• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital

TR1982 said:
So, to sum up:

Using leverage to acquire failing companies, and implementing proven management strategies to turn them around and sell at a profit: extremely risky

Using leverage to spend billions of dollars on stocks you picked randomly out of the newspaper: safe
Click to expand...

I don't get how you seize on the "pick stocks at random" line and not the comparison to S&P 500 index returns.
 
The returns info you posted mixes up leverage and investment returns. It doesn't really make sense.
 
Fair fair.

Good point on Bain Capital Ventures, though I think it's fair to speak of Bain generally/mostly as an LBO firm and not VC.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
Fair fair.

Good point on Bain Capital Ventures, though I think it's fair to speak of Bain generally/mostly as an LBO firm and not VC.
Click to expand...

Oh for sure. I think Bain Capital Adventures is less than 1/10 of the entire firm or something. Mostly I was just posting from my phone and got annoyed at references to vulture capitalism because 1) it isn't even VC here 2) VC isn't "vulture like" and 3) I hate how anytime there is something involving money that most lay people don't understand it gets demonized and is evil.

ETA: I think the most accurate description is calling them a PE firm that engages in some VC and debt securities management.
 
Last edited:
TuffaloDeac10 said:
Maybe "Vulture Capital" is supposed to distinguish bad old LBO's from VC? I dunno. Maybe Newt knows
Click to expand...

Maybe. I think you are giving people too much credit. The same thing has been done to the insurance industry, the banking industry, etc.
 
W&B respecting the writings of Matt Tiabbi is about the least surprising thing I've ever read
 
just so I understand:

Mitt Romney goes to one of the finest business schools in the world.

he emerges with expertise in borrowing money to buy out existing companies and using that leverage to earn modest returns for investors and giant profits for himself from fees

he repeats this process to amass a fortune

in the worst cases, the remaining employees (non management) and their offspring are left responsible for that debt

he runs for president using this experience as his pedigree to save a highly leveraged super-economy from....a debt crisis

the GOP attacks his opponent's 'worst cases' as evidence he can't save the economy, and are incredulous when a writer cites Romney's 'worst cases' to attack him

i think I have it...
 
Last edited:
BillBrasky said:
W&B respecting the writings of Matt Tiabbi is about the least surprising thing I've ever read
Click to expand...

respecting? I just said i had never read him and posted that I didn't see inconsistencies with other shit I had read about Bain ,etc.
 
haha wait what are the democrats "worst cases" of evidence that they can't save an ecomomy... the USA?! while mitt's example is kb toys? is that what you're saying wake and bake?
 
avalon said:
I don't know that much about the companies Romney worked with at Bain, but is this implying that he can't condemn the huge debt at the government level because he participated in LBOs? It sounds like the writer is assuming that all debt is evil.
Click to expand...

which debt is evil and which is not?
 
buckets said:
haha wait what are the democrats "worst cases" of evidence that they can't save an ecomomy... the USA?! while mitt's example is kb toys? is that what you're saying wake and bake?
Click to expand...

Im saying explain how using debt to make a profit in a niche market makes Mitt Romney an expert at saving the USA from the debt his party has rallied around as the single most important problem America faces economically. Seems to me that all we have done for 35+ years is use debt to save the government and households (and farms and some businesses)- and that is our problem. Mitt typifies that problem, according to his record in business.

Obama's opponents trash him for using debt to hold the economy up. what;s the fucking difference?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top