Romney supposedly left Bain Capital in 1999 and filled out certified paperwork affirming this to be true. But the Boston Globe has a report out (that it stole from Mother Jones and TalkingPointsMemo.com without giving the proper credit) that claims that Romney headed Bain as late as 2002. FactCheck.org claims that Romeny "would be guilty of a federal felony by certifying on federal financial disclosure forms that he left active management of Bain Capital in February 1999."
Is there any there there?
The problem with this story - and I am no fan of Mitt Romney - is that it ignores the structure of most PE funds. I thought it a bit disappointing that Roberta Karmel did not make this more clear in her appearance tonight on MSNBC.
Romney clearly continued as CEO of the GP of several of Bain's funds organized as LP's. It is not clear from the Boston Globe story however if the real decisional power was in those GP's or in a related management company such as Bain LLC. In other words it could easily be the case that if Bain was set up - like many PE funds - so that a management entity organized as an LLC has day to day to operational control over the portfolio companies.
If so, then it could in fact be accurate to say that Romney had left active control if he had handed his role in that management entity over to someone else (Connaughton?) while nonetheless remaining CEO of, relatively, powerless GP's of the LP's.
Of course, Bain is still private so we don't have a lot of insight into the actual structure.
Posted by: Steve Diamond | July 13, 2012 at 12:39 AM
Upon closer inspection it appears that indeed Romney remained as CEO of Bain Capital Inc., the management company at the hub of the Bain network of LP funds through 2001. I explain in detail in a blog post at LUN.
Posted by: Steve Diamond | July 14, 2012 at 02:33 AM
Sorry try this LUN.
Posted by: Steve Diamond | July 14, 2012 at 09:55 AM
Was Obama a cocaine dealer? Is there any there there?
If you are going to post the Democratic talking points please put a disclaimer on your postings.
Posted by: richard watson | July 14, 2012 at 10:04 AM
Watson, it seems as though you're not sure what a talking point is. Let's break down my post.
1. Romney supposedly left Bain Capital in 1999 <--- That is Romney's claim. Not a talking point.
2. filled out certified paperwork affirming this to be true. <--- that's a fact. He filled out FEC paperwork. Not a talking point.
3. But the Boston Globe has a report out (that it stole from Mother Jones and TalkingPointsMemo.com without giving the proper credit) that claims that Romney headed Bain as late as 2002. <--- That's a fact. Boston Globe does indeed have that report out. Not a talking point.
4. FactCheck.org claims that Romeny "would be guilty of a federal felony by certifying on federal financial disclosure forms that he left active management of Bain Capital in February 1999." <---- This is what Factcheck.org claims. They're right. That's not a talking point.
Now if I had written a post stating that Romney can't be trusted, that would be a talking point. Writing a post asking a *question* that has merit is not a talking point.
Posted by: Brando Simeo Starkey | July 14, 2012 at 11:24 AM
Brando
You seem to be under the impression that the "Just asking" style of accusation fools folks who have graduated from junior high school ...
"Is this man a race traitor?"
"What should happen to these race traitors?"
"Just asking ..."
These sorts of "questions" are of the sort that many recognize.
Bias and pov can be quite obvious from questions. Every DA knows that trick; in fact, every lawyer knows how to make a point by "asking questions."
You say the formulation "hey, just asking" means you aren't expressing a pov.
If you want to claim that you have no pov about Romney v. Obama, fine. If you want to repeat charges against Romney without any context, objectivity or counter-narrative, fine. This forum welcomes that, though I seem to recall a post a while back that had to be taken down because it took the other side in this contest. That doesn't seem to be a big problem, though. This really isn't an "objective" forum, and that's ok.
But please, don't insult the intelligence of your readers. In my view, you weaken your clearly intended point when you claim that you didn't intend to make any point at all.
Posted by: anon | July 15, 2012 at 07:36 PM
"You say the formulation "hey, just asking" means you aren't expressing a pov."
"you weaken your clearly intended point when you claim that you didn't intend to make any point at all."
My noting that I was not "post[ing] Democratic talking points" does not mean that I claimed to have no point of view. You're attacking a straw man, "anon".
Posted by: Brando Simeo Starkey | July 15, 2012 at 07:49 PM
You claimed you were "just asking a question."
Now you concede you were making a pooint, but you are telling us there is a difference between a "talking point" and a "point."
C'mon, Brando.
Posted by: anon | July 15, 2012 at 09:27 PM
Stephen, were you trying to post this link?
http://stephen-diamond.com/?p=4128
In any event, very informative.
Posted by: Brando Simeo Starkey | July 15, 2012 at 10:28 PM
Thank you, yes. And the idea that I am somehow guilty of posting DP talking points is, well, simply risible. I will point out, again, that I, too, initially thought that if Romney were just head of the LP funds he might have a case to make. That turns out not to be the case, something he himself admitted in the Jan C. Greenberg interview.
Posted by: Steve Diamond | July 15, 2012 at 11:52 PM
Steve: No one said you were posting DP talking points.
Watson said that about Brando's OP.
I know you are more careful than that, so you must have just make a mistake in reading the commments.
Posted by: anon | July 16, 2012 at 01:08 AM