) is what killed the ones who went under.

and again, who insisted on all those free trade treaties.

Romney was happy to move Jobs to China, but now he whines China is a "currency manipulator"...

who issss..... Clinton?

what did I win?

 

[Meister]

To review: Not a lie LOL. Made a ton of money for himself and corp top brass while putting many workers out on the street...

Just what we need, a W clone chickenhawk serial flip flopper vulture capitalist whose big success is a giant min. wage Walmart killer of stationary stores LOL.

Have even read any of this, Frankie?

Do they only let you out long enough from the wingnut echo chamber to post in this forum and then reel you back in when it's done?

Actually, no, Pubtroll. Any actual argument?

Actually, you would never know without reading...now get back into the wingnut echo chamber.

 

[zonly1]

Mitt needs counter-ads. Like this one.

Stephanie Cutter: Get the facts on Mitt Romney, Big Oil, and the Koch Brothers - YouTube

hey "open mouth insert foot"..just like that joke of vp biden.

perfect name for a clueless leftturd like b poop.