Romney stayed longer at Bain

[blankslate]

These types of stories are so predictable. A whole lot of nothing blowing up into faux rage.

faux rage... perhaps...

however a few of the posters here are probably just as upset that tactics that they don't mind when applied to politicians they are opposed to seem to have traction when used against Governor Romney.

Bain shouldn't have been lazy about those SEC filing changes...

 

[Genx87]

I don't believe they are liars, to me it's almost entirely irrelevant. The details of this are pretty irrelevant for the most part anyway outside of the particulars of some attack ad, as tying Romney specifically to a few extra years at Bain doesn't mean much. If you believe those guys are telling the truth though, that means that 'ol Mittens perjured himself in his statement running for Massachusetts governor. That seems pretty notable, don't you think?

It's really the twisting and the flailing along with what else it says. If you take Romney's word at face value he was basically some guy getting paid a six figure salary for explicitly doing nothing. For someone who complains about freeloaders that's pretty shitty regardless.

Perjuring yourself as a disqualification for president was tossed out over a decade ago. Personally if he did I find it awful and disgracefull. But it wouldnt surprise me at all. Him being a liar is a given to me. Just like every politician.

I am glad you have the good sense that him being at bain for a couple more years means jack squat in the attack angle about shuttering business and people losing their jobs.

At the end of the day this is rather silly. A gotcha moment that annoys me in the world of politics.

As for the compensation from the wording it sounds like he was still a stake holder. So it may be compensation for being an owner. Really irrelevant to me. 100K for being on the board of a company. Alot of these people make a lot of money being on a board of companies. Wasnt Michelle Obama making 50-100K on some board before the 08 election? Good for them if they can make that kind of money meeting a few times a year.

 

[fskimospy]

Perjuring yourself as a disqualification for president was tossed out over a decade ago. Personally if he did I find it awful and disgracefull. But it wouldnt surprise me at all. Him being a liar is a given to me. Just like every politician.

I am glad you have the good sense that him being at bain for a couple more years means jack squat in the attack angle about shuttering business and people losing their jobs.

At the end of the day this is rather silly. A gotcha moment that annoys me in the world of politics.

As for the compensation from the wording it sounds like he was still a stake holder. So it may be compensation for being an owner. Really irrelevant to me. 100K for being on the board of a company. Alot of these people make a lot of money being on a board of companies. Wasnt Michelle Obama making 50-100K on some board before the 08 election? Good for them if they can make that kind of money meeting a few times a year.

No, it was a salary of 100k. I just found it to be pretty shitty to be complaining about people freeloading while you're getting paid $100,000 to do absolutely nothing. That's pretty much the definition of freeloading.

I don't understand how you can say that him perjuring himself would be disgraceful but then say at the end of the day the whole thing is silly. I'm not asking for him to be disqualified for the presidency over this, much like I thought Clinton's impeachment was ridiculous. It's certainly relevant information for the election however.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Okay, they are all telling the truth then. So you are saying that Romney perjured himself while running for Massachusetts governor?

No. This is such a bullshit smear attempt...Obama must be getting desparate. Romney abruptly ceased management responsiblities with Bain in 1999. He may have been on the Board of Directors for a few of his personal investments, but he had no direct involvement with Bain's operations or investment activities after he retired in 1999 when he left Bain to run the Olympics. All the facts seem to point to this.

Why do you so desparately want to twist his words and make him out to be a liar/perjurer over such a trivial matter? You're a smart guy, think about it.

 

[fskimospy]

No. This is such a bullshit smear attempt...Obama must be getting desparate. Romney abruptly ceased management responsiblities with Bain in 1999. He may have been on the Board of Directors for a few of his personal investments, but he had no direct involvement with Bain's operations or investment activities after he retired in 1999 when he left Bain to run the Olympics. All the facts seem to point to this.

Why do you so desparately want to twist his words and make him out to be a liar/perjurer over such a trivial matter? You're a smart guy, think about it.

Twisting his words how? I'm using their own words verbatim. Are you claiming there is some context that isn't being included that would alter the meaning of these statements? If so, what?

The people quoted earlier said Romney had "absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm or with any of its portfolio companies since the day of his departure". Romney has claimed under oath that he attended numerous board meetings for Bain portfolio companies during this time. Both statements cannot be correct.

Earlier you expressed skepticism that all 4 people could be lying. Are you reconsidering that skepticism or are you saying that Romney lied under oath? There's really no middle ground.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Twisting his words how? I'm using their own words verbatim. Are you claiming there is some context that isn't being included that would alter the meaning of these statements? If so, what?

The people quoted earlier said Romney had "absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm or with any of its portfolio companies since the day of his departure". Romney has claimed under oath that he attended numerous board meetings for Bain portfolio companies during this time. Both statements cannot be correct.

Both statements are correct. Attending board meetings for a couple of Bain portfolio companies is not direct involvement in the management or investment activities of Bain Corporation. Why is this simple concept so difficult for you?

 

[fskimospy]

Both statements are correct. Attending board meetings for a couple of Bain portfolio companies is not direct involvement in the management or investment activities of Bain. Why is this simple concept so difficult for you?

This post is a non sequitur? Those two statements directly contradict each other, they cannot by definition both be correct.

Once again, here is the quote: (emphasis mine)

"Mitt Romney left Bain Capital in February 1999 to run the Olympics and has had absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm or with any of its portfolio companies since the day of his departure."

Romney has claimed under oath that he attended board meetings for Bain portfolio companies. What is difficult about understanding this?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

This post is a non sequitur? Those two statements directly contradict each other, they cannot by definition both be correct.

Nope...they are not contradictory. Both are true. Romney wasn't involved in managing Bain Corporation or their investments activities. He attended some board meetings for a couple Bain portfolio companies....this is NOT managing Bain or their investment decisions.

eskimospy...I'm starting to worry about you.

Romney has claimed under oath that he attended board meetings for Bain portfolio companies. What is difficult about understanding this?

Perhaps the person quoted wasn't aware of Romney's limited involvement on a couple of their numerous portfolio entities. You think?

 

[fskimospy]

Nope...they are not contradictory. Both are true. Romney wasn't involved in managing Bain Corporation or their investments activities. He attended some board meetings for a couple Bain portfolio companies....this is NOT managing Bain or their investment decisions.

eskimospy...I'm starting to worry about you.


Perhaps the person quoted wasn't aware of Romney's limited involvement on a couple of their numerous portfolio entities. You think?

Good friend DSF I'm genuinely concerned for you as well at this point as your own posts have lost internal logical consistency. That level of incoherence might be symptomatic of a larger problem. In your first paragraph you state that the two statements aren't contradictory but in your second paragraph you appear to acknowledge the inconsistency. It can't be both.

This is extremely simple. It is an utter logical impossibility for both statements to be true. Period. One of them says that Romney had no involvement whatsoever with any of Bain's portfolio companies. The other statement by Romney states he had involvement with Bain portfolio companies. They are stating directly opposite things. Full stop.

It is certainly possible that the person stating Romney had no involvement was unaware of his limited actions there, but that would then make their statement incorrect. Earlier you appeared to endorse such statements as being correct, but are you now saying that they were only partially correct?

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Editing this post. Factcheck.org says it better:

From: http://factcheck.org/2012/07/romneys-bain-years-new-evidence-same-conclusion/ Emphasis added.

During this time Romney remained on the boards of Staples and another company in which Bain had invested, LifeLike Co., a company that made dolls. As evidence of his continued ties to Massachusetts, the report states that Romney “returned to Massachusetts from Utah to attend meetings at Staples.” But there’s no mention of Romney attending any business meetings at Bain itself or any of Bain’s investment funds.

We note for the record our disagreement with a July 12 Huffington Post report, which cites Romney’s membership on the LifeLike board as evidence that his claim to have had no active involvement with Bain or any Bain entity is “false.” No so, in our judgment.

We think the term “Bain Capital entity” on Romney’s disclosure forms could only refer to Bain’s various investment funds, not to companies in which it invested. And in the three days that Romney sought to document his continued ties to Massachusetts, so he could run for governor, he made no mention of attending any meetings at Bain itself or any of the various Bain partnerships.

LifeLike was one of Bain’s smaller investments, and a failure. A Jan. 9 Wall Street Journal report says that in 1996 Bain had invested $2.1 million in the privately held Colorado firm for a stake of “unknown size,” but sold those shares in late 2001 for $15,000. The company was later liquidated, the Journal reported.

On the broader question of Romney’s involvement with Bain during this time, we concur with Kessler’s conclusion. “The Obama campaign is blowing smoke here,” he says, adding “the weight of evidence suggests that Romney did in fact end active management of Bain in 1999.”

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Also about him still being CEO on SEC after he left:

From FactCheck.org

Jill E. Fisch, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and co-director of the Institute for Law and Economics, said Romney would not have committed a felony by listing himself as managing director — even if he now claims he had no role in running the company after February 1999. There is no legal obligation to describe how active one is in the day-to-day management of the company, she said. And just because he held title of managing director doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s responsible for decisions like layoffs or outsourcing.

“If that really mattered to investors, they might consider that a civil liability, but we wouldn’t be talking about a felony,” she said.

 

[cybrsage]

Microsoft owns quite a lot of Apple. Microsoft does not attend any Apple board meetings, even though it has enough stock to be a controlling board member.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Good friend DSF I'm genuinely concerned for you as well at this point as your own posts have lost internal logical consistency. That level of incoherence might be symptomatic of a larger problem. In your first paragraph you state that the two statements aren't contradictory but in your second paragraph you appear to acknowledge the inconsistency. It can't be both.

This is extremely simple. It is an utter logical impossibility for both statements to be true. Period. One of them says that Romney had no involvement whatsoever with any of Bain's portfolio companies. The other statement by Romney states he had involvement with Bain portfolio companies. They are stating directly opposite things. Full stop.

It is certainly possible that the person stating Romney had no involvement was unaware of his limited actions there, but that would then make their statement incorrect. Earlier you appeared to endorse such statements as being correct, but are you now saying that they were only partially correct?

Sigh.

1) One insider said Romney wasn't involved with any of Bain's portfolio companies. We know this isn't true. Romney has stated that he was on the board of a couple Bain entities from 1999-2002. This is a true statement.

2) We have 4 Bain insiders, all of which stated that Romney had no involvement in managing the corporation or its investment activities. Romney has also stated that he had no involvement in managing the corporation or its investment activities. This is a true statement.

Being on the board for a couple portfolio companies is NOT direct management of a large corporation. Kapeesh?

There is no lie.

 

[mshan]

1998 out-sourcing to China:

"On April 17, 1998, Brookside Capital Partners Fund, a Bain Capital affiliate, filed a report with the Securities and Exchange Commission noting that it had acquired 6.13 percent of Hong Kong-based Global-Tech Appliances, which manufactured household appliances in a production facility in the industrial city of Dongguan, China. That August, according to another SEC filing, Brookside upped its interest in Global-Tech to 10.3 percent. Both SEC filings identified Romney as the person in control of this investment: "Mr. W. Mitt Romney is the sole shareholder, sole director, President and Chief Executive Officer of Brookside Inc. and thus is the controlling person of Brookside Inc." Each of these documents was signed by Domenic Ferrante, a managing director of Brookside and Bain.

...

At the time Romney was acquiring shares in Global-Tech, the firm publicly acknowledged that its strategy was to profit from prominent US companies outsourcing production abroad. On September 4, 1998, Global-Tech issued a press release announcing it was postponing completion of a $30 million expansion of its Dongguan facility because Sunbeam, a prominent American consumer products company and a major client of Global-Tech, was cutting back on outsourcing as part of an overall consolidation. But John C.K. Sham, Global-Tech's president and CEO, said, "Although it appears that customers such as Sunbeam are not outsourcing their manufacturing as quickly as we had anticipated, we still believe that the long-term trend toward outsourcing will continue." Global-Tech, which in mid-1998 announced fiscal year sales of $118.3 million (an increase of 89 percent over the previous year), also manufactured household appliances for Hamilton Beach, Mr. Coffee, Proctor-Silex, Revlon, and Vidal Sassoon, and its chief exec was hoping for more outsourcing from these and other American firms."

...

Romney's Global-Tech deal adds a new dimension to the debate over Romney and outsourcing. Whether or not he was at the helm when Bain invested in US firms that did or did not ship jobs overseas, Romney was in command when a company he owned and controlled bought a large stake in a Chinese venture that counted on American companies sending manufacturing—and that means jobs—to China. These days, Romney rails against China for swiping American jobs and proclaims, "For me, it's all about good jobs for the American people." But when there was money to be made by acquiring a chunk of a Chinese company that aimed to displace American manufacturers (and American workers), Romney's patriotism did not interfere with the potential for profit.


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/bain-capital-mitt-romney-outsourcing-china-global-tech

That being said, to me, the most plausible explanation for this convoluted spin is:

- Romney took a temporary absence of leave from Bain in 1999 to run the Olympics

- he initially intended to return to Bain afterwards, but the opportunity to run for governor and now president presented itself

- Romney, while not running day to day operations, as 100% owner of company, would logically have to ok or veto all major decisions regarding risk / reward opportunities since that is in his vested interest

- For political expediency,Romney and Bain have been trying to rewrite history after the fact during his run for governor and president, but unfortunately he has a tremendous paper trail that contradicts him...



Whether or not this is fair / unfair swift-boating of Romney or is even relevant / irrelevant politically doesn't matter doesn't matter if you just want to understand honestly why Romney is being bent into a political pretzel like he is.

 

[fskimospy]

Sigh.

1) One insider said Romney wasn't involved with any of Bain's portfolio companies. We know this isn't true. Romney has stated that he was on the board of a couple Bain entities from 1999-2002. This is a true statement.

2) We have 4 Bain insiders, all of which stated that Romney had no involvement in managing the corporation or its investment activities. Romney has also stated that he had no involvement in managing the corporation or its investment activities. This is a true statement.

Being on the board for a couple portfolio companies is NOT direct management of a large corporation. Kapeesh?

There is no lie.

Now was that so hard to admit that both statements couldn't be true? I have no idea why you were fighting so hard.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Now was that so hard to admit that both statements couldn't be true? I have no idea why you were fighting so hard.

Go read my post #135

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Now was that so hard to admit that both statements couldn't be true? I have no idea why you were fighting so hard.

I thought you meant both Romney statements couldn't be true my good friend.

 

[blankslate]

Microsoft owns quite a lot of Apple. Microsoft does not attend any Apple board meetings, even though it has enough stock to be a controlling board member.

It would be interesting to see if any Microsoft people are listed as people on Apples board or as any of it's officers. Kind of doubt it.

Remember

Until Romney left Bain Capital in 1999, he ran it with a proprietor’s zeal and attention to detail, earning a reputation for smart, hands-on management.

from the article printed before the SEC paperwork was widely disseminated.
here http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...s-overseas/2012/06/21/gJQAsD9ptV_story_1.html

You'd think given his zeal and "attention to detail" that Governor Romney would say hey take my name off of the paperwork... maybe?

 

[fskimospy]

Go read my post #135

Your post is entirely irrelevant to the point that my post was discussing. My post was about how the statements of Bain and the insiders involved in it are directly contradictory to Romney's sworn statement. Those insiders claim Romney had no involvement, Romney claims he did.

His larger relationship with Bain is also interesting, but it is not germane to that other point. As to his larger relationship with Bain, I find it interesting that people are willing to swallow a story that a man who attends board meetings with Bain portfolio companies, is listed as the owner and CEO of Bain, receives a six figure salary from Bain, and signs paperwork for 6 acquisitions is 'not involved in any way'. That strains credulity.

By the way as someone else mentioned, can you imagine the reaction of the Republicans if Obama was a passive owner of a company that profited from disposing of aborted fetuses? They would lose their shit.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Your post is entirely irrelevant to the point that my post was discussing. My post was about how the statements of Bain and the insiders involved in it are directly contradictory to Romney's sworn statement. Those insiders claim Romney had no involvement, Romney claims he did.

His larger relationship with Bain is also interesting, but it is not germane to that other point. As to his larger relationship with Bain, I find it interesting that people are willing to swallow a story that a man who attends board meetings with Bain portfolio companies, is listed as the owner and CEO of Bain, receives a six figure salary from Bain, and signs paperwork for 6 acquisitions is 'not involved in any way'. That strains credulity.

By the way as someone else mentioned, can you imagine the reaction of the Republicans if Obama was a passive owner of a company that profited from disposing of aborted fetuses? They would lose their shit.

So what you are saying is that you are taking the weakest of all the possible evidence and running with it? Even against stronger evidence that contradicts what you said?

Thats your call my friend. I prefer to go with Occam's razor here.

 

[fskimospy]

So what you are saying is that you are taking the weakest of all the possible evidence and running with? Even against stronger evidence that contradicts what you said?

Thats your call my friend. I prefer to go with Occam's razor here.

I'm not going with 'the weakest of all the possible evidence' in any way. I'm saying that Romney's statement strains credulity. Additionally, you are not using Occam's razor correctly. Occam's razor is an argument for simplicity, not about the weight of evidence.

Also, Romney's SEC filings directly contradict his statements now. The SEC has very specific definitions of what things in its filings mean. In the case of Bain, Romney was listed as the 'executive officer'. Under SEC rules that is defined as:

The term "executive officer", when used with reference to a registrant, means its president, any vice president of the registrant in charge of a principal business unit, division or function (such as sales, administration or finance), any other officer who performs a policy making function or any other person who performs similar policy making functions for the registrant. Executive officers of subsidiaries may be deemed executive officers of the registrant if they perform such policy making functions for the registrant.

http://taft.law.uc.edu/CCL/34ActRls/rule3b-7.html

If Romney was not undertaking any of these functions then the SEC filings were fraudulent. That is a felony.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

I'm not going with 'the weakest of all the possible evidence' in any way. I'm saying that Romney's statement strains credulity. Additionally, you are not using Occam's razor correctly. Occam's razor is an argument for simplicity, not about the weight of evidence.

Also, Romney's SEC filings directly contradict his statements now. The SEC has very specific definitions of what things in its filings mean. In the case of Bain, Romney was listed as the 'executive officer'. Under SEC rules that is defined as:


http://taft.law.uc.edu/CCL/34ActRls/rule3b-7.html

If Romney was not undertaking any of these functions then the SEC filings were fraudulent. That is a felony.

No, are not reading Occam's razor right. Has nothing to do with simplicity. It is often incorrectly stated as "other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one." It says that one should go with more simple theories until simplicity can be discarded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate.

Also about him still being CEO on SEC after he left:

From FactCheck.org

Jill E. Fisch, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and co-director of the Institute for Law and Economics, said Romney would not have committed a felony by listing himself as managing director — even if he now claims he had no role in running the company after February 1999. There is no legal obligation to describe how active one is in the day-to-day management of the company, she said. And just because he held title of managing director doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s responsible for decisions like layoffs or outsourcing.

“If that really mattered to investors, they might consider that a civil liability, but we wouldn’t be talking about a felony,” she said.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

No. This is such a bullshit smear attempt...Obama must be getting desparate. Romney abruptly ceased management responsiblities with Bain in 1999. He may have been on the Board of Directors for a few of his personal investments, but he had no direct involvement with Bain's operations or investment activities after he retired in 1999 when he left Bain to run the Olympics. All the facts seem to point to this.

Why do you so desparately want to twist his words and make him out to be a liar/perjurer over such a trivial matter? You're a smart guy, think about it.

Oh?

Back during his gubernatorial campaign:

"There were a number of social trips and business trips that brought me back to Massachusetts, board meetings, Thanksgiving and so forth."

"I remained on the board of the Staples Corporation and Marriott International, the LifeLike Corporation."

Now he's saying he had zero participation in Bain.

Well which one is it?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

If Romney was not undertaking any of these functions then the SEC filings were fraudulent. That is a felony.

Hopefully Obama will ask Holder to investigate....two clowns looking for a circus.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Oh?

Back during his gubernatorial campaign:

"There were a number of social trips and business trips that brought me back to Massachusetts, board meetings, Thanksgiving and so forth."

"I remained on the board of the Staples Corporation and Marriott International, the LifeLike Corporation."

Now he's saying he had zero participation in Bain.

Well which one is it?

Editing this post. Factcheck.org says it better:

From: http://factcheck.org/2012/07/romneys-bain-years-new-evidence-same-conclusion/ Emphasis added.

During this time Romney remained on the boards of Staples and another company in which Bain had invested, LifeLike Co., a company that made dolls. As evidence of his continued ties to Massachusetts, the report states that Romney “returned to Massachusetts from Utah to attend meetings at Staples.” But there’s no mention of Romney attending any business meetings at Bain itself or any of Bain’s investment funds.

We note for the record our disagreement with a July 12 Huffington Post report, which cites Romney’s membership on the LifeLike board as evidence that his claim to have had no active involvement with Bain or any Bain entity is “false.” No so, in our judgment.

We think the term “Bain Capital entity” on Romney’s disclosure forms could only refer to Bain’s various investment funds, not to companies in which it invested. And in the three days that Romney sought to document his continued ties to Massachusetts, so he could run for governor, he made no mention of attending any meetings at Bain itself or any of the various Bain partnerships.

LifeLike was one of Bain’s smaller investments, and a failure. A Jan. 9 Wall Street Journal report says that in 1996 Bain had invested $2.1 million in the privately held Colorado firm for a stake of “unknown size,” but sold those shares in late 2001 for $15,000. The company was later liquidated, the Journal reported.

On the broader question of Romney’s involvement with Bain during this time, we concur with Kessler’s conclusion. “The Obama campaign is blowing smoke here,” he says, adding “the weight of evidence suggests that Romney did in fact end active management of Bain in 1999.”