Print

[ducksoup]

Fortune magazine on Thursday reported that it had obtained the offering documents for Bain Capital funds circulating in 2000 and 2001. None of the documents show that Romney was listed as being among the “key investment professionals” who would manage the money. As Fortune put it, “the contemporaneous Bain documents show that Romney was indeed telling the truth about no longer having operational input at Bain — which, one should note, is different from no longer having legal or financial ties to the firm.”

Meanwhile, the weight of evidence suggests that Romney did in fact end active management of Bain in 1999. He stated that in a federal disclosure form he signed, under threat of criminal penalties. He said he was a “former employee” in a state disclosure form. A state commission concluded 10 years ago that he did, indeed, leave Bain in 1999.  Investors in Bain funds were told he was not part of the management team.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-bain-sec-documents-suggest-mitt-romney-is-a-criminal/2012/07/12/gJQAlyPpgW_blog.html

Just because he had the CEO title does not mean he had an active role in management decisions, there are no requirements for the CEO to do that.

People should always question the media when it comes to SEC reports for companies. They may be great at reading them, but many have no idea what exactly they are looking at. Look what happened with GE, everyone thinks they got a 3.2 billion dollar refund because some guy from New York Times misread the financial statements.

From the one LGW cited;

We consulted with securities law experts, with many years of experience with these forms. One expert examined this document at our request. He suspected that someone had simply duplicated a filing that had been made many times before, though he acknowledged, “it looks inartful in retrospect.” He pointed out that the titles are basically meaningless, that someone can be listed as a chief executive and actually have no responsibilities whatsoever.

We consulted (many) and ONE said...

However, we have identified at least six filings that Romney did sign during this period: a April 13,, 1999 13D filing by Pirod Holdings regarding an investment in Rohn Industries; a Jan. 3, 2000 13D filing by VMM Merger Corp. regarding an investment in VDI MultiMedia; a Feb. 14, 2000 13G filing by Bain Capital Fund IV regarding Wesley Jessen Visioncare; a Feb. 13, 2001 13G filing by Bain Capital Fund VI regarding Integrated Circuit Systems; a Feb. 14, 2001 13G filing by Bain Capital Fund VI regarding ChipPAC; and a November 12, 1999 13G filing (first reported by Mother Jones) by Bain Capital Fund VI regarding Stericycle.
These few filings may just represent the winding down of affairs.

MAY JUST HAVE REPRESENTED....

We readily admit that there is grey area about Romney’s involvement with Bain in the 1999-2002 period, because his future post-Olympics role had not been settled and the future of Bain Capital was in flux.

We readily admit that there is grey area about Romney’s involvement with Bain in the 1999-2002 period,

The SEC documents, especially the ones Romney signed, do raise some questions. One can certainly argue that because Romney did not fully extricate himself from Bain till after his Olympic sojourn ended, he should bear some responsibility for what happened in that period.

We were tempted to award this claim Four Pinocchios, but the documents with his signature leave some room for inquiry.

[LetsGoWings]

That article notes that signing those documents may have been a winding down process. I would be willing to be that between 1999-2002 Bain had more than those few SEC filings. In fact, I would think the one dated April 13, 1999 would not be a big deal because he probably did have a lot of information on that form.

I will agree there is a grey area in the time frame from 1999-2002, but I do not think he was involved in the day-to-day activities of Bain. He very well may have been involved in some of the larger issues at Bain.

Here is a question, the SEC filings at Bain are, for the most part, public forms. Why would Mitt lie and say he took a leave of absence in 1999? When he, or someone in his campaign, has to know that people are going to search the Bain SEC filings?

Where is the hardcore evidence that Mitt was involved heavily in the day-to-day details of the CEO of Bain? In the other post I listed out possible reasons why he may have stuck on. However, if he was heavily involved in the day-to-day activities of Bain and was able to do all the work he did for the Salt Lake City he deserves some kind of medal because he probably did not get any sleep at all.

[ducksoup]

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Bain a private partnership LLC? There could be a lot of reasons why Mitt was still listed as the CEO, but not managing the day-to-day activities. Reports indicate that when he took his leave of absence for the Salt Lake City Olympic's there was a lot of turmoil at Bain, so him still being listed as the CEO could have given the other partners and employees an indication he planned on coming back after he was done with Salt Lake City. There were potential for large lawsuits, in the 7-8 figure range, and with Mitt being one of the partners, and one of the largest partners, he would have potentially lost a lot on his share of the partnership. Staying as the CEO was most likely a way to give stability to Bain, and allow time for them to find a good replacement, because no matter how you want to spin it Mitt was/is an amazing businessman.

All the reports I have read state that he was CEO and all that from 1999-2002, but did not have much to say in terms of day-to-day operations. This could have been to avoid passive activity rules if he was going to focus on the Olympics, although I don't think he was too worried about passive activities.

From what i have read he was the sole stockholder, so why would he need to be listed as CEO to keep the confidence of HIMSELF?

[ducksoup]

That article notes that signing those documents may have been a winding down process. I would be willing to be that between 1999-2002 Bain had more than those few SEC filings. In fact, I would think the one dated April 13, 1999 would not be a big deal because he probably did have a lot of information on that form.

Where is the hardcore evidence that Mitt was involved heavily in the day-to-day details of the CEO of Bain?  In the other post I listed out possible reasons why he may have stuck on. However, if he was heavily involved in the day-to-day activities of Bain and was able to do all the work he did for the Salt Lake City he deserves some kind of medal because he probably did not get any sleep at all.

Who said that.  I have not hear that one.

[LetsGoWings]

From what i have read he was the sole stockholder, so why would he need to be listed as CEO to keep the confidence of HIMSELF?

Bain is a LLC Partnership. This is not a typical publicly traded company. So he has to keep the partners happy, or else there would be issues such as lawsuits or top partners leaving to Bain competitors or starting their own firm to compete against Bain. It is well documented that there was turmoil at the time Mitt was getting ready to take a leave of absence for the Salt Lake City Olympic's, so him staying on as CEO was a potential signal to the managing partners that he was going to come back once he was done. Thus, keeping confidence in the company and leadership.

[LetsGoWings]

Who said that.  I have not hear that one.

It has been implied that people who are making a huge deal of this think that he was involved heavily in the day-to-day details of Bain because Bain had some questionable things happen during that period and if they can pin that on Mitt, then it will look even worse for him.

[LetsGoWings]

Who said that.  I have not hear that one.

And ask yourself this, would this issue about when Mitt stepped down from Bain have been as big of an issue if between 1999-2002 Bain created a boatload of jobs in the US and actually insourced manufacturing jobs?

I think not. The only way it would have been would be if the Republicans tried to say that he was acting CEO and involved in the day-to-day operations, then the Democrats would be pointing out that he did not have much involvement in Bain during that time.

[old salt]

I heard he smoked all the crack in Honolulu. Someone should arrest him.

The SEC found no wrongdoing, but go ahead and give the faux kenyan a pass.  Got it.

[Baby Hitler]

And ask yourself this, would this issue about when Mitt stepped down from Bain have been as big of an issue if between 1999-2002 Bain created a boatload of jobs in the US and actually insourced manufacturing jobs?

I think not. The only way it would have been would be if the Republicans tried to say that he was acting CEO and involved in the day-to-day operations, then the Democrats would be pointing out that he did not have much involvement in Bain during that time.

We are all entitled to our OPINION.

[lordfly]

The SEC found no wrongdoing, but go ahead and give the faux kenyan a pass.  Got it.

I had no idea the libertarians were such a big fan of drug prohibition.

[LetsGoWings]

We are all entitled to our OPINION.

I agree we are all entitled to our opinion and I do agree with people posting that there is a huge grey area at Bain between 1999-2002, and there are only a few people who actually know what Mitt's duties were during that time frame.

Personally, I believe he was not involved in the day-to-day operations because this would be way too big of a lie to try and tell, especially with all the available information to the public. I would be willing to bet he was somewhat involved in the larger aspects of Bain, but even in that I think it would have been a limited role and making sure his capital investment did not take a hit.

[ducksoup]

And ask yourself this, would this issue about when Mitt stepped down from Bain have been as big of an issue if between 1999-2002 Bain created a boatload of jobs in the US and actually insourced manufacturing jobs?

I think not. The only way it would have been would be if the Republicans tried to say that he was acting CEO and involved in the day-to-day operations, then the Democrats would be pointing out that he did not have much involvement in Bain during that time.

 Net boatloads?  Got some citation for that?

How many created here and not there?

How many minus the time you say he was not in charge.

[LetsGoWings]

Net boatloads?  Got some citation for that?

How many created here and not there?

How many minus the time you say he was not in charge.

It was a hypothetical situation, it did not happen. I was saying IF Bain created a boatload of jobs between 1999-2002 would this be a big deal?

[LetsGoWings]

Net boatloads?  Got some citation for that?

How many created here and not there?

How many minus the time you say he was not in charge.

Also it is difficult to put an actual number on how many jobs were created/lost during Mitt's time at Bain. The only things that is pretty much a guarantee is the Obama campaign will say he was a job destroyer and the Romney campaign will say he was a job creator.

[Baby Hitler]

A rowboat is still a boat.