Posted: 8/23/2012 6:39:38 AM EDT
|
There's an Odumbo ad dissing Romney and Bain capital where a guy says they came in and built a stage just to tell them they were all fired.
Now I think that is ridiculous on it's face, who would do that, just build a stage and then close the company. It just sounds like a total waste of time and money when they could just gather them in a room and tell them. Does anyone know where I can find out if there is any truth to it? |
|
Uh...
There is some serious deception going on here. Bain bought Ampad out from under Mead, who was planning on shutting it down. Bain increased Ampad's profits by 50% per year for 5 years. Ampad went public in 1996. Three years later, Ampad went through bankruptcy, not under control of Bain. |
|
Quoted:
There's an Odumbo ad dissing Romney and Bain capital where a guy says they came in and built a stage just to tell them they were all fired. Now I think that is ridiculous on it's face, who would do that, just build a stage and then close the company. It just sounds like a total waste of time and money when they could just gather them in a room and tell them. Does anyone know where I can find out if there is any truth to it? Important note... this is the same group that tried to link Romney to the death of the steel-worker's wife. The steel-worker lost his job, and his wife was never covered under his insurance. She had her own job at the time, and kept it for years after he was fired. Then, she lost her job, and later was diagnosed with late-stage lung cancer, but the ad made it sound like Romney laid off the worker, and 'shortly after' his wife died because they didn't have insurance. |
|
Quoted: Three years later, Ampad went through bankruptcy, not under control of Bain. I thought Bain loaded up Ampad with a shitload of debt (their debt went from $11M to $400M on the acquisition trail) from 1992 through 1999? Any reasonable study makes it obvious that Ampad was sucked dry with "fees" and other costs from Bain, enabling Bain to recover the initial $5M investment very quickly and then hollow out the company while loading up on debt, ultimately to have it all collapse. As I understand it, Bain put in $5M but made $100M in fees and initial stock sales. Ampad is not a glowing endorsement of the way Bain private equity is touted to save companies, or jobs (neither of which private equity has any interest in). PE is about getting in, getting paid, and getting out. Fuck anyone who gets in the way. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Three years later, Ampad went through bankruptcy, not under control of Bain. I thought Bain loaded up Ampad with a shitload of debt (their debt went from $11M to $400M on the acquisition trail) from 1992 through 1999? Any reasonable study makes it obvious that Ampad was sucked dry with "fees" and other costs from Bain, enabling Bain to recover the initial $5M investment very quickly and then hollow out the company while loading up on debt, ultimately to have it all collapse. As I understand it, Bain put in $5M but made $100M in fees and initial stock sales. Ampad is not a glowing endorsement of the way Bain private equity is touted to save companies, or jobs (neither of which private equity has any interest in). PE is about getting in, getting paid, and getting out. Fuck anyone who gets in the way. No, the best PE is about getting in, and staying in for as long as possible collecting fees. It is in their benefit for companies to be successful. Yes, Bain increased Ampad's debt, but they also increased Ampad's revenues, profits, and assets. A big part of the reason the debt increased was because Bain bought several companies through Ampad, so you end up comparing the debt of one company to the debt of 3 or 4. Ampad was going to be closed down anyway by it's parent company when Bain stepped in. Better to keep a company going for 7 years than to just let it go under. It also demonstrates a serious problem with unions. The Marion plant was purchased through Ampad(it was losing money). When management cut the benefits and pay of the workers, they went on strike, and eventually the plant was closed. Unions don't understand that less pay is better than no job. So no, Ampad didn't end up as a glowing success, but it wasn't the failure it is made out to be either. BTW, Ampad is still going today. |
|
Quoted:
There's an Odumbo ad dissing Romney and Bain capital where a guy says they came in and built a stage just to tell them they were all fired. Now I think that is ridiculous on it's face, who would do that, just build a stage and then close the company. It just sounds like a total waste of time and money when they could just gather them in a room and tell them. Does anyone know where I can find out if there is any truth to it? 
This tells me everything I need to know about Obama! 
|
|
Quoted: It would appear that Bain managed to pull $100M out of it over 7 years. I guess 7 years was "as long as possible".No, the best PE is about getting in, and staying in for as long as possible collecting fees. It is in their benefit for companies to be successful. Of course it is in their interest for the company in question to be a success and continue to trade profitably and generate an ongoing ROI, but my experience suggests that there are no "god-like" business managers/CEOs/Directors/Executives who can fundamentally make that much of a difference when parachuted in, other than the usual "borrow to expand and acquire so the revenue numbers are pumped" and "slash the wages and benefits of the W2 slaves while transferring the savings to my fee" strategies. GM is still going today, too. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It would appear that Bain managed to pull $100M out of it over 7 years. I guess 7 years was "as long as possible".
No, the best PE is about getting in, and staying in for as long as possible collecting fees. It is in their benefit for companies to be successful. Of course it is in their interest for the company in question to be a success and continue to trade profitably and generate an ongoing ROI, but my experience suggests that there are no "god-like" business managers/CEOs/Directors/Executives who can fundamentally make that much of a difference when parachuted in, other than the usual "borrow to expand and acquire so the revenue numbers are pumped" and "slash the wages and benefits of the W2 slaves while transferring the savings to my fee" strategies. GM is still going today, too. Yeah, GM is still going after doing what Romney initially suggested... Of course there are no 'god-like' managers, but there are some stellar ones, and Romney was one. Over and over, I went through SEC filings for companies Bain took over, and found an increase in revenue, profits, and jobs. Keep in mind, a large portion of the companies Bain took over were failing. Many of them were going to be closed down(not just restructured bankruptcy... closed) within the year. Bain's job was to make companies profitable, and it did a very good job at that. Even the failures lasted longer than they would have without Bain stepping in. And, the $100 million that Bain made is misleading, because they still had a lot invested in the company. Probably between 20-40 million. They lost all of that. |