General discussion

Another damning Romney video? 1985 or so

Bain intends to harvest profits from companies they invest in

Well, perhaps a bad choice of words to present to voters but not to investors. What was Bain expected to do? save these failing companies and walk away with no more than a "thank you" and a handshake? They took on companies that were in trouble, were willing to lose money on them for several years, and took part of the profits if they were successful. Is this something evil? Job creation isn't an objective in business and, to my knowledge, never has been. Is that also evil? Job creation is a bi-product of success. Those who have taken on the financial risk are sharing that success with those they have hired and were able to retain. What's the problem with that?
Discussion is locked
Reply to: Another damning Romney video? 1985 or so
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Another damning Romney video? 1985 or so
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
well, sometimes they charge companies to

raise investment and Bain made money off the failing company and the investors while everyone else lost.

My problem isn't so much they do it, and other claims I've read, as that it's legal.

They took advantage of loopholes and gray areas. One statement said they pushed the IRS laws and if question, treated the IRS like everyone else. They negoiated with the IRS to reach an agreement.

The question is why are such practices accepted? not just why legal, but why acceptable to people in the business. It seems the oldest justification is you have to do so to compete because others will. That may even have some basis of fact, but it's rather sad.

- Collapse -
I know there are companies that specialize in liquidation

of others but this doesn't appear to be Bain. If they were willing to wait years for a return, they weren't there as scavengers. We know that some companies with promise don't do well because they have no management expertise. As I understand it, Bain and those like it had that expertise. Some companies just couldn't be saved no matter what. I believe these are the one's coming forward in the Romney attack ads. Bain had failures too.

- Collapse -
(NT) sounds more like venture capitalist
- Collapse -
thats what the division was

But the fees charged to the company to invest in it sounds like bookies vig, win or lose you pay the bookie.

- Collapse -
same way with stock brokers

win or lose, they get their fees.

- Collapse -
about the same as a bookie anyway

Like the similarity between lawyers and sharks.

CNET Forums