Bain Capital--Democratic Depository

If Bain Capital is so evil, so bad, such a poor company why do Universities and Unions park billions there? Because it makes money. So much for their purity of mission!  These liberal organizations say one thing and do exactly the opposite! But that is way that all liberals act.  They complain about the use of Round up but refuse to weed. Al Gore complains about global warming while driving in big SUVs, flying around the country in private jets and not retrofitting his house so that it might use less energy.

The mantra of the left is, do what I say, not what I do! They are people who do not live their code. They are frauds. The following Bain Capital investors tells the story.

Conservative Tom

Look who parks their cash at Bain

By DEROY MURDOCK

September 1, 2012

 

 

Democrats convened in Charlotte, NC, will double down on their claim that Bain Capital is really the Bain crime family. They will accuse Republican nominee Mitt Romney and Bain’s other “greedy” co-founders of stealing their winnings, evading taxes and lighting cigars with $100 bills on their yachts.

 

But Bain’s private-equity executives have enriched dozens of organizations and millions of individuals in the Democratic base — including some who scream most loudly for President Obama’s re-election.

 

Government-worker pension funds are the chief beneficiaries of Bain’s economic stewardship. New York-based Preqin uses public documents, news accounts and Freedom of Information requests to track private-equity holdings. Since 2000, Preqin reports, the following funds have entrusted some $1.56 billion to Bain:

 

* Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund ($2.2 million)

* Indiana Public Retirement System ($39.3 million)

* Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System ($177.1 million)

* The Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension System ($19.5 million)

* Maryland State Retirement and Pension System ($117.5 million)

* Public Employees’ Retirement System of Nevada ($20.3 million)

* State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio ($767.3 million)

* Pennsylvania State Employees’ Retirement System ($231.5 million)

* Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island ($25 million)

* San Diego County Employees Retirement Association ($23.5 million)

* Teacher Retirement System of Texas ($122.5 million)

* Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System ($15 million)

 

These funds aggregate the savings of millions of unionized teachers, social workers, public-health personnel and first responders. Many would be startled to learn that their nest eggs are incubated by the company that Romney launched and the financiers he hired.

 

Leading universities have also profited from Bain’s expertise. According to Infrastructure Investor, Bain Capital Ventures Fund I (launched in 2001) managed wealth for “endowments and foundations such as Columbia, Princeton and Yale universities.”

According to BuyOuts magazine and S&P Capital IQ, Bain’s other college clients have included Cornell, Emory, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Notre Dame and the University of Pittsburgh. Preqin reports that the following schools have placed at least $424.6 million with Bain Capital between 1998 and 2008:

 

* Purdue University ($15.9 million)

* University of California ($225.7 million)

* University of Michigan ($130 million)

* University of Virginia ($20 million)

* University of Washington ($33 million)

 

Major, center-left foundations and cultural establishments also have seen their prospects brighten, thanks to Bain Capital. According to the aforementioned sources, such Bain clients have included the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Doris Duke Foundation, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Ford Foundation, the Heinz Endowments and the Oprah Winfrey Foundation.

Why on Earth would government-union leaders, university presidents and foundation chiefs let Bain oversee their precious assets?

 

“The scrutiny generated by a heated election year matters less than the performance the portfolio generates to the fund,” California State Teachers’ Retirement System spokesman Ricardo Duran said in the Aug. 12 Boston Globe. CalSTRS has pumped some $1.25 billion into Bain.

 

Since 1988, Duran says, private-equity companies like Bain have outperformed every other asset class to which CalSTRS has allocated the cash of its 856,360 largely unionized members.

 

Is Bain really a gang of corporate buccaneers who plunder their ill-gotten gains by outsourcing, euthanizing feeble portfolio companies and giving cancer to the spouses of those whom they fired? If so, union bosses, government retirees, liberal foundations and elite universities thrive on the wages of Bain’s economic Darwinism.

 

If, however, these institutions relish the yields that Bain Capital generates by supporting start-ups and rescuing distressed companies, 80 percent of which have prospered, then this money is honest — and Team Obama isn’t.

Romney's Taxes--Should He Release Them?

Romney's refusal to release  his tax returns has caused a feeding frenzy for Democrats starting with Harry Reed.  According to  the erstwhile leader of the Senate, the Republican candidate has not paid taxes for the past ten years.  They say it is important to know how much the former owner of Bain Capital earned as if that would make a difference between a good leader and one like our current President.

The demand for tax records is nothing but a search for damaging information that can hurt Romney's campaign and get Obama re-elected. It would be a mistake to release the records.  Any return can be made to look nefarious by using words to describe perfectly legal tax loopholes which we are sure that Romney has used. Releasing the tax forms would be a campaign ending mistake.

As far as the comment that Romney paid no taxes, the Senate leader is incorrect as there is a provision in the law called the "Alternate Minimum Tax" (AMT) which requires each taxpayer to pay at least a minimum amount to the government. The way the provision works is that it adds back items which are deductions on the return to get to a number on which you pay tax.

The original idea was to prevent high income people avoiding taxes by using tax loopholes. Does that sound familiar?  However, in recent years the AMT is hitting even middle class people who have certain income and investments.  Romney definitely would be subject to AMT which makes Harry Reid's comments laughable.  He is lying and he knows it. He is carrying the water for the Administration, being a "good" Democrat. The unfortunate thing is that many Americans are so unschooled in the tax code, they naively believe what he says.

Here are some references to get up to speed on AMT:
http://www.fairmark.com/amt/amt101.htm
http://www.smartmoney.com/taxes/income/the-alternative-minimum-tax-9540/
http://www.hrblock.com/taxes/tax_tips/tax_planning/amt.html
http://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/IRS-Tax-Return/Alternative-Minimum-Tax--Common-Questions/INF12072.html
Conservative Tom

Investment Records Not A Winner For Obama

Should the government invest in businesses or people about which it has no investment experience?  That is the question that is answered in the following article. It is an interesting conundum which is answered by the author. Let us know what you think.

Conservative Tom 

How About We Compare the Investment Records of Bain Capital and the Obama Administration?

This really isn't the debate the president wants to have...

by
DAVID H. HORWICH

Bio

June 1, 2012 - 12:05 am

 

Unbelievably, the Obama campaign seems to want to have a debate about which of the two candidates is more qualified to run the world’s largest economy. Writing earlier this year I considered where the campaign seems hell-bent on going. This is a debate that can prove only disastrous for the forces of O.

To repeat what I said then: if Bain Capital buys and fails on any particular investment, the wreckage is contained to the employees of the business that was bought, the investors, and Bain management. It also means that if Bain does it too often they will be unsuccessful in raising the next round of capital.

ADVERTISEMENT

Conversely, when the government fails, it fails on a far larger scale, particularly if the investing is done via many entities having a similar industry focus. With government investing, we all become venture capitalists, whether or not it fits our individual risk profiles.

Bain diversified itself by risking capital in a variety of industries and not going all in for any one sector. That way, its eggs are not all in one industry basket and it looks more like the overall economy.

In contrast, the administration’s attempts to invest in “green” technology, no matter what one’s views are about the efficacy of “green” technology, are a fool’s bet. Even were it able to discern winners from losers, the inevitability of bad investing in one sector should be apparent to all.

The problems for The One’s are threefold. First, he has made near-universally bad bets. Second, public entity investing possesses fundamental flaws. And third, the opportunity to make investments with politically connected business ventures has led to charges of corruption and cronyism.

Look around. Can anyone name a successful entity in which this administration has risked billions of dollars of taxpayer money? From Solyndra to LightSquared. All taxpayer money, none of it confined to only one failure and in technology whose merits none of us have any interest, expertise, and time to debate, other than for me to make the observation that Steven Chu’s fervent hope and desire that oil prices climbing much, much higher would be the first necessity for this business model to work in the real world  without needing to be propped up by the government.

Moreover, the folly associated with public entities investing in established businesses (like, say, General Motors…oops!), let alone technologies best evaluated by trained professionals, is manifest for all to see. A private equity (or even venture) investor is a highly experienced individual who has seen, invested in (and/or rejected investment in) many companies in his or her career. His existence is Darwinistic: if he doesn’t know what he’s doing and makes too many bad bets, he doesn’t get to raise the next round of fund capital and is out seeking a new career by the day after that failure.
On the other hand, a public functionary deciding to risk hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars can’t have been through the fire of investment success-or-failure, and, most importantly, doesn’t have the same interests at heart.

By definition, his or her goals are policy-driven, not return-driven, so he feels indifferent to success: he’ll keep his job regardless of failure – unless political pressure forces him out.

Which of these two would you rather see as stewards of your money? After all, it is your money.

And, of course, as Mr. Romney pointed out this week, the government investing in industries it likes has a chilling effect on private investment in those same industries. As he said, “Who wants to compete against the federal government?”

Finally, consider the opportunity for corruption or cronyism. Would it surprise anyone reading this that the largest bets that this administration ever made were to friends and contributors of Mr. Obama’s? None of us can know which of the numerous enterprises that sought public funding failed to obtain it, but would it further surprise anyone if companies owned and managed by those on the right side of the political spectrum were refused funding?

This last point damages the administration the most. By focusing on the mores of investing by private vs. public funds, the campaign opens itself up to scrutiny on charges of corruption and cronyism. Only those dyed-in-the-wool on the Left will be untroubled by the charges that have been legitimately leveled against this ship of fools.

Furthermore, it clarifies the murkiness that surrounds the House investigations into corruption charges, and makes stonewalling on document production appear even more sinister than the underlying offense.

No, if I were deeply entrenched into the den of this gang of thieves, I’d try to go anywhere but Bain v. BO investing.

This entire foray lays bare the inherent panic that must be setting in for Hope and Change 2.0. To raise these issues now plays only to one constituency, the true believers in need of daily stimulus to maintain their enthusiasm. How else to explain this focus?

David H. Horwich is a managing director at the investment banking firm of PGP Capital Advisors, LLC in Los Angeles.