Venture Capitalism, in a nutshell

[Uncensored2008]

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

I myself have created over 200,000 jobs!

Uh Rati?

I don't think they're talking about blow jobs here...


I'm just sayin....

Standard Disclaimer: Are "given" and "created" actually synonyms?

 

[Valerie]

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.

Anyone who claims he was lying in citing that number is doing the exact same thing...


He said he is proud of his record and threw out a rough estimate number...I'd bet his efforts actually helped to secure even more than that!

I guess he's supposed to just not mention that all the businesses they helped save actually employed tens of thousands of people...........?



It is a private enterprise and whether or not Bain Capital under his leadership created a net of 90,000 jobs or 110,000 jobs is a moot point to his candidacy for President of the United States. The point is, he is a proven successful executive!

 

[California Girl]

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..........

I didn't claim he said "I."

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

Anyone who claims he was lying in citing that number is doing the exact same thing...


He said he is proud of his record and threw out a rough estimate number...I'd bet his efforts actually helped to secure even more than that!

I guess he's supposed to just not mention that all the businesses they helped save actually employed tens of thousands of people...........?



It is a private enterprise and whether or not Bain Capital under his leadership created a net of 90,000 jobs or 110,000 jobs is a moot point to his candidacy for President of the United States. The point is, he is a proven successful executive!

He really was. I gotta say, my respect for him increased (but it couldn't have been any lower) when I investigated his record both in private industry and in state government. I started off saying he was the 'lesser of two evils'... now, I'm really warming to him.

 

[Ravi]

Fair enough, CG.

Though I do believe he was implying that his awesomeness was responsible for those jobs.

Let's see the proof that Bain had a net gain of creating 100,000 jobs.

 

[California Girl]

Fair enough, CG.

Though I do believe he was implying that his awesomeness was responsible for those jobs.

Let's see the proof that Bain had a net gain of creating 100,000 jobs.

Good on you for seeing where the issue was coming from. I respect you for seeing both sides.

And, while I tend to agree... I'd like to see some calculations as to how he gets that figure... but again... if you take a look at the companies involved, and their employment figures... I gotta tell you - honestly - I think the figure may well hold up. I'm open to legitimate criticism of any politician - left or right... as you know... and, truth be told, I always assume when their mouths are moving, they're lying... whichever party they're from.

On this one, though, I'd hesitate to hang him on it... because it's quite likely to be accurate. We shall have to wait and see... if he gets the nom, maybe he'll give more detail... Prolly not but we can hope.

 

[mal]

Didn't finish before commenting... My Bad.



peace...

 

[Valerie]

BETH HEALY, The Boston Globe: That's right.

So when the companies buy -- when companies like Bain go and buy a firm, they also borrow a lot of money from the bank. And, in fact, they borrow much more than they typically put down. You might put down $10 million and then borrow many tens of millions more or even hundreds of millions more.



JUDY WOODRUFF: Dan Primack, so the stated goal of a private equity firm involved in these buyouts like Bain, what is it? What do they say their purpose is?



DAN PRIMACK: Make money for their investors. And the investors in a firm like Bain and most other private equity firms typically are large institutions: pension funds, college endowments, private foundations, sometimes sovereign wealth funds or public pension funds.

But their primary goal is to make money for their investors. That's -- to be honest, that's their only goal and it's their only fiduciary responsibility.



JUDY WOODRUFF: And what is Bain's record?



DAN PRIMACK: Bain's record is very good.

And the way you kind of judge, you sometimes can judge on returns. But Bain -- most private equity firms keep those numbers under wraps, and the only way they come out is if you have public investors. Bain really doesn't. The way you can judge it is, Bain's still not only in business, but they keep raising larger and larger funds.

What Mitt Romney's Role at Bain Capital Means for His Presidential Bid | PBS NewsHour | Jan. 11, 2012 | PBS

 

[Valerie]

What is the record in terms of jobs at Bain Capital?

DAN PRIMACK: The answer is, we really don't know.

The original claim that Romney made was that they had created over 100,000 jobs. Actually, first, it was tens of thousands. Then it became 100,000. And when he just says that, it's true. Look, they used to be venture capitalists when they began. So they actually started businesses, not these leveraged buyouts.

So, Staples alone today has around 80,000 employees. So, saying 100,000, it is defensible. The problem is, is that Romney's now saying that's net. In other words, it's not just the jobs we created. We're subtracting the ones that were lost.

He can't really say it, because Bain never kept track not only of the jobs created, but also the jobs lost. Bain never kept track of it. Romney's campaign has not suggested at all that they've done the legwork to find it out. So Romney's claim of net job increases, he might be right, but he has no way of knowing. And neither do we.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Beth Healy, what does your reporting show on that about Romney claiming 100,000 jobs or more were created under his leadership?

BETH HEALY: Well, we know that Bain isn't disputing those numbers, but probably that figure is based mostly on Staples, Domino's, Sports Authority, these kind of very big retail chains with lots of jobs and potentially lots of turnover, too, actually.

And at other companies that they invested in, they did add jobs, but they also lost jobs when they had to close factories, and when the investments didn't work out, and when they were cutting costs.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But they would argue -- in the defense of Bain Capital, they would argue that that's what they're designed to do, to create return for the investor. Is that correct?

BETH HEALY: Absolutely. That is absolutely their job.

And they would tell you that they'd much prefer to grow companies than to fire people. But it happens. It's happened at a number of instances.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Dan Primack, how is success measured, then, at a company like Bain? Is it purely the profits that are earned for the investors?

DAN PRIMACK: Yeah, for the...

JUDY WOODRUFF: Go ahead.

DAN PRIMACK: It is.

Look, you obviously don't want to have -- from just from a PR perspective, but, look, these are people. Nobody likes to fire people or lay people off or shut down factories. And, ultimately, it is profits, but they kind of should go hand in hand.

You know, Bain, indeed, through some financial engineering, was able to make money on some companies that it bought that ultimately failed. It's a tricky process, but you actually can do it. But, in general, the way private equity firms make money and the way you make those returns that Beth was talking about is by growing businesses.

And that should mean adding revenue, adding employees, et cetera. But, in the end, yes, it's profits. That's what firms are supposed to do. And to be honest, if that's not what they were focused on primarily, their investors would leave, and also could theoretically sue them for it.

What Mitt Romney's Role at Bain Capital Means for His Presidential Bid | PBS NewsHour | Jan. 11, 2012 | PBS

 

[dilloduck]

hump hump hump

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

It's not greed--it's good old fashioned gambling.

 

[Toro]

...

Until recently, studies of private equity's effect on jobs haven't been much more scientific than the campaign rhetoric. These studies—some funded by private-equity firms—found the industry creates jobs as the firms buy companies and try to improve their performance. But the results were generally based on data from private-equity firms, which may not be motivated to give objective evidence.

Another weakness: The studies have tracked job counts at companies acquired by private-equity firms, but haven't distinguished between employees filling new jobs and those taken on via acquisitions and mergers. And some studies didn't compare target companies with comparable firms in the same industry, which may have been adding or shedding jobs at the same time.

A new paper, some economists say, improves on earlier research by addressing these concerns with a data set of 3,200 U.S. companies acquired by private-equity firms over a quarter-century through 2005. The study matched these companies to government data on purchases of, and employment at, factories, stores and offices.

The study portrays companies bought by private-equity firms as major creators and destroyers of jobs, at rates far faster than similar firms that aren't acquired. The net result is slower employment growth at target firms, by about one percentage point over two years after the acquisition.

"It is partly in the nature of private equity that you get more extremes on both sides—more destruction of old, more creation of new," says Steven J. Davis, an economist at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business and co-author of the study, which has been published online by the National Bureau of Economic Research as a working paper and is awaiting publication in an economics journal. "That type of landscape makes it especially easy for opponents and proponents of private equity to cherry-pick—worst cases if you are an opponent, and best cases if you are a proponent."...

New Study Tallies Private Equity's Jobs Role - WSJ.com

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"It is partly in the nature of private equity that you get more extremes on both sides—more destruction of old, more creation of new," proponent."...

Its pathetic that this is even a topic of debate, as if Newt or even a liberal is going to pass a law making it illegal to buy stock and want a seat on the board.