Mitt Romney Bain Capital Document Lists Him As 'Managing Member' In 2002

[Epic]

I don't really care about whether Mitt retired from Bain or not. Neither does the vast majority of America, and certainly none of those on the right. The reason for this is that whether certain companies bankrupted under his supervision is really meaningless.

Firms like Bain target struggling companies or unproven start-ups where the success rate is incredibly low. There are going to be many that don't work out. Oh well. But there is more than enough documentation out there to show that Bain was better than most at turning companies around. Even if there are bankruptcies and even if there were some that were profit driven spin-offs. None of that changes the fact that they were widely known in the industry for successfully turning companies around. Everything else is partisan propaganda nonsense.

But my reason for posting was simply to raise one point. If Mitt was still 100% or large majority owner, then he retains the "managing member" position by default. This is true even if he isn't involved in company management at all.

In my company, I can definitely hire a manager or CEO to run the company, but I cannot list him as managing member unless he has a certain amount of ownership.

Also, if I own a large valuable company and am in the process of transferring ownership, it is prudent to still be listed as managing member. This allows me to retain control of how the transfer takes place. The managing member has the authority to enter contracts relating to buying/selling company assets, including ownership stakes. If I give up that designation, then I no longer have the authority to direct many details of the transfer of ownership and the new managing member can effectively structure many of the terms of the transfer without my approval.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Epic:

I don't really care about whether Mitt retired from Bain or not. Neither does the vast majority of America, and certainly none of those on the right. The reason for this is that whether certain companies bankrupted under his supervision is really meaningless.

Firms like Bain target struggling companies or unproven start-ups where the success rate is incredibly low.

If most Americans don't care about the former, they don't care about the latter.

 

[Epic]

Quote from Ricter:

If most Americans don't care about the former, they don't care about the latter.

Sure, I say they don't care about any of it unless they are already ardent Obama supporters.

But all of that was really a side note on how nonsensical all of this really is. The real point is that the fact that Mitt was listed as "managing member" has nothing to do with him still managing the business during that time. He had to be listed as managing member for legal reasons.

In fact, he would actually be stupid not to be listed as managing member during the ownership transfer. That is a good way to screw yourself out of a fair deal.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Epic:

Sure, I say they don't care about any of it unless they are already ardent Obama supporters.

And they don't care to find excuses unless they are ardent Obama haters.

 

[Epic]

Quote from Ricter:

And they don't care to find excuses unless they are ardent Obama haters.

For some reason you seem to be intent on ignoring my main point. Someone like me doesn't have to find excuses. I'm familiar enough with corporate law that after the first two sentences of the OP article I know something isn't right.

I'll say it again. If a designated manager or CEO has no ownership that person cannot be the managing member. In this case, if there is no specified managing member, then all members must vote on all decisions, including transfer of ownership. OTOH, if one member is designated as managing member, that person has the authority to enter in to binding agreements for the company, including ownership transfer.

If you owned a larger company and were in the process of selling to another party, would you give up your managing member designation before the transfer was complete?

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Epic:

For some reason you seem to be intent on ignoring my main point. Someone like me doesn't have to find excuses. I'm familiar enough with corporate law that after the first two sentences of the OP article I know something isn't right.

I'll say it again. If a designated manager or CEO has no ownership that person cannot be the managing member. In this case, if there is no specified managing member, then all members must vote on all decisions, including transfer of ownership. OTOH, if one member is designated as managing member, that person has the authority to enter in to binding agreements for the company, including ownership transfer.

If you owned a larger company and were in the process of selling to another party, would you give up your managing member designation before the transfer was complete?

There are two main points here, yours, which goes to the technicalities of who's responsible for what and when, and mine which goes to, is a guy like Romney really right and proper to be president. To ordinary Americans, your point, while true, appears to be simply more "legal corporate squirming" out of all critique. My point is about gut feel, and Romney can't win that one--he's a silver spooner all the way.

 

[jem]

Quote from Ricter:

There are two main points here, yours, which goes to the technicalities of who's responsible for what and when, and mine which goes to, is a guy like Romney really right and proper to be president. To ordinary Americans, your point, while true, appears to be simply more "legal corporate squirming" out of all critique. My point is about gut feel, and Romney can't win that one--he's a silver spooner all the way.

so logically you believe a choom gang background is preferable for a president?

 

[Epic]

Quote from Ricter:

There are two main points here, yours, which goes to the technicalities of who's responsible for what and when, and mine which goes to, is a guy like Romney really right and proper to be president. To ordinary Americans, your point, while true, appears to be simply more "legal corporate squirming" out of all critique. My point is about gut feel, and Romney can't win that one--he's a silver spooner all the way.

So by that logic you are arguing that prudent management of his own affairs actually disqualifies him from the presidency.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Epic:

So by that logic you are arguing that prudent management of his own affairs actually disqualifies him from the presidency.

Talk to the American people about it. This election is occurring during a populist time.

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from Ricter:

And they don't care to find excuses unless they are ardent Obama haters.

Excuses for what Ricter?

There is nothing wrong with Bain or how they make money. Romney's problem is that he worries too much about the public's perception of him instead of just being straightforward. He made a shit load of money, legally, and he should be able to defend that with ease. If he was running the Olympics then he wasn't making the day to day decisions at Bain during that time.. if jobs got outsourced and some companies under management failed, so what? they can't all be winners, can they.

He should make the case that he has an excellent record of making profitable investments. While Obama has Solyndra, a big ass waste of taxpayer money, and an economy that is basically stagnant despite all of the 'stimulus' blown propping it up. Also while the private sector continues to struggle big o has increased the size of the federal govt over his term. A total chump.