Type to search

Finders Weepers: Early Bain Disputes Cast New Light on Its Business

Memo Pad

Finders Weepers: Early Bain Disputes Cast New Light on Its Business


by Jesse Eisinger, ProPublica.

It was one of the “quickest big hits in Wall Street history,” as the Wall Street Journal put it at the time.

In 1996, an investment group including Bain Capital, the firm then run by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, sold the consumer credit information business Experian to a British retailer, making a $500 million profit. Bain and the other investors who reaped that windfall had closed the acquisition a mere seven weeks earlier, stunning the investing world.

Another party was stunned by the deal, but for a different reason. James McCall Springer believed that he had brought the idea to buy Experian to Bain in the first place.

Springer sued to get what he contended was his rightful finder’s fee, eventually settling. And he wasn’t the only one. At least three other parties had similar legal disputes with Bain during the early 1990s, when Romney led the company, raising questions of how rough-and-tumble the company could be. The suits also shed light on how Bain actually operated, complicating one of the main narratives Bain, the Romney campaign, and many commentators have used to describe the private equity firm.

The Romney campaign declined to respond to a request for comment on the lawsuits. Bain did not respond to a request for comment. And, of course, disputes about finder’s fees are not uncommon; large sums are at stake for little work, a situation ripe for claims of aggrandized roles.

Most accounts of Bain characterize the firm as full of hard-working young men who sought to find troubled companies, invest in them and turn them around. Romney’s presidential campaign website says that “under his leadership, Bain Capital helped to launch or rebuild over one hundred companies.” Romney campaigns have embraced his reputation as a turnaround artist, as he has run on his private equity record and his overhaul of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics. He even titled his 2004 book “Turnaround,” a memoir and account of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.

But as the disputes illuminate, the reality of Bain’s business in the early years is more complicated.

Often, Bain wasn’t finding companies on its own. Finders and middlemen were more common in the early days of private equity than they are now. Smaller firms would seek out acquisition targets and bring them to the big buyout firms.

More significantly, Romney’s firm wasn’t always looking for startups or troubled companies that it could turn around.

Private equity companies conduct a variety of transactions other than buying startups with growth potential or troubled firms ripe for a turnaround. Some seek out family-run operations under the theory that those typically have a lot of fat to cut. Some like “roll-ups,” buying up a bunch of small operations in one industry and combining them into a powerhouse with economies of scale. Firms buy divisions of large corporations that are trying to streamline their operations. Some acquisitions fit more than one of these descriptions. The constant is debt, and plenty of it. Private equity firms use such borrowed money to maximize their gains.

The Romney campaign says Bain did various types of deals. And it celebrates that Bain helped launch or rebuild some American corporate stalwarts, like Staples, Bright Horizons and Sports Authority.

Yet in addition, under Romney’s tenure, Bain often sought out solid businesses that didn’t need to be turned around. The reason: Such companies could operate under the burden of the enormous debt that Bain would layer on them.

“They always told us day one: They wanted profitable companies that are doing OK, and they pay what they needed to pay,” says Phillip Roman, who heads up an eponymous mergers and acquisitions firm that was involved in a legal dispute with Bain in the 1990s similar to McCall Springer’s. “There are companies that like turnarounds,” referring to other private equity firms. “That’s another business” from the one Bain was in.

Bain in the 1990s was “doing more [of] the usual leveraged buyout: Buy with a lot of debt, try to increase earnings and sell as soon as possible,” says Ludovic Phalippou, an expert on private equity at the University of Oxford in England. The firm was seeking “mature companies with high cash flow,” he says, with sufficiently stable earnings “to be able to leverage a lot.”


  1. Dominick Vila September 11, 2012

    Venture capitalists, like Bain, represent the worst capitalism has to offer. Their goal is not the creation of jobs or contributing to a strong and stable economy, but putting more money in the pockets of their clients at the expense with total disregard of how doing that affects workers or communities. They are the scum of the Earth, and some people want to put one of them in the Oval Office!

    1. neece00 September 11, 2012

      How can anyone fall for his insincerity.

    2. William Deutschlander September 11, 2012

      In actuality and truth Romney and Bain are “VULTURE CAPITALISTS”, they look for assetts that can be borrowing collateral or converted to cash, then borrow against the collateral or cash out the assetts, charge exhorbinant quasi management fees and leave the skeleton behind to struggle or decline, while they split up the millions of dollars they extracted and convert it to personal wealth in tax haven foreign countries to avoid U S taxes.

    3. montanabill September 11, 2012

      Really Dominick, how about spending just a few minutes compiling a list of the companies in this country that were created by venture capitalists? The rest of you who agreed with his silly claim need to do the same. After compiling your list, look around your house and person and see just how many products you have that were created or provided by companies that were started or funded by venture capitalists. Good grief!

      1. CPANY September 11, 2012


        Are you still here, kissing Romney’s ass?

        1. montanabill September 11, 2012

          Nope, simply trying to get you to see Obama for what he really is. By the way, I have to hand it to political cartoonists, Pat Oliphant, with whom I seldom agree, and Dana Summers, for hitting some nails right on the head today.

      2. Dominick Vila September 11, 2012

        Most of the small businesses I know were created by people with an idea or a dream to succeed, and were seldom, if ever, created by venture capitalists. Bain’s record, with few exceptions, has little to do with investment to help a company grow and prosper, let alone create jobs. More often than not, their task was to help companies find ways to become profitable – nothing wrong with that – until we realize that invariably the advise entailed laying off workers and reducing benefits. Tools such as process improvements and implementing effective standards (such as ISO) were either absent or an afterthought. Most of the companies that Bain dealt with shut down their facilities in a way that ensured the shareholders got their cut, and the workers got a pink slip.

        1. montanabill September 11, 2012

          All businesses are created by people with an idea or dream. Nearly 2,000,000/yr.
          Most are small, designed to serve a local community. But if your dream involves a product that targets a much larger customer base, as 600-800/yr. do, then you need venture capital because banks won’t take that kind of risk. Nearly 11% of private sector jobs come from venture capital backed companies and venture backed revenue accounts for 21% of US GDP. Part of your problem is that you don’t know a venture capital company from a private equity firm. Bain was, and is, a private equity firm.
          Nor do you really know how they work. Hertz is an example of a private equity financed company. To get a better understanding, look up an article by Jonathan Macey on the Wall Street Journal site (wsj), “How Private Equity Works”. I can’t put the address here, it would be blocked.
          There is no getting around that some businesses simply cannot be successful. But Bain makes out far better if they are successful than if they have to liquidate a company, so it is in their best interest to do their best for the companies with which they become involved.
          Way too many people are parroting DNC propaganda because they want to believe it. Each side skews their stories unmercifully. There is usually just a tiny grain of truth in each attack. It is our job to determine if it is a grain in a few grains of sand or in a beach.

      3. grammyjill September 11, 2012

        For me it’s not his business. It’s what he did in Mass. I live in NH a half hour from the Mass. border, so all my network news comes from Boston. I got to see him up close as Govenor. He REALLY sucked. Pot holes big enough to loose a smart car in. They had to close a few bridges because they were so rusted they were considered unsafe. And he wouldn’t fix them. It wasn’t as if he didn’t have the money. He raised taxes to a very high level, but he called them fees. So, he had money pouring in, not fixing anything,but yet left Gov. Patrick with a 18 billion dollar deficit. Where did all that money go? Can’t check the records to find out. He took everything with him including the computer hard drives. Trust him? I think not!

        1. montanabill September 11, 2012

          I don’t know Romney’s record in Mass. I do know that it is a dysfunctional state and was even worst under Democrat governors and Romney still had a Democrat legislature, so who to blame? And are you saying you trust Obama? What he has done and what he has said are completely detached. Do you want more of the same and worse? Business seems to want Romney. That means if he is elected, business will come to life, start expanding and hiring. That alone will cure an awful lot of what is wrong with America. You can have four more years of certain decline and a debt that will make it impossible for America to recover, or you can take a chance that business will like Romney and start producing jobs again. It is really that simple.
          I doubt he’ll be a perfect President, but he is our only chance of recovering from this economic mess.

          1. grammyjill September 12, 2012

            Actually, Gov. Patrick is turning the state aroung quite well. And yes, I do trust Obama a whole lot more than I trust Romney. I know you hate Obama for some reason, but he has done a good job so far. I know most of you repuubs don’t think so cause things aren’t perfect in only three and a half years, but it took many years to get into this mess so fixing it is gonna take some time. In case you think I’m doing great in this economy, no. We lost our home because of Bush’s bullshit so we’ve been homeless for six years and live below poverty level. But I also have a military son who has already been to Iraq and didn’t come back the same as he was before, and I have a daughter that was born with a heart problem and can’t do as Ryan wants every woman to do, constantly spit out kids. So, to protect my family, there is no way I’d vote for let’s start a war with Iran Romney and the life of the woman clause is big enough to drive a mack truck through, let’s close it Ryan. If you put your hate aside for a couple hours and really checked things out, you would find that putting those two in office would seriously screw you.

          2. montanabill September 12, 2012

            I don’t hate Obama. I simply want someone who is up to the job to have it.
            I’m sorry for your state, but until you are capable of admitting that you must have had some hand in it, you’ll continue to make bad decisions. Blaming Bush for you losing your home is wrong on several counts. If you like staying unemployed, vote Obama again.

          3. grammyjill September 12, 2012

            My husband works a 40+ hour a week job. I don’t anymore because I got broken at my last job. Some injuries don’t get better. And yes, loosing my income did play a part in loosing the house, but since then my husband has had some very good jobs, but because of the economic crash and housing crash we can’t get another home yet.
            If I actually thought R&R could do a better job, I’d vote for them. But I truly believe that if they got in we would go right back to 2008. Look what Romney did today. Even his own party thinks he really screwed up. He should have at least kept his mouth shut until he knew what was going on. And really have you heard one truthful word out of either of the R’s? Hell Mitt doesn’t even use his given name.

          4. montanabill September 12, 2012

            Looks like you have been reading the National Memo version of Romney’s statement. His own party certainly does not think he screwed up. Obama allowed his embassy people to float an apology and then threw them under the bus when it was apparent it would fly. They would not have made any statement without his or Hillary’s approval. What I really don’t understand is how you can judge that Romney and Ryan are lying, but somehow never seem to hear an equal amount of lying by the Obama campaign, nor note that what Obama says, is rarely what he does. And wasn’t Clinton’s first name William, not Bill? That is just picking nits.

          5. grammyjill September 12, 2012

            No I watched Romney on TV. He was reacting to something that was put out ix hours before anything happened. And it wasn’t an apology either. It was a statement condeming those bigot asholes that made that film. They(filmmakers) should be arrested.  The President, being the President was at Walter Reid hospital when that letter came in. Romney spoke before he even knew what was happening. FACTS< FACTS<FACTS! Something Romney doesn't seem to care about. If Romney were president, we would now be in two more wars, before he knew the FACTS. R&R have NOT said one true word in their campain. Get on the web and check for yourself.

    4. fltacks September 11, 2012

      Really Dominick? A couple of points: First, the purpose of companies like Bain is to allocate capital, pure and simple. You only have two choices on allocating capital – private allocation of capital or government (public) allocation of capital. If you’re arguing for the public allocation of capital, then move to Cuba or North Korea and let me know how that works out for you. That’s what happens when government allocates capital; Soylandra is what happens when government allocates capital! (By the way, the GE rescue was successful only because Obama put a PE guy in charge of the rescue.)

      Second, private equity represents a historic milestone in the history of capitalism, and in a massively good way. PE is the first time in all of history that the middle class is able to invest side by side with the wealthy in the same deals with the same returns. Think about this for a second. For all of history, the wealthy have controlled everything and have reaped all the rewards of capitalism. The middle class has gotten just the crumbs. PE firms invest the money of their clients primarily (usually, only 10% of the equity comes from the PE firm itself). The rest comes from wealthy individuals, but also from State employee pension funds, teacher pension funds, union pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, and private company pension funds. Many of these clients of PE firms are investing the money of average working stiffs, and making the 50% returns discussed in the article. These returns help provide for the retirement of millions of working class people and keep taxes low, allowing governments to utilize money that would be otherwise earmarked for pensions to be used for other important priorities. PE firms fight like hell for allocations from these pension funds, and do whatever they can to keep these pension funds satisfied.

      So your statement that PE is the worst capitalism has to offer couldn’t be further from the truth. It is in reality the first time all of us are getting in on the action. Having someone who truly understands the allocation of capital in the White House is actually quite a concept, especially considering Obama and his cabinet are completely clueless about the private economy and how it works. The results of his presidency speaks for itself. This from a lifelong Democrat who voted Obama last time, but won’t this time because he’s basically incompetent.

      1. Dominick Vila September 11, 2012

        Nope, I am staying in sunny Florida! What is relevant for me when it comes to voting for a candidate that bases his qualifications on his business acumen and record is not how he and his company allocated capital, but whether his focus was on investing and creating jobs in the United States, how he became rich, how his decisions affected the employees of the companies he counseled, whether or not he contributed to the betterment of our communities, payed taxes like the rest of us, and demonstrated that his focus went beyond sales and profits.
        Mitt Romney’s skills and record from a business and wealth accumulation perspectives are remarkable; but those are not the attributes we should look for in a candidate for President. What we need is a person whose vision, policies and character help us move forward, prosper and live in peace and security; not a man that does not hesitate to sacrifice thousands of people if that is what it takes to make an extra buck.
        You look at this issue from a business and philosophical perspective, and there is nothing wrong with that, I look at it from a human perspective and how that experience would contribute or affect the ability of a candidate to govern once elected.

      2. josex September 14, 2012

        >> the purpose of companies like Bain is to allocate capital, pure and simple

        “Pure and simple” is what we want?

        We want allocation of capital that *helps* society (and the economy in all likelihood). You aren’t providing any argument why Bain or any other particular firm has made the re-allocation better or worse. Clearly, it’s been better *for* Bain.

        Let me give you an example of allocation, “pure and simple”. Buy out a firm by putting in 1 million and 20 million from a naive workers’ pension fund. Then in controlling that newly acquired firm, you reduce everyon’s wages that you legally can to minimum wage. You keep half of the extra money you now “saved” in accounting obligations. Let’s say this is 3 million, and you take cash from the 20 billion the pension gave you. You give the other 3 back (as an accounting book gain) to the pension holder who now owns most of this new firm. So after investing 20 million, the pension now has a 3 million gain in the books. In this particular case you could care less what happens to the stock you got since you already made 300% in a short time. We’ll even say you donate the stock to charity. Later, maybe a year down the road, the firm obviously implodes as people resign or do crappy work. The pension loses the entire value of this firm it invested as the stock goes to the gutter with bankruptcy imminent as suppliers aren’t getting paid. That’s 20 million down the drain since the 3 realized earlier might not materialize or survive bankruptcy and the rest virtually disappeared since no one will pay more than pennies for those shares.

        But this hypothetical example was just allocating capital, pure and simple.

        What could have gone wrong?

        Didn’t you imply that allocating capital is good pure and simple?

        Do you call the result of this example good?

        Good for the PE but not for anyone else.

        >> By the way, the GE rescue was successful only because Obama put a PE guy in charge of the rescue.

        Excuses excuses. You just said that when the government gets involved we get North Korea and what not (obviously you are ignoring how governments around the world get involved all the time and are responsible for wealth not being totally lopsided with more frequent crashed economies and wars), yet this is a clear example of how government gets involved to save many jobs and make America (not China or India) more competitive.

        >> Many of these clients of PE firms are investing the money of average working stiffs, and making the 50% returns discussed in the article.

        Where was that mentioned?

        The companies were usually modestly healthy and it was not analyzed if the average became worse or better (except that a full 22% filled for bankruptcy). The 50%+ returns you are talking about is what *Bain* made. What Joe Stiff’s pension made or lost depends ultimately on whether the restructuring made things better or worse.

        Second, what about the people fired or possibly forced to work at lower wages?

        >> PE firms fight like hell for allocations from these pension funds, and do whatever they can to keep these pension funds satisfied.

        These “Joe” pension funds are the ones that the professional gamblers bet against at the market highs when they pull out their money (eg, because of a newly enacted really hot tax cut). The pensions are set up and then Joe’s pension loses devastating amounts in a short time, as happened not long ago, tricking many nonprofessionals and Joe’s with bills to pay to sell their 401K near the bottom, which is where Romney and other wealthy individuals (with lots of extra disposable wealth) were buying once they knew Obama was not going to let the economy collapse much further.

        >> These returns help provide for the retirement of millions of working class people and keep taxes low, allowing governments to utilize money that would be otherwise earmarked for pensions to be used for other important priorities

        The example I gave earlier (and what just happened in the last few years) shows how, in direct contradiction with what you just said, more taxes were needed to be raised and there was less money for other priorities.


        >> Having someone who truly understands the allocation of capital in the White House is actually quite a concept, especially considering Obama and his cabinet are completely clueless about the private economy and how it works.

        The allocation of capital so that you (Romney) make a lot of money from others? No, I don’t want a President that is going to do that to the American people (to me). I don’t want Bush’s 700K+ job losses per month. I want efficient allocation of resources (including more people being able to control assets, so that more people can profit off their work rather than work for others) and positive job numbers like we have had since Obama helped turn things around.

        Lesson, when someone makes an awful lot in a short time, besides fairness dictating they pay very high taxes for that easy money rather than 0% in an IRA or 15% at the unbelievable unearned income tax rate, chances are the economy was not improved that fast and in fact a net wealth was allocated from the naive lamb into the clutches of the wolf. Fast and furious means money is moving into the hands of sharks rather than the economy growing. Romney’s wealth growth has been fast and furious, relatively speaking.

        >> The results of his presidency speaks for itself. This from a lifelong Democrat who voted Obama last time, but won’t this time because he’s basically incompetent.

        Riiight, incompetent …by stabilizing huge monthly job losses and the free fall economy despite Congressional opposition (via filibustering Republicans). Sure.

        Please do your conscience a favor and go check into politifact to see if they have a cure that can remove the fire off your pants. You may want to ask that great salesman Romney to accompany you since he might too be able to benefit.

    5. Plznnn September 11, 2012

      Uhh, let me see, 43 straight months of unemployment over 8%, 16 Trillion in debt, Medicare & S.S. bankrupt but Obama takes $716 Billion from Medicare, longest failed economy since W.W.II, Amnesty for Illegals by bypassing Congress, and you are worried about the money Romney made Legally?

      1. PhilM September 11, 2012

        Lotsa lies here, huh?…………. What you describe is what “O” inherited. Longest failed economy, and caused by 8 yrs of Bush- Cheney. .. Obama Care is far better than what it replaced. All as promised except for what the “do nothing” congress voted against.
        …………. You need to grow up snd get responsible for your hate speech. All your “BS” has been disproven many times and is sooo old.

      2. Theodora30 September 12, 2012

        Bush and the Republican Congress agreed to subsidize for profit, private insurance companies so that they could better “compete” with traditional Medicare costing us taxpayers an average of $1200 more per person enrolled in the program (Medicare Advantage). The reason private insurers were given permission to compete in the first place was belief that the free market would provide equal or better value at a lower cost. That is the money that Obama cut. Benefits to enrollees were not touched.

      3. rustacus21 September 12, 2012

        To: Plznnn; … & as conservatives like to ‘fictionalize’ history, like Romney, we have no idea if his money is legally OR ethically ‘earned’, but 1 thing we do know is that unemployment is only 1 dimension of job growth, which has risen 30 consecutive months (vs job losses over a comparable period of the end of the 2001-’09 admin); as 4 the deficit, only 4-5 trillion of it belongs to Prez Obama (see > http://moneydotusnewsdotcom/money/blogs/new-money/2008/10/09/maxing-out-the-national-debt-clock http://republicanjobcreationdotcom/ <) than broad economic recovery & job creation, in COORDINATION w/the W.H. All the rest is rambling incoherent Fox-speak which I won't bother w/…

      4. Jacob N. Shepherd September 20, 2012

        You’re as bad as Romney himself, but he gets the cash and you get zip……are you one of his 47 percenter’s? Better be careful who you support, you might be sorry!

  2. olafaux September 11, 2012

    This is our take:
    Actually, we have decided to stop talking ’bout the BAD things of our friend willard.
    That’s it.
    Fellow has ENOUGH heavy Load already.
    God Almighty bless the Commander In Chief!

    1. imabrummie September 11, 2012

      If you have decided to stop talking about the negative aspects of Romney, then I guess that leaves you with not much to say!

  3. arlanhp September 11, 2012

    I have heard that in the early days of Bain Capitol , Romney aligned himself with two wealthy investors from Panama. Has any one bothered to check out these ivestors, or is this a case of laundering drug money from Panama? I think Mr. Romney is more concerned that the Morman church might read his income tax than he is about the I R S or voters.

    1. Dominick Vila September 11, 2012

      Was one of them Manuel Noriega?

  4. Robert P. Robertson September 11, 2012

    That’s why Romney will not talk about his platform. Voodoo economics. Buying-out, leveraging, hedging, taking over, betting, and selling-out. That’s the name of his tune. If he gets into the White House with a vice-president who is a Republican/Tea Party extremist, and a treacherous Republican/Tea Party House of Representatives, it’s be like the fox in the hen house! It will hit the fan! VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!

  5. drpatel September 11, 2012

    Can not trust oligarchs to run the government in the interest of all people.

  6. drpatel September 11, 2012

    Can not trust oligarchs to run the government in the interest of all people including sick and disabled.

  7. BDD1951 September 11, 2012

    So, it appears that Bain had to be sued to live up to their obligations.

  8. howa4x September 11, 2012

    What Romney shows through all of this is he is not an honorable man, and even written agreements mean nothing to him. He has an everything for me and nothing for you attitude. This plays well into the current republican base philosophy of social darwinism, and a winner take all attitude. The republican base probably sees nothing wrong with what Romney did, since they admire toughness and ruthlessness in business. It is only offensive to people who think that life should be lived with some kind of moral code, and fairness matters more than wealth. This is the real split between the republicans and democrats, and why this election means so much. Do we as citizens want to live in a world ruled by heartless, uncaring people with a limited moral base, where the accumulation of wealth means more than human life and dignity, or one where fairness, and respect for people and the enviornment we live in is valued. That is the line between the two parties.

  9. Dave Kruse September 11, 2012

    Wouldn’t you know it! Per last weeks Sundays Denver
    Post- Romney’s Bain Capital is one of a
    dozen private equity firms subpoenaed
    for tax-strategy abuse and fraud. The
    documents retreived from Bain showed
    that Bain partners evaded more than 200
    million in taxes and more than 20 million
    evaded in medicare taxes. Is this the
    type of person you want as president? Now
    we know why he won’t release his taxes. He
    belongs in federal prison!

  10. imabrummie September 11, 2012

    All of which goes to prove that Mr. Bendyboots Retard Romney is nothing other than a stranger to the truth. I can see why those one percenters support him overwhelmingly; however, I am aghast that so many regular folk are fooled by his empty rhetoric and are seriously considering giving this speciman the honor of their vote!

  11. old_blu September 11, 2012

    Sounds like they tried to get out of everything they were obligated to pay, but I wonder if that isn’t standard procedure in a company like that, but it shouldn’t be for the white house.

  12. Robin O'Brien September 11, 2012

    September 2012…….
    Prior to filing for bankruptcy in November 2011 American Airlines hired Bain Capital.
    They were not in trouble prior to bankruptcy but they had many union work groups without contracts. Bain was hired to bust up the unions….CEOs and the upper 1% of the company has received bonuses since 9/11/2001 while the rest of the employees have taken pay cuts. I know who Romney would be working for if he is elected…….Bain does not care about the employees AT ALL!
    If you think that the Romney/Bain Way will provide us with more jobs and bring back ‘the Reagen Years’…….it won’t!!…..It will only put more money into their pockets!

  13. 2hheels2 September 11, 2012

    Bottom line is Romney in this election stands for nothing. He can be swayed by the wind. He hasn’t stood up to any conflict. How can anyone want this to be in the Whitehouse. It takes courage Mitt has shown he is so afraid of losing, he doesn’t have the courage to lead. Being a heartless business man doesn’t count

  14. CPANY September 11, 2012

    It figures that any company in which Mittens Romney in involved would operate like a scumbag.

    Cheating someone out of a finders fee sounds like something that Romney would do.

  15. Rvn_sgt6768 September 11, 2012

    And this is a surprise to whom? Once a bully always a bully. You hold him I will cut his hair because I DO NOT LIKE how he looks. That companies money is MY money and I want it now! After I get what I want I do not care if it is able to survive or not because I got what I want.

  16. CATFACE T-SHIRT September 11, 2012

    This guy’s a shark and a swindler. If you vote to put him in charge of Medicare and Social Security you deserve what you’re going to get, i.e. dying in poverty.

  17. docb September 11, 2012

    PLEASE QUIT REFERRING TO BAIN as Venture Capital…Bain was never under that model..They were an LBO..reframed as private equity because the reputation was so smarmy..Check Henry Kravis, KKR, and LBO..Or read the article!

    Venture capitalists take a RISK on the idea , concept, and management of a Startup! Bain shredded companies , sold off assets, under funded pensions..causing FDIC to use our taxpayer $$$ to make up what bain put in their pockets! Etc, etc!

  18. Wilbur Rodney Moore September 11, 2012

    Most people who side with Mitt are poor young fools who don’t know much about living, accept that they may be airs to fortunes there families stole from the masses! The other half are racist who can’t stand that there is a honest man running the country that has brains, and does not worship Greed as their for-fathers did!

  19. bcarreiro September 11, 2012

    gotta be great when all u have done in life is sit on your ass and pay finder fee’s for a no brainer or no bainer. get a clue magoo!! no one likes u not even u. ya didnt do much in boston either ask the firefighters who lost jobs.

  20. Bodine666 September 12, 2012

    —– Nearly 11% of private sector jobs come from venture capital backed companies and venture backed revenue accounts for 21% of US GDP —–

    Is this bain you’re talking about? If not then it is totally irrelevant. What others do has nothing to do with bain. We all know how romney tries to take credit for what others do, he’s tried to take credit for saving the auto industry, which he didn’t, he’s tried to take credit for getting Bin Laden, something he had nothing to do with. Now you want to give romney credit for the actions for other companies. Won’t fly.

    —– Hertz is an example of a private equity financed company. —–

    Was it bain? If not then it is absolutely irrelevant. The article is about the dishonest, corrupt actions of bain.

    —– Way too many people are parroting DNC propaganda —–

    Please, point out what is false.

    Telling the truth is not propaganda no matter how much you hate for the truth to be known.

    For examples of propaganda tune in to the Faux News channel. Or, better yet, listen to what republicans, conservatives, and right-wingers say. It takes only a few seconds of listening to any of them to hear propaganda.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.