Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Updated | 1:36 p.m. A former partner at Bain Capital, who worked at the firm when Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was in charge, acknowledged on Sunday that Romney was “legally” the chief executive officer and sole owner of Bain Capital until 2002, not 1999 as Romney has previously stated, and said that Romney was engaged in a “complicated set of negotiations” over his exit pay for at least two years after he says he left the firm.
“Mitt’s names were on the documents as the chief executive and sole owner of the company,” Ed Conard, who served as a partner at Bain Capital from 1993 to 2007, said in an exclusive interview with Up w/ Chris Hayes. Asked again if Romney was chief executive officer of Bain Capital from 1999 to 2002, Conard said, “Legally, on documents, I suppose, yes.”
Despite Romney's statements that he left in 1999, Conard's new remarks suggest that, in fact, Romney's continued ownership of the firm enabled him to negotiate a better exit deal. "We had to negotiate with Mitt because he was an owner of the firm," Conard said.
The legal transfer of ownership dragged on for three years after Romney’s informal departure to run the Olympics in Salt Lake City, Conard said, because Romney was aggressively negotiating his retirement package and compensation with executives and lawyers at the company.
“He’d created a lot of franchise value, and we were going to pay him for that,” Conard said, adding: “We had a very complicated set of negotiations that took us about two years for us to unwind. During that time a management committee ran the firm, and we could hardly get Mitt to come back to negotiate the terms of his departure because he was working so hard on the Olympics.”
Asked if Romney was driving a hard bargain during the negotiations, Conard said, “In part, yes, of course.” Romney legally remained the CEO and sole owner of Bain Capital until 2002, Conard added, because he was intensively negotiating his exit deal with the partners at the firm. Conard summed up Romney’s position this way: “'I created an incredibly valuable firm that’s making all you guys rich. You owe me.' That’s the negotiation.”
Romney has previously stated on financial disclosure documents that he “retired” from Bain Capital in February 1999. But Securities and Exchange Commission filings as well as a raft of other documents unearthed in the last two weeks by Talking Points Memo, Mother Jones, the Boston Globe and others list Romney as the “chief executive officer, president and managing director” of Bain Capital until 2002. Romney himself testified that he attended board meetings of companies Bain Capital had invested in after February 1999, according to the Huffington Post.
The discrepancies are important because Bain Capital laid off hundreds of American workers and closed down several companies, such as GST Steel in Kansas City in 2001, during the period in question, all while recouping large profits for its partners and investors, according to reports by The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg and others. Romney has sought to distance himself from those deals by saying he was no longer in charge of the company at the time.
“They said, 'Oh, gosh, Governor Romney at Bain Capital closed down a steel factory,’’” Romney said of an Obama campaign ad about the GST Steel closing in an interview with the website HotAir.com in May. “But their problem, of course, is that the steel factory closed two years after I left Bain Capital, was no longer there. So that's hardly something that's on my watch.”
Asked whether Romney, as the legal president of the company between 1999 and 2002, could have ordered executives at Bain Capital at the time to put a stop to factory closures such as GST Steel, Conard said yes: “You’d have to presume that he was aware of it, yes. I don’t think he would have been aware of it.”
Asked if the factory closures and lay-offs that occurred between 1999 and 2002 were characteristic of Bain Capital’s record before 1999, Conard said, “I believe that’s true, yes. I think that Bain Capital does what Bain Capital does, which is try to make companies stronger and grow them faster.”
Conard also said that he did not believe Romney was “ashamed” of any part of Bain Capital’s record. “You say ashamed, I see great pride,” Conard said of Romney's position on Bain Capital's entire record. He added that he believed Romney would embrace Bain Capital’s record rather than try to distance himself from it once the campaign intensifies in the fall. “When the debate really starts, in August, September and October, we’ll see. I think he’ll own it.”
Conard contended that, despite Romney’s legal status as CEO and sole owner of Bain Capital on federal regulatory documents filed with the SEC, a “management committee” oversaw the company’s day-to-day operations after Romney left in 1999. According to former Securities and Exchange Commission officials, however, representing Romney as the CEO of the company when he was no longer in charge would have been misleading to both federal regulators and investors.
“If the information is not correct then investors are potentially being materially misled,” Edward Siedle, a securities lawyer formerly with the SEC’s Division of Investment Management, said in a telephone interview Saturday. “The filings are supposed to require material disclosure. I mean, these aren’t pointless forms.”
Siedle added that both investors and federal regulators rely on timely and accurate filings for up-to-date information about a financial company’s operations, and that the officers listed on the filings should be considered responsible for the company’s actions. “All those designations indicate that he had significant responsibility at the firm,” Siedle said of Romney. “There’s a reason he was listed as president and CEO all those years.”
Sal Gentile (@salgentile) is segment & digital producer for Up w/ Chris Hayes.
Leave a Comment:
I was shocked that Chris allowed Conrad to tirade on the show, especially when he there were such good, wonderful, knowlegeable counter-punch guests, who could hardly get a word in edgewise. Maybe Chris was "snowed" by the fact that this Bain guy agreed to come on the show. Thing is, Chris could have gotten Ed Gillespie or Eric Fhernstrom on the show to say the things that Conrad said. By the time the show got to the offshoring discussion, well, I knew it was time to shut the program down. The Huffington Post has brand-new documents that totally contradict Conrad on today's blog (this commnet section won't let me paste the URL), but why not get Conrad back to discuss the information in it.
Lulu, here's the link to that article you refer to (below). URLs that go beyond a certain number of characters won't work on most comment sections.
http://tinyurl.com/d74jlje
I was also disappointed in the interview.... that's two in two weeks, BTW. I find it very difficult to believe that Romney was such a hard hitter on the terms for the split that it took three years to settle, yet he paid no attention to the health of the company itself. With that much money at stake, for Romney to just walk away and ignore what was going on means he's either he's a terrible manager... something I don't buy... or someone is lying to us. And if Romney did just walk away, as is the claim, do we really want him in charge of our country?
BTW, the $100,000 figure that keeps being used is not accurate. The actual number is $100,000 PLUS. It could have been $1 million, but it was no less than $100,000. There's also the fact this money was not received as investment returns, according to the SEC paperwork, it was compensation for running the company.
Thank you, Haddie Nuff (love that name, btw), for your support. Yes, of course you are right, first about the fact that Romney, who started Bain, would never, ever let the company invest in anything without consulting him first -- can we say this again, ROMNEY'S NAME WAS ON THE LEGAL DOCS AT THE SEC, whether he was "doing" the Olympics or not -- I mean, when Conrad said this morning that the company was just doing its Bain thing without Romney day to day, I said to Conrad, didn't Romney have .uh. . . a phone and interface hardware to get him there in a Higgs Boson second?
And, of course, you were right about the money he received for not being there -- just anything over $100,000 -- could have been a billion. That is why he is hiding his taxes because they would show just how much he earned. He is such a danger to this country -- first, in the way he slashed and burned his opponents in the primaries, but mostly because he is already bought and paid for by the billionaire brats, who, even now are fighting over whose agendas will be put forth during the campaign, and God forbid, if he were elected.
This Bain Capital former employee skirted the issue with his I don't recall routine and from my perspective lied ... there is absolute documentation of the role Mitt Romney played during these years (1998-2001). Board meetings, management team meetings, investment decisions, etc. are always well documented ... particularly with the size of investments undertaken and high stakes. I bet Mitt Romney's signature is on many of those key investment decisions.
Chris I love your show, but you blew it!
He should have kept Bill Black on the panel. Black was hammering him on every point until he left.
No matter how guys like Conard try to spin this issue, voters are going to have a hard time wrapping their head around the fact that a guy represented himself to a federal regulatory agency as the president/CEO, collected a salary during those year, and did NOTHING (or so he claims).
Conard's rationalization that Romney remained as CEO to extort a better retirement package doesn't help him either, IMO. It's this kind of twisted corporate executive value system that has brought down this country.
This guy from Bain always changed the topic to the "macro" level as if there were no real consequences to real workers. His position was the very essence of what's wrong with unregulated, unsocialized capitalism--workers aren't anything but cogs in a machine to create great wealth for a privileged class.
I think the real miss was not digging deeper into the quotes from Conard's book where he explicitly stated the corporate view of the American worker. My God, there it was in Black and White! Some corporations at their core have a view of workers that reflect their "cost-benifit analysis" of the world. Conard says with complete honesty, that American workers are too damn costly, shiftless, prone to drinking, drug use, and will use the courts to sue or compensate for their lack of morality. He also suggested that corporation like Bain have no interest in a clean environment, public education or healthcare. It cost too much! Why did the rest of the show not dig deeply into this ideology? It is who Bain is. It is who Romney is. It is who the Republicans are. Here's hoping that Conard's book and his quotes open the debate this week about the caste system that runs through the DNA of American society. How it is magnified in our corporate structure and is responsible for the financial melt down and economic crisis that has affected us all.
Adam Smith hypothesized that rational self interest would drive systems to the most socially beneficial outcomes. Unfortunately, the sketchy understanding of Smith held by conservatives does not recognize the moral foundation that Smith assumed would guide and constrain the rational actors.
Conrad stated his expertise was manufacturing. Listen to his analysis- Doing manufacturing is a low margin operation, therefore we should shift those operations offshore. His view is that the US economy then creates new jobs in more profitable enterprises: services and complicated businesses like facebook. Here are the two factors killing the US middle class: outsourcing and automation. The truth is that the only reason the service jobs like nursing are growing is Because they cannot be outsourced. Unfortunately, highly trained and expensive jobs like analysis of cat scans, legal work, or medical analysis can be offshored. As for "complicated" businesses that Conrad refers to? They are not like Ford factories. Companies like Twitter reap enormous profits but require only a handful (300) of employees.
Which means that under the harsh light of economics, when this economic logic cannibalizes purchasing power with offshoring and automation, there is no money in the hands of the consumers to drive the consumer economy.
Ironically, Conrad harps on taking the macro view, but in reality is oblivious to it.
I agree with Stephen. I think this " vulture capitalism model"/ideology needs more open discussion - what he espoused was apartheid? REALLY - live in a country with no responsibility but to make money for yourself - we already buy too much junk. Make something we need - oh - you don't make anything, you just sell of the most expensive parts of a company and leave what is left to rot - including the people.
The list of advantages to off-shoring which Mr Conard ticked off was interesting. The colonial capitalist's guide to how-to make gazillions while keeping your own yard "nice" is instructional:
No economic refugees (immigrants) flooding into the US;
Unrestricted environmental harm but "over there";
Fully exploitable cheap labor; and
No negative social impacts such as ethnic and cultural diversity, claims on social programs (even as they pay taxes), and increased prison/crime expenses (guaranteed to happen).
He seemed oblivious that no one was particularly grateful or favorably impressed.
The "upside" of immigration for a nation of immigrants with an aging demographic would make an interesting discussion. If worked in the positive, I would think immigration would allow any country great flexibility in sustainable development and social progressivism.
I was also very disappointed with Chris' interview with Conrad. Hayes neglected to ask him about numerous reports of Romney's involvement with Bain through 2002 which David Corn at "Mother Jones," Jennifer Granholm at Current TV and others have reported. The interview totally let the air out of this week's big, and damaging, news about Romney and Bain, the importance Romney's campaign tacitly acknowledged by booking Romney on all the major networks.
I think Chris Hayes owes us all an explanation for his interview. I say this as a big supporter of his work and this show. One thing I'm concerned about here is the unfortunate tendency of one media outlet to downplay "scoops" of other media outlets. For example, the day after the "Boston Globe" broke their big story, "The New York Times" ran their version on page A-18, if I recall correctly. I hope Hayes isn't ignoring David Corn/Mother Jones' scoops for the same reason.
Did you know that NBC is in business with Bain Capital, and that NBC is trying to buyout MSNBC from MSN?
That is troubling news, if accurate.
Conrad was one of the most disingenuous guests Chris has ever asked on his show. I suspect Chris was trying to show that it's "safe" for conservatives to come on his show, but softballing everything defeats the purpose for having the person come on the show in the first place. If this was 'trial and error', then I'd classify this experience under the 'error' column.
What really killed me was when Conrad suggested that Obama has a financial advantage over Romney because he didn't have to spend money on a primary process. What balls. A Romney supporter whining that Romney doesn't have enough money to make this a fair fight. Puhlease!!!
Why have Ed Conrad on the show and then lob softball questions at him that he can pivot from? Just looking at Conrad's face told me that the man was being dishonest in his answers ("Mitt was at the Olympics after 1999" Yeah, right.) This is the inherent problem with American Mainstream Media.
If you want access to power and the power-brokers, you have to ask dumb, diffused questions, and watch the subject regurgitate talking points that have been thoroughly debunked (what makes it worse it that you cannot even interject with FACTS. You are expected to allow the subject to spew falsehoods and outright lies -- without contradiction!)
If you ask focused, pertinent and fact-based questions (or clarifications), and stop them when they pivot to talking points / blatant falsehoods -- well, they will not answer (As Mitt Romney said during the primary debates: "You get to ask the questions you want, and I get to give you the answers I want." And the moderator did not even murmur a dissent. Wow, isn't American journalism a role model for the world? A BBC journalist will NEVER let this sort of nonsense pass -- NEVER.) Oh, an the subject (and their minions) will never come back to the show -- and you will not have access to power.
What a sad country this is where politicians do the bidding of corporations, and journalists have to softball their investigation just to gain access. Truth dies many times in this country, and nobody -- not even journalists -- seem to care.
Chris Hayes has been co-opted by the "powers" (just like his mentor Rachel Maddow, I might add. )
Up with Access. Down with Truth. Cronkite has given up turning in his grave.
Not watching again. Sorry, you lost one more viewer today.
Corporate "news" organizations expertly pick their shills. There are still a few real journalists who will not turn away in fear of corporate America. Perhaps Hayes will look deeper. One can only hope that this new generation of corporate news folks will not become total sellouts. Hayes did pretty well all things considered. Remember that corporate pundits are primarily pretending to be informed. They're actors and actresses for the most part. With few exceptions, they pretend to be real journalists.
I think you are making a mistake if you are dropping this show. Chris remains one of the most intelligent and articulate presenters. I agree with you, you could read Conrad's face most clearly, he was lying and smirking about it at the same time. He is a prime example of the problem with corporate culture. Chris could have gutted him. He chose not to on this occasion though I wish he would have at least cut a little deeper rather than trimming the man's nails and offering him a pedicure. But I think Chris deserves to be cut a little slack here. He's learning, and hopefully he will not shy away from challenging liars in future.
not sure that Chris has been co-opted --rather too nice? he will find his legs and his other grounding 'equipment' i think...
Except for Black, the other panelists weren't up to the task of holding Conard accountable, either.
Actually, Chris masterfully got to the real issue-- that Bain's behavior before 1999 and after wasn't materially different in either plant closing or outsourcing/offshoring, and that he did have the capacity (in his official role) to have stopped it. Then coming out of the political niceties and making the case for offshoring is finally an honest presentation of the Romney position.
I agree...some really good footage there...that's what corporations do, that's why they aren't people..they don't have feelings, emotions, moral values other than what is imbued in the people who own, operate, manage them...
Chris Hayes....you BLEW IT!
You let Ed Conrad, a very, very smart individual, muddy the waters with talk of compensation disucssions between 1999 and 2002 and blah, blah. You asked him the lamest questions, like 'Did Mitt ever come back to Mass', AS IF THERE were no phones in 2001?!! And when Conrad responded, ' Well, I wasnt at every meeting, blah blah. CHRIS, I know you know these folks bend every word to omit or muddy the truth. Forget the day to day management, or if Mitt was back in ol' Mass for a meeting, the question that needed to be asked was, 'Mr Conrad, to your knowledge, between 1999 and 2002 was Mitt Romney every consulted, contacted or asked to weigh in on or review any decision of Bain Capital?" Forget this idiocy regarding meetings or was he in Mass. Sheezzzz. Chris, you had the opportunity to have Conrad on record on this and you blew it. Please be more prepared next time.
Hayes is morphing into a corporate pundit but other journalists will pick up the gauntlet. MSNBC is a dog and pony show for the most part with paid thespians masquerading as journalists. Corporate pundits tend to sidestep journalistic ethics, they're primarily dramatic corporate copy readers who work for the advertising dollars that Wall Street and corporate America provide. . Some folks like David Gregory are professional corporate shills.
This paragraph sticks out to me:
At the beginning of the post it states that Ed Conrad "served as a partner at Bain Capital from 1993 to 2007"
So he is knowledgeable about pre- and post-1999 activities at Bain.
He says he thinks that goal of Bain Capital was to "make companies stronger and grow them faster".
OK -------------------------
But isn't there way more to this?
That may have been one of the goals - Goal A - of Bain Capital. But another goal - Goal B - is to make sure that, at the end of the day, whether the companies did indeed succeed or fail, Bain Capital and their investors would make a profit.
SO the key question to me is which goal is most important.
If the top goal was Goal B - profit for Bain Capital - regardless of the outcome of Goal A, then the statement "make companies stronger and grow them faster" is inaccurate.
If the top goal was Goal A, then why did Bain Capital seem to routinely make millions even if a company closed? Would the companies have had a better chance of succeeding if Bain Capital did not make their profit? This needs to be explained.
The evidence I would like to see from Romney is examples of Goal A failing, when Goal B was not achieved.
Did Bain Capital ever do everything it could to "make a company stronger and grow faster" but the effort failed (normal capitalism at work) - and Bain Capital did not make money?
On Friday the 13th (7/13/2012) the very illusive Mitt Romney gave very defensive interviews to all FIVE networks on a single day at once!! Just a few days ago Mitt Romney said to FOX News that explaining means that you are WEAK. So his five interviews "explaining" his time at Bain were signs of his weakness!!
Presidential Candidate Mr. Mitt Romney maybe feeling the heat on his role in BAIN Capital, his business experience which was supposed to be his sole criteria for creating jobs and his greatest qualification for running for the American Presidency in the current economy in 2012!
However SEC documents show Mitt Romney as sole owner of all shares of Bain Capital. Romney is shown as CEO, President and Chairman of Board of Bain Capital in 2001 and 2002 then LEGALLY speaking Mitt Romney has been responsible to all that goes on under the banner of Bain Capital.
Mitt Romney can not just share the good like job creation from 1999 to 2002 and leave the ugly like Bankruptcies and layoffs behind as if he had nothing to do about them from 1999 to 2002.
If he really wanted to disassociate himself from Bain Capital he could have resigned and sold all his shares in Bain Capital in February 1999 then it would have been a different matter but to share in the glory of Bain's job creation accept a salary of $100,000 or MORE (where are the Tax Returns?) for three years and only to refuse to take the responsibility of Bankruptcies and layoffs on his WATCH (1999-2002) is trying to have it both ways and then complaining of playing politics having been caught with his hand in the proverbial Cookie Jar that is the very essence of an ACTIVE LEGAL ROLE in Bain Capital till 2002!! Was Romney getting $100,000.00 or more to do NOTHING for BAIN Capital???
Mitt Romney will have to face the consequences of this leaving Bain "lie" that Mitt Romney has brought on upon himself. If we keep reminding the Romney campaign of the Bain exit lie and Romney's ill effects on workers robbing them of their hard earned salaries and life long benefits all the way to November then 7/13/2012 (FRIDAY the 13th) will go down as the turning point of the 2012 Presidential election!
I like the show a lot, but was also dissappointed by the Conrad interview / discussion. I think, though, it's necessary to emphasize how slippery these folks are; ask the estimable Jon Stewart how he felt after not laying a glove on John Yoo.
Big picture questions just don't work with these types, they're just too good at all this. Too slippery, too easily dodged, to easily 'macro'd'. What you needed on this show was a corporate lawyer, willing to hone in on several points where the paper trail alone exposes major elements of behavior which, at a minimum, involve deeply creative and unusual legal manuevers which are not only unrecognizable to the regular public, they are unrecognizable to regular owners of real businesses. In that regard, several notes;
- A person is either CEO or they are not. There is no such thing as a 'placeholder CEO' or 'on paper only' CEO. Absolutely. No. Such. Thing. The CEO is legally and practically responsible and answerable for everything the company does; without this basic principle, corporate governance would be utterly meaningless. An experienced corporate lawyer could have and would have pressed that point, hard. "Are you telling me that Mitt Romney was a placeholder at CEO for 3 years?". "Are you telling me that Bain Capital had a placeholder CEO for 3 years?".
- The notion that their partnership discussions were so complex as to require 3 years is preposterous. The notion that partners would allow that critical call to be in limbo that long is preposterous.
- Irrespective of the partnership discussions, the notion that a corpoation would not, in those circumstances, appoint a CEO and in short order is preposterous.
- Knowing the above, any corporate managers and lawyers would literally have their hair on fire at the very notion that a placeholder CEO was in place.
- Perhaps most interesting (and right there in the papers!), Conrad kept insisting there were a number of 'partners' in the firm, who had interests which needed to be protected. And yet, the signed regulatory papers indicate that Romney was, AS LATE AS 2002 the SOLE SHAREHOLDER of Bain. Conrad's position on that point is simply black and white unsustainable. Either it's a straight-up lie, they were parking their positions in some other legal entity while Mitt owned 100% OF THE SHARES (again, black and white) in the main entity. If they have buried the real interests in some subterranean corporate / partnership basement, they have committed (and Mitt has committed in his various disclosure filings) all sorts of serious violations, for which 'felony' would only be a start, but who knows, that's the point.
Making Conrad square the 'SOLE SHAREHOLDER' position with his statements would be incredibly interesting.
We just need to see the partnership agreements and the original articles of incorporation. Why is no journo asking for these documents? They have to file them to incorporate. Nobody that smart deals with that much money without partnership agreements in place that addresses an unexpected departure of the CEO and the "sole shareholder." C'mon, on its face, it is silly.
Chris did sum it up that Bain was the same in '99 as it was in '02 so Mitt's argument about "good Bain" and "bad Bain" is materially silly. And Conrad's "macro economy" stuff is just as silly as arguing that the Earth is blue to a man standing at the foot of Ayers Rock (or Uluru if want to go PC)
More importantly, though I thing journos should just accept Mitt left Bain in '99, which then enables them to ask these critical questions:
How do your investment companies feel about the fact that they were being rudderlessly "managed by committee" for three years?
Your private-sector management experience is now 13 years old. How does that aging experience qualify you to solve problems of a 21st century economy? How does having a 13 year gap in your resume differ from a typical stay-at-home mom who is attempting to re-enter the workforce?
Take it away....
.
Well Chris,
I will join the chorus, you did a terrible job of interviewing Conrad. I paced the room through the first 80 or so minutes, but when you got to the outsourcing fiasco, I hit the power off button. Conrad won every round because several of your guests were uninformed or Romney supporters and you were awful.
The women who were on this segment were incredibly weak also.
You gave Conrad a forum to lie and obfuscate. You were poorly informed about the steel mill closure in Kansas City (Bain bled the company dry and left the fed. gov. to clean up the mess). You didn't hold Conrad's feet to the fire on anything of substance. I'll try again next week, but I want answers to hard hitting questions and guests that are educated on the subjects under discussion.
We can get "fair and balanced" on fox! I don't watch your program to hear Romney apologists on your panels go unchallenged.
Corporate media is corporate media. MSNBC is corporate media.
Mary, I thought Alexis Goldstein and William Black pointed out how Conrad is entitled to his opinions, but not his facts. Conrad made several foundational statements that are demonstrably false, and Goldstein and Black obliterated him.
As far as taking a more prosecutorial tack, if you want that sort of thing, maybe we should insist on calling pundits by WWF stage names like "Coco Chris" or Killer Kowalski. Personally, I am not interested in a Punch and Judy show- a liberal version of Crossfire or Firing line or the O'Rielly factor. If MSNBC, CNN or Current want to indulge liberals in that sort of thing, it would be the equivalent of reducing discourse to the level of ridiculous World Wrestling Federation staged matches.
or bringing back Keith O! oh my!
JohnMesserly....i don't want ot see a Crossfire/proseutorial approach either. HOWEVER, when you promote the show/segement as, paraphrasing, 'we got the guy who worked with Mitt and he'll tell us the straight scoop, yada yada' then be prepared to ask him the questions you teased the damn segment with.
The teaser at the end of Saturday I admit did get me excited too but honestly- go and listen to it. All they said was that Conrad was there during the time Romney was both part of Bain and not part of Bain, and that they would be asking him to straighten out just who was running the company. He gave answers to those problems, but was evasive about the extent of Romney's knowledge or involvement, saying he did not recall any meeting that Romney was present at.
When I found out who he was, I thought it unlikely he would have any sudden changes of heart about opening up about Bain. Nonetheless he could have made a perfectly sincere but revealing statement as Ed Gillespie made on Meet the Press.
We probably agree that what Tim Russert was acceptable in terms of being an aggressive questioner without going over the line from journalism to prosecutorial badgering. I agree that Hayes could have followed up with specific newsmaking questions that Russert would have asked. But cripesake, give the kid a break. He has only been at this for 6 months, and Russert had 16 years at the helm of Meet the Press.
I hope that Conrad will come on the show again- not at all because I think he has valid points of view, but because his point of view is so alien to progressive lines of reasoning. I think he is seriously mistaken about his assertions, but I would like to understand more about his rationale for the stands on issue that he takes. His point of view is indicative of the kind of thinking we are up against, so in my view you can't persuade anyone unless you can look at a problem from his perspective.
JohnMesserly,
I agree Alexis Goldstein and Bill Black did push back against Conard, but then they left and their replacements were out of their league.
Well, it wasn't that either of the two women can came in were Romney supporters. Googling either Minkovski or DeFrancesco Soto will quickly disabuse you of that notion. But what cuts to the heart of a lot of the comments here was Mary's remark that they seemed unequal to the task of engaging Conrad in a highly informed way.
Why not have someone on who knew about Bain's manufacturing activities? That was what Conrad was managing. Surely Josh Kosman is not the only person available who would dissuade Conrad from making his absurd statements about what happened at GST Steel. Even someone who had done a little research on Bain's manufacturing activities would know have some questions for Conrad's account. For example, consider this Politifact assessment of Obama campaign charges regarding GST: (link to Politifact article)
Probably the remark that rankled viewers most was DeFrancesco Soto's dismissive remark that the revelations about the SEC filings were a "technicality" and the kind of much ado about nothing story that occupy the dog days of summer.
D.S. made the error of focusing too much on the facts and controversy concerning the SEC filings and Romney's direct involvement in particular decisions made after 1999. But what Bain did is an issue regardless whether he was still CEO and president, and even if there was incontrovertible evidence that Romney did not participate in any form in any decision.
The fact remains that Romney owned all of Bain during this period, and was behaving consistent with Romney's view of how it should have been run. As Hayes very clearly posed to Conrad, and Conrad confirmed- What Bain did after 1999 was not different than what it did before. It's the way Romney believes Private Equity should work, and both Conrad and Romney believe what they do is very valuable in making American industry stronger.
So D.S. asks the question- then why not own it? Conrad made noise that Romney had spent his primary money and he thought Romney would own it in the fall, and further that he thought these criticisms applied to capitalism in general, and that by criticizing Bain, the President is basically making an assault on capitalism. What D.S. I think would realize if she were immersed in this a while is that Conrad makes no bones about it- the best business decisions are those unencumbered by sentiment.
There is a lot of time between now and the fall to come to a conclusion about whether or not it is proper that a management company should not also take losses when a company they acquired fails. Normal capitalistic theory is that investors are dissuaded from taking risks because they will suffer if they are wrong. Wall Street is a crisis waiting to happen again because that dynamic is not operative. If too big to fail financial institutions make poor bets, Dodd Frank is not going to prevent another bailout, so Wall Street firms know there is no downside to taking extreme risks, and they incentivize their traders accordingly. The same asymmetry (all gain, no pain) is true in private equity companies due to their ability to structure liabilities so that they are paid first before any other creditors if the company goes bust due to external conditions, or their own bad management decisions.
The Right wing believes that this is capitalism, when in fact it fundamentally violates the premise of capitalism that business owners who make poor decisions will suffer monetarily for their poor decisions. All Conrad has to offer to rebut this point is that no- the equity company partners may walk away with hundreds of millions of profit, but their reputations will be damaged.
He thinks that is sufficient disincentive. He's wrong.
Regulations to restore the capitalist symmetry between pain and gain is not complex economic theory. It is common sense that any American voter can understand. Conrad thinks Obama is making a general argument about capitalism, but and he is absolutely correct that Bain's form of perverse socialized capitalism is in the cross hairs. This is a debate I think that Obama team welcomes.
So what was Bain doing? There are fair questions about whether it is capitalism or corporate socialism when companies are free to extract wealth from companies and leave the government to pay the bills for liabilities that Bain was unwilling to pay for. Sure a lot of other US Steel companies closed at the same time. The difference is that their owners did not make a profit while their workers and creditors were taking it on the chin. This is the advantage that private equity companies have over publicly held companies. Stockholders in public companies do not get paid first before all other creditors. Bain type private equity companies can structure it so even when a Bain company fails, Bain wins. Bain can self justify that their company should survive while workers lose their companies because Brains are so much more important than fingers or arms and legs. And they are the really smart guys who must survive so in order to make America great. Or so this circle jerk group think goes among these self congratulatory sort of equity investors.
Conrad is correct, that what Bain did was not unusual. Their goal is to return maximum profits to their investors. If that means job creation or job destruction, it doesn't matter, what the company should do is the decision which generates the greatest profits for investors.
Hayes was getting at that, but the other guests were not equal to the discussion.
Perhaps Conrad and Kosman will be guests on the same show in the near future. There was a progressive equity fund manager making the rounds last week who would also be a great guest on such a show. Then we might have some interesting discussions about the realities of capitalism in America.
On Friday the 13th (7/13/2012) the very illusive Mitt Romney gave very defensive interviews to all FIVE networks on a single day at once!! Just a few days ago Mitt Romney said to FOX News that explaining means that you are WEAK. So his five interviews "explaining" his time at Bain were signs of his weakness!!
Presidential Candidate Mr. Mitt Romney maybe feeling the heat on his role in BAIN Capital, his business experience which was supposed to be his sole criteria for creating jobs and his greatest qualification for running for the American Presidency in the current economy in 2012!
However SEC documents show Mitt Romney as sole owner of all shares of Bain Capital. Romney is shown as CEO, President and Chairman of Board of Bain Capital in 2001 and 2002 then LEGALLY speaking Mitt Romney has been responsible to all that goes on under the banner of Bain Capital.
Mitt Romney can not just share the good like job creation from 1999 to 2002 and leave the ugly like Bankruptcies and layoffs behind as if he had nothing to do about them from 1999 to 2002.
If he really wanted to disassociate himself from Bain Capital he could have resigned and sold all his shares in Bain Capital in February 1999 then it would have been a different matter but to share in the glory of Bain's job creation accept a salary of $100,000 or MORE (where are the Tax Returns?) for three years and only to refuse to take the responsibility of Bankruptcies and layoffs on his WATCH (1999-2002) is trying to have it both ways and then complaining of playing politics having been caught with his hand in the proverbial Cookie Jar that is the very essence of an ACTIVE LEGAL ROLE in Bain Capital till 2002!! Was Romney getting $100,000.00 or more to do NOTHING for BAIN Capital???
Mitt Romney will have to face the consequences of this leaving Bain "lie" that Mitt Romney has brought on upon himself. If we keep reminding the Romney campaign of the Bain exit lie and Romney's ill effects on workers robbing them of their hard earned salaries and life long benefits all the way to November then 7/13/2012 (FRIDAY the 13th) will go down as the turning point of the 2012 Presidential election!
I thought the entire panel did an excellent job in the way the topic was handled. They aren't there to persecute Conrad. He was on the show to to promote his book and to discuss Romney's status at Bain. Quite frankly, I think the left is going entirely too far with this topic. Is it possible that Romney knew Bain was offshoring? Yes. In fact it's probable. It's also probable that they off-shored jobs while he was at Bain as day-to-day CEO, but unless the President is willing to take a stand again all offshoring, this is just the nasty kind of campaign rhetoric that makes my skin crawl when the Republicans do it.
If the Democrats really want to make an issue about Romney's tenure at Bain, it should be more of what they did to many of the companies they purchased. The raping and pillaging and firing of employees is not only undisputed fact, but a stronger talking point than this offshoring point.
Incidentally, whomever wrote this synopsis should be ashamed of themselves for taking the Fox news approach. The entire tone of the interview and Conrad's comments about Romney's post '99 tenure is misrepresented in tone. He made it clear that Romney wasn't involved in the operation of Bain after he left for the Olympics, and yet that point is fundamentally missing from this piece.
President Obama and the Democrats have suggested that the tax code should be reformed so that companies no longer get tax breaks when jobs are off-shored but instead get tax breaks when jobs are brought back.
Chris, please have this guy back again, and the young woman who said about derivatives being exempted from the new rules after the savings & loan crisis.The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One: How Corporate Executives and Politicians Looted the S&L Industry by William K. Black (Apr 1, 2005) Do your ratings go up when you stick to the presidential battle/Bain/Romney, etc? Please; The really mad Obama haters here in retired FL are STILL mad about the govt forcing banks to give blacks mortgage loans in Clinton's time! And that's who they blame the collapse on-poor people. You have GOT to make this financial stuff clearer. Tell that young woman to slow down & explain. And let Mr. Black talk! Your questions are TOO long. Rachel's too, by the way. Thank you.
Excellent idea. These two panelists were prepared and had working experience in the trader/equity/banking fraternity. Their educational and career experiences qualify them to their opinions, unlike some of today's panelists.
The interview with Conrad showed him and Romney severely out of touch with the average American. Romney was in charge but not responsible. Isn't that convenient, same thing you hear from the other bankers and financial people. If your local little town store tried that their business would be ruined. Their arrogance and privilege is sickening. They are the problem and Romney would be a terrible President.
Have been thinking a lot about this interview of Conrad and am deeply troubled by how those questioning Conrad bought into Conrad's explanation/support of Romney's claims of non-involvement with the management of Bain Capital past 1999. It is akin to asking one of the foxes how many chickens were left in the chicken coop and then believing the fox. Something does not add up here especially with the fact that Romney co-founded Bain and at the time he left was its sole shareholder.
As someone who has reviewed numerous companies' board minutes and analyzed numerous companies' performance, I find it deeply troubling that we are to believe Conrad's ascertaining Romney neither participate in nor was informed of decisions Bain's transitional management team was making--decisions directly impacting Romney's vested interest in Bain's viability, profitability, and saleability. Conrad would have us believe that Romney just walked away from the company he co-founded. Very hard to believe!
Based on my experience, absentee senior executives and board members are kept informed of the company's activities, decisions, and strategic plans via mailed receipt of board packets and other key documents. Contrary to Conrad's comments, key senior executives relied upon heavily during transition and sale of the company. Often times, these individuals will receive significant bonuses for facilitating the sale. While companies do utilize management teams during transition periods, sole owners will -- even after they retire from day-to-day management and the board, be kept informed in decisions that impact their investment right through the formal finalizing of the sale. These individuals will exert power until the sale goes through if decisions adversely to their interests. Based on Conrad's confirming Romney's as being a hard bargainer, I personally cannot buy into the no involvement line. I cannot buy into Conrad's statements that everything was all handled by Romney's lawyers. My experience tells me otherwise.
Hopefully Chris will explore this more and not be mesmerized by his and his interview panel's apparent lack of deeper knowledge of corporate inner workings and the responsibilities of board and executive officers. It's not that complicated. Hopefully Chris will also look into doing some investigative journalism on just what Bain did since its founding regarding the dismantling of corporations for the sake of profiteering.
Great post! However ... Corporate media is not very expert in conducting investigative journalism into corporate America and Wall Street because Wall Street/corporate advertising revenue pays corporate medias' salaries in largest %. . The medi is primarily bought and paid for.
Sad but true. We the taxpayers pay the price.
If Romney truthfully can explain all this away, then why the hell is he stonewalling and expecting the public to simply take his word? He wants to accuse the President of being dishonest...why not ask all those Republicans in the Primary just how fair he played and how honest he was being. Talk about negative campaigns..he takes the cake. If he doesn't provide many more tax returns then he is certainly HIDING something, which might be his continued involvement in Bain Capital. It exected he is also hiding a great deal of his actual wealth, which might be in the billions. Regardless whether what he has done with his money is legal or not, the question is how patriotic is this man who wants to become President?
Unfortunately for Romney LEGALLY he committed a felony by falsifying federal documents. He MAY not have known, but the federal government don't care if you knew or not, they just care about facts what can be proven. At least thats how it is with most people.
And for someone that is suppose to be so good at business, he should have known. after all he was still getting paid. he knew he was sole stock holder and CEO/president.
But I'm sure the federal government will let it slide, he has the money to pay them off.
Romney would be a terrible President. he flip flops (lies) on everything and he can't even manage his own business.
Sad but true!
My comment to Chris Hays is: go get some speech therapy...you're stuttering and fast talk is disconcerting and annoying....I doubt I will even watch your program anymore because you're so damn irritating and annoying with you speech patterns.
We all have our foibles, Mr. Weber. Maybe you could offer all of us your excellent speech pattern therapy.
I am angry at Chris today, but he is a very smart young man and I'm guessing you are not either.
There's a criminal analysis of studying facial structure and the "eye blinking syndrome" which determines when someone is not being truthful. Watch the Romney response on these news organization he went on to defend himself...he blinks repeatedly....hummm?
I thought the Conard interview was great, beautifully handled by Chris. I was blown away by the reveal by Conard as to MR's negotiation status and, then, motives at the time. For me it was the *first* moment in all of the coverage of this story that felt like truth. It also shed a whole new character light on MR, in that he has been unwilling to simply state what was going on in that period - that he was aggressively negotiating his exit package. Conard's straightforward and forthcoming bent would not have occured in the same way, had he been in a more typical "cross-fire" type interview. Chris engaged him without attacking, and got him to discuss a completely new dimension to this story.
The same people who are offering up retroactive retirement as a defense and who shrug off legal documents and filing false information on SEC documents as a mere technicality, are the very same people who want to dismantle all oversight and who insist that the private sector can police itself.
Soto and Minkovski were out of their league this am. They contributed almost nothing to the conversations beyond talking point headline awareness and shallow if not just plain goofy "insight." No offense but Hayes female guests of late are tending to make MSNBC's contributing women seem relatively vacuous and uninformed. Joan Walsh's latest appearance comes to mind as a prime example of smiling, near perfect vapidity. Alexis Goldstein on the other hand is definetely on the mark, informed, and up to speed, as evidenced this morning. A problem with pundits in general is that a large % of them are just pretending to be up to speed when they clearly are not doing their homework. They just show up for face time and $$$$$$$$. It's time ti glean the chaff from the grain. It's time for real.
I thoroughly agree with Stephen Rochelle...everything else in the interview faded when that quote was read - it is the nexus of the problem with current capitalism, a disconnection from the real need of humans and the planet replaced by the simulacrum of making money for it's own sake.