Does PE bankrupt companies?--Romney/Bain

So I was just reading something attacking Mitt Romney about his time at Bain Capital..how many of the companies they acquired were forced to build up huge amounts of debt, letting Bain cut a profit but eventually making the company go bankrupt, killing jobs etc.

It got me thinking..is this true about PE in general? True about Bain/Romney? How common is this? I assume some firms do this more often than others, but does the PE industry typically help or hurt the companies they invest in? In other words, does PE create jobs and boost the economy, or kill jobs and hurt it?

Call me an idealist, but I would like to be in a PE firm that adds value to society by helping build up companies, not not acting as a leech. When interviewing/searching for PE jobs, how can you tell if the firm is the type that invests to improve companies or if they simply invest to artificially raise the value, profiting before the company busts?

 

Ok, just found a similar thread..I'm not really asking about the jobs part as much as--Do most PE firms actually partner with company management, trying to build real value in the company (even if this means job cuts) OR do they just use the companies to take out huge debt, arbitrage etc, turning a profit and then dumping the company in the dirt?

I don't have a big problem with jobs cuts in themselves (if they make sense from an economic standpoint for the acquired company and PE firm), but I do have a problem with acquiring companies and running them into the dirt just to make a buck.

Also, a side question--Do you guys think this should be a legit knock on Romney's presidential candidacy?

 

one thing to consider is whether or not those companies would have gone bankrupt anyway...the big things causing most of these companies to shut down is lowered sales and revenue due to market declines or the industry as a whole (e.g. print media, radio, etc.). in addition, many of these companies go financially bankrupt but remain operating while the banks restructure their debt or sell them to a different buyer, so not being able to service debt =/= company goes out of business

in addition, recapitalizations don't really happen unless the sponsor thinks the company can handle the extra debt...its interests are pretty aligned with the company's as they'll much rather IPO/sell the company for a higher cost in a couple of years, and any bankruptcies reflects poorly on them and reduces their profits

 

PE firms that have "we partner with management" or "more than investors, we're partners" in their website tag lines seem to be full of shit. PE buys companies to make profits; if that means meeting with management to strategize on improving operations, so be it. But it's all short-term, on a 3-5 year exit window. Returns uber alles. And why not?

If you want to help society via investing, join Kiva or LendingTree. And good on you.

 
ibintx:
Call me an idealist, but I would like to be in a PE firm that adds value to society by helping build up companies, not not acting as a leech.

Join VC/Growth and don't look back. They are truly building revolutionary companies that enhance the way ppl live / productivity of businesses etc. Clearly don't go into debt-driven megafunds layering on 20 turns of sr. sec. debt @ the peak of a market.

Case Study: Chrysler/Cerberus

ibintx:
how many of the companies they acquired were forced to build up huge amounts of debt, letting Bain cut a profit but eventually making the company go bankrupt, killing jobs etc.

Bain has done a bunch of cool stuff like this.

In general, even if your co is burning cash and 20x levered you can def cash out somehow someway. Embed shady management fees in SG&A that creditors can't cleanly see, etc.

 

Is it naive to think that the cynical business model you paint PE as being is not sustainable?

In order for these companies to make anything, no matter how much they can lever up on the buy-side, they still have to offload their portfolio companies to the market or another investor. Though there may be some level of information asymmetry here, with the PE fund having a better idea of true operational value than potential investors, in order for the firms' IPOs or sell-side deals to be considered viable over the long-term, shouldn't they be held accountable by investors to have portfolio companies that show a track-record of post sell-off success?

If I'm constantly selling a beautiful facade with crap fundamentals, it will catch up with me, the people that buy my portfolio companies or the IPO investors are also in this game to make money.

Self interest meets self-interest and ultimately value has to be created to be profitable. No?

 

It depends on the deal and the firm. Some would say you're right in being concerned, others would say that PE firms help the market economy to weed out the weak from the strong... they cut the fat and streamline companies to increase productivity and make firms more competitive. Some real PE enthusiasts might say that LBO firms are one of the reasons why U.S. companies are so competitive globally... because if they're not they'll get bought and made to produce more on less.

 

Ahh, yes. The old "debt forces firms to shape up" argument. Predators ball. Often true- what about organic investments for long-term growth? R&D gets shtcanned as it is not a necessity for a 10x+ levered firm where cash interest is a high % of EBITDA and CAPEX is ratcheted down to maintenance level. Hard to invest in that awesome new machinery that drives productivity. Top VP of Sales needs a nice contract w cash incentive? Whoops. So yes, you need to make more with less, but only, as seen thru the crisis, because the sponsor needed to bid a high multiple to win the deal and consequently finance such a multiple with too onerous of a cap structure that is now too restrictive to drive real long term sustainable equity value. Again it doesn't matter, embed a nice shady "management fee" in SG&A to sustain your IRR, in the mean-time sell "non-core" assets, fire off a few regional offices, shut down some brands -- "streamline operations", with the corresponding FCF increase and asset sale proceeds obv used to service LBO debt, not to reinvest in the biz. Niiice

 
DurbanDiMangus:
Ahh, yes. The old "debt forces firms to shape up" argument. Predators ball. Often true- what about organic investments for long-term growth? R&D gets shtcanned as it is not a necessity for a 10x+ levered firm where cash interest is a high % of EBITDA and CAPEX is ratcheted down to maintenance level. Hard to invest in that awesome new machinery that drives productivity. Top VP of Sales needs a nice contract w cash incentive? Whoops. So yes, you need to make more with less, but only, as seen thru the crisis, because the sponsor needed to bid a high multiple to win the deal and consequently finance such a multiple with too onerous of a cap structure that is now too restrictive to drive real long term sustainable equity value. Again it doesn't matter, embed a nice shady "management fee" in SG&A to sustain your IRR, in the mean-time sell "non-core" assets, fire off a few regional offices, shut down some brands -- "streamline operations", with the corresponding FCF increase and asset sale proceeds obv used to service LBO debt, not to reinvest in the biz. Niiice

Well said. This doesn't necessarily apply to all PE deals by a long shot, but it sure as hell applies to a decent chunk of the mega-mega-mega deals.

 
DurbanDiMangus:
what about organic investments for long-term growth? R&D gets shtcanned ... CAPEX is ratcheted down to maintenance level. Hard to invest in that awesome new machinery that drives productivity. Top VP of Sales needs a nice contract w cash incentive? Whoops. ... embed a nice shady "management fee" in SG&A to sustain your IRR, in the mean-time sell "non-core" assets, fire off a few regional offices, shut down some brands -- "streamline operations", with the corresponding FCF increase and asset sale proceeds obv used to service LBO debt, not to reinvest in the biz. Niiice

Marcus, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the above.

First rebuttal I can think of is that Hey, the public markets do the same thing. To slash spending on R&D, sales force, etc. could potentially boost a stock price in the short-term - the public markets are not very interested in the long term.

 
prospie:
DurbanDiMangus:
what about organic investments for long-term growth? R&D gets shtcanned ... CAPEX is ratcheted down to maintenance level. Hard to invest in that awesome new machinery that drives productivity. Top VP of Sales needs a nice contract w cash incentive? Whoops. ... embed a nice shady "management fee" in SG&A to sustain your IRR, in the mean-time sell "non-core" assets, fire off a few regional offices, shut down some brands -- "streamline operations", with the corresponding FCF increase and asset sale proceeds obv used to service LBO debt, not to reinvest in the biz. Niiice

Marcus, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the above.

First rebuttal I can think of is that Hey, the public markets do the same thing. To slash spending on R&D, sales force, etc. could potentially boost a stock price in the short-term - the public markets are not very interested in the long term.

Rebuttal rebutted: I am not saying public markets are better.

 

1- the last few years isn't an effective guage, as MANY MANY companies went bankrupt.... and obviously companies that are highly levered are more susceptible to earnings volatility

2- it is no one's responsibility except elected officials to "create jobs", private equity firms destroy American jobs? So what. In 99% of the cases, they are doing the companies a favor. If they can reduce jobs and still perform at the same top line level, why were those jobs there in the first place? No one is entitled to a job, you earn your own keep. In the long-run, it is PE firms trimming the fat of American corporations that is keeping our left nostril above water as compared to China and India. We are fat, unionized and bloated... other economies are not... if we don't want them to eat our lunch, we need to stay lean and nimble. PE firms are one of the mechanisms in the US economy that is facilitating that process.

3- there may be one off examples of PE portfolio companies that go bankrupt and the sponsor somehow still makes money because of a fat dividend and maybe they bought back a chunk of debt at highly depressed values that allowed them to retain control through the bankruptcy process, but for the large part bankrupt companies are not part of the PE investing model. 99 out of 100 times, they don't make money when they invest in a company that goes bankrupt and its not all beneficial for their reputations. Lenders are pretty sophisticated... they are as sophisticated in protecting the credit of their loans and PE firms are in ensuring the returns of their investments. And surely a Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan isn't going to be a serial-lender to sponsors that bankrupt their portfolio companies.

 

Thanks for the comments guys.

Like I said before, the job-cuts to increase efficiency do not bother me. What bothers me is when I read about a PE co taking 50+% profit and the portfolio company goes bankrupt 2 years later-often clearly showing that the PE company just loaded it with debt, took the cash and left it lifeless. I know that companies will go bankrupt with or wihtout PE intervention sometimes, so for me it's more of a moral thing as to whether "my" PE company is trying to help portfolio companies or whether they are "using" the companies.

As someone mentioned, VC/Growth equity definitely seem to provide a valuable economic service--they help entrepreneurs start up businesses that can eventually change the world (ex: Google) or at least provide some product/service of value. This is priceless. I can also see how PE could be valuable - if they take over a struggling company, make operational/organic improvements, and then sell it when the business has improved, it's a net gain (even if there is some fat/job cutting at first). The business becomes healthier and can grow/contribute. On the other hand, you have the PE strategies discussed above where the portfolio companies seem to get screwed.

It seems like there are lots of conflicting opinions over what is true, and certainly there are examples of both. Any tips on how to tell which method PE firms use?

 
ibintx:
Like I said before, the job-cuts to increase efficiency do not bother me. What bothers me is when I read about a PE co taking 50+% profit and the portfolio company goes bankrupt 2 years later-often clearly showing that the PE company just loaded it with debt, took the cash and left it lifeless. I know that companies will go bankrupt with or wihtout PE intervention sometimes, so for me it's more of a moral thing as to whether "my" PE company is trying to help portfolio companies or whether they are "using" the companies.

This sounds largely misinformed. If its something you're observing on a regular basis, share some examples. Its usually helpful to understand these things on a case by case basis.

I'm betting you'll have a hard time coming up with more than a few examples, if that even.

 
Marcus_Halberstram:
ibintx:
Like I said before, the job-cuts to increase efficiency do not bother me. What bothers me is when I read about a PE co taking 50+% profit and the portfolio company goes bankrupt 2 years later-often clearly showing that the PE company just loaded it with debt, took the cash and left it lifeless. I know that companies will go bankrupt with or wihtout PE intervention sometimes, so for me it's more of a moral thing as to whether "my" PE company is trying to help portfolio companies or whether they are "using" the companies.

This sounds largely misinformed. If its something you're observing on a regular basis, share some examples. Its usually helpful to understand these things on a case by case basis.

I'm betting you'll have a hard time coming up with more than a few examples, if that even.

Of course it doesn't happen on a regular basis, but it happened on some of the largest deals. Let's focus on the ones that truly matter: overlevered megafund largecap deals. Why do they matter in the context of this convo? They are of national importance due to the sheer number of jobs they represent, both directly, and due to the 2nd and 3rd tier supplier/vendor relationship jobs they sustain.

Despite the OP's naive delivery of this subject you have to concede that on deals that matter megafunds had overlevered various companies and miscalculated risk/reward, often as a function of HY being rich and widely available @ ~250 bps and due to rich equity markets where they had to bid @ lofty forward multiples to win deals. Continuing on the often-quoted Chrysler/Cerberus example, the co was pretty much run as an overlevered shell. Admin functions had been run down to 0, R&D (in a super-competitive razor-thin margin cyclical cap-intensive industry where product tech advancement is pretty much the only differentiator) had been shot to 0, and capex was likely @ maintenance levels. Will not name other deals to avoid being crass but you know there have been a ton of largecap deals done at very levered multiples for reasons far different that achieving "the optimal capital structure".

Further, beyond the sheer mismanagement of some of these firms (if we are thinking about building long term sustainable equity value) many of these deals in the past 12 mo's have refi'd 2012 LBO paper into the HY markets and/or used the HY market to effect pretty clean liquidity/dividend events (dividend recaps). This means that despite continuing ownership many of these deals have simply rolled forward maturities they may have no chance at paying down anyways while sustaining sponsor IRRs. In the end, HY markets get their yields, sponsors cash out, c-level management cashes out, and low level employees get further crammed down, leverage remains high, and the company does not invest in organic long-term growth initiatives. Awesome.

 

What is misinformed about that statement? Those are my opinions about hypothetical situations--the whole point of this thread was to ask how common these occurrences are, so I have no idea why you are assuming that I have an agenda here or am trying to prove a point. And considering how many people on this thread have talked about megafunds etc using this pump-n-dump strategy, I am obviously not just making this stuff up.

I started this thread after reading the article below about Bain/Romney, which shows plenty of examples. Again, I never claimed this article to be 100% true (the author is clearly biased), but that is the whole point of this thread:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/ad_mitt_mistakes_jRmd2LHaPIb0bbNn…

 

What bothers me is when a president is elected into the Oval Office, rapes his staffers, gets them pregnant and forces them to have abortions at the rate of 30 women per year... 120 over the term of his Presidency. That is baffling.. I'm not saying it happens, Im saying hypothetically, if it did, it would bother me.

Your first problem is reading the Post for factual business news.

Lets look at the copanies they named:

  1. A company Bain bought Stage Stores in 1988, the company went bankrupt in 2000. Twelve years later... not quite a smoking gun, is it?
  2. American Pad & Paper acquired in 1992, company went bankrupt in 2000. A company that is in an industry in ecular decline went bankrupt... shocking. If KKR buys a rotary phone manufacturer in 1990 and in 1998, the company goes bankrupt. I'm also dubious of the financial analysis being done at the New York Post to determine that the $5 million was the sole funded investment from Bain and the $100 million divdend went to Bain alone.
  3. GS Industries acquired by Bain in 1993, went bankrupt in 2001.
  4. Bought Details in 1997, went bankrupt in 2003.

My first observation is that all of these bankruptcies ocurred within a 3 year period, which happened to coincide wit h a recessionary period. Second is that of these 4 bankruptcies, one was in an industry in secular decline and the other 3 were in industries highly sensitive to economic downturns (Stage Stores-consumer retail, GS Industries-commodity based industrial components manufacturer and third Dynamic Details which manufactures PC boards). We're not even talking about the market positioning of the companies themselves. Also conspicuously absent are the dates of the dividends and equity offerings which allowed Bain to re-coup their investment. If Bain acquired Ambad in '92, takes a dividend in '94, and the company goes bankrupt in 2000... can you really claim they went bankrupt because Bain was leaching money out of them?

Lastly, the one piece of the puzzle you're missing is this "who loses when these companies go bankrupt?" The employees? Not really. They lost their jobs, maybe they lost 4 months of income... the stakeholders that stand to lose and do lose the most are the lenders... they often lend billions of dollars into these buyouts. As I mentioned before they are very astute lenders, shrewd businessmen and lawyered-up to your eyeballs. There is absolutely NO circumstances in which a PE sponsor can suck value out of a company and drive them into bankrupcty without the lenders taking them to court alleging impropriety and clawing back those proceeds. In fact, REGARDLESS of if there are is a legitimate claim with that regard, lenders/lawyers almost always make this claim when an LBO target goes bankrupt and it is a pretty fierce and contentious process for each party to prove their case. Nothing is slipping through the cracks here. If you think Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan got to where there are now by having wheeler-dealer PE guys duping them out of value, you're mistaken.

Its a pretty efficient process. Its easy to mislead people with these types of articles when the people aren't as familiar with how these things work. In the case of the Post, they themselves likely have no idea how these things work, so I'd definitely caution against reading it for anything other than gossip columns and celebrity sightings.

Also conspicuously absent is the total number of companies Bain has bought since 1987, which is when the Post starts their clock. 5 out of how many companies went bankrupt? How many jobs were lost across those 5 companies and directionally where was US unemployment going when those jobs were lost? Whats the total scorecard for Romney while he was at Bain in terms of sales and profitability growth/decline? Job creation/destruction? What they also fail to mention is that of the “fortunes” Bain made… over 80% of that was actually fortunes made for pension funds for middle America…. And of the remaining 20%... I’d probably venture to say less than 10% of it went directly to Romney.

 

First off there's nothing "shady" about a management fee nor it is embedded/hidden anywhere. Secondly, I've never seen management fees included in a PE firm's decision making process nor is it viewed as a source of "returns" i.e. IRR.

Second, what exactly is wrong with cutting R&D and CapEx? One of the ways private equity firms generate profits is by squeezing more out of their investment dollars. They focus in on what is generating cash and scratch operations that are not profitable or in-line with the main focus area (i.e. divesting non-core assets). Executives often set the R&D agenda by trying to be innovators and pioneers in their industry. PE investors are not trying to be innovators and pioneers, they're trying to generate a reasonable rate of return and investing in a the long-shot technological develoment which will transform the way the company is viewed but has low probability of actually materializing isn't congruent with that goal. PE firms are more efficient with their assets. If you look at two identical companies one PE-backed and the other non-PE backed, you'll notice that the useful life of the same exact asset is longer for the PE-backed companiy. They squeeze more out of their assets, they over-haul instead of replace a manufacturing line, etc... if PE-backed companies are capex starved, then immediately after a PE exit you would see a CapEx spike to right-size the company's asset profile. But that spike isn't present.

If the argument is that PE firms are funding cutting edge R&D and break-through technological and medical developments... then I can't say I have a rebuttal to that except that PE firms are claiming to do that. Thats why they became PE investors and not VC guys or scientists.

What exactly is wrong with selling non-core assets or closing regional offices and using savings/proceeds to service debt? You buy an asset for a billion dollars, you sell a piece of the business you don't want for $200 million, why would you re-invest it back in the business? For one thing, you're not allowed to re-invest it per your lenders. They lent you 600 million to buy these exact assets. If you decide you don't want one of the assets, then sell it and give them that piece of their money back. They're not lending you money based on your abilities to re-invest capital in the company, they're lending you money based on the present assets and their ability to generate cash flow. If you kill one of those assets, then you give the proceeds back to the lenders. Thats the way it usually works.

 
Marcus_Halberstram:
First off there's nothing "shady" about a management fee nor it is embedded/hidden anywhere. Secondly, I've never seen management fees included in a PE firm's decision making process nor is it viewed as a source of "returns" i.e. IRR.
1. It's shady if it is embedded in SG&A, which happens. 2. Really? Excel XIRR Year 1 Equity Investment -100, Year 2 Management Fee +5, Year 3 Management Fee +5, Year 4 Management Fee +5, Year 5 Liquidity Event/Monetization. Cash inflow = increase in IRR.
Marcus_Halberstram:
Second, what exactly is wrong with cutting R&D and CapEx? One of the ways private equity firms generate profits ... They focus in on what is generating cash and scratch operations that are not profitable or in-line with the main focus area (i.e. divesting non-core assets)....Executives often set the R&D agenda by trying to be innovators and pioneers in their industry. PE investors are not trying to be innovators and pioneers, they're trying to generate a reasonable rate of return... What exactly is wrong with selling non-core assets or closing regional offices and using savings/proceeds to service debt?....For one thing, you're not allowed to re-invest it per your lenders....They're not lending you money based on your abilities to re-invest capital in the company.....

Ahh, finally we arrive at the crux of the issue: the mature-stage co. LBO mentality of 2005/2006. 1. You keep pointing the finger @ lenders that they don't let you run the firm and invest organically. No one is putting a gun to your head and ordering you to bid on an operationally-challenged POS and put 10 turns of leverage on it. You must do so to win the deal since it is a large-cap deal and to contain the amount of equity invested to protect hypothetical IRRs. 2. What's wrong with cutting R&D to 0 and CAPEX to maintence levels? How about the long-term growth and competitive advantage of the firm. Long-term sustainable equity value enhancing initiatives are not prioritized and therefore the long-term value of the firm is anything but enhanced. I thought that's what this entire post was about. See my point #3. 3. You are managing the firm for cash, per your high leverage and restrictive covenants, which is very different than managing the firm for cash-Accretive, long-term value enhancement. You are managing for cash for debt repayment purposes and because sr. secured cap structure isn't allowing you to put that cash anywhere other than delevering initiatives. In a non-distressed company what's good for the firm and what's good for your senior secured lenders is very different, you know this. 4. I think you're wrong, being an innovator and a PE investor can be merged into one. If you have a mature co with recurring FCFs and can reinvest in innovative organic growth initiatives to build/take share you can do as a sponsor-backed co as long as you aren't overlevered and if you don't have restrictive covenants. We are getting too relaxed and too dependent on the debt markets, i think because yes, doing a mega-deal and ending up in WSJ is sexy, but i don't subscribe to this overlevered / HY market dependent strategy being the be all end all of private equity investing...

Feel free to sht on all of this, it's my POV but it is all based on facts and the reality of what has been happening since mid 2000s. We both know there are many many MM firms who don't overlever their cos (yes I know smaller deals don't have same DCM funding options) and do the things I mentioned, focusing on long-term sustainable growth to create really strong firms.

 

And how did Chrysler / Cerberus compare to their non-PE-backed counterparts? How did GM fare? Ford?

As for the low level employees that get crammed on... get something of value to offer. If your contribution is so commoditized that it can easily be eliminated, thats no one's fault but your own. They're not getting robbed of something. They do a job and they get paid for it. When they're not needed, they're fired and no longer paid. Thats the way the world works. If you don't like it, make yourself non-expendable. Its not like PE firms are bilking low level works, forcing them to work without pay. In a bankruptcy, the lenders lose out the most. Employees are actually at the highest in terms of priority of getting paid. You're not entitled to a job. You get what you earn, not what you need. If that erks you so much, go to Cuba or Vietnam where you won't be "crammed on".

You make absolutely no sense. First you say the company will never meet the maturities. Then you say in the end the lenders get their yield, PE guys get their IRR, etc... what % of PE deals are dividend deals that end in bankruptcy? Lenders lose out in bankruptcies, not employees. yeah it sucks they need to find a new job, but they're not "losing" anything. They didn't contribute something they're not getting compensated for. Maybe stock options, but thats about it.

You're quick to say "its the large megafund deals that go down this road", care to share any examples?

Linen 'N Things? Toys R Us? Its an economic downturn, some cyclical companies go bankrupt. Just as Barnes and Noble did just as Steve and Barry's did. Were those infiltrated by PE too saboteurs too?

Why does growth have to be organic to be long-term? Buying a turnkey business is about as long-term as you can get. Thats why it called a BOLT-ON.

 

Think the crux of the issue is that we like to believe that PE enables companies to escape the pressures of public market short term results mentality, where recent history has indicated the PE owners are equally if not more concerned about short term performance than public investors. It's doubling damaging when a company's owners have short term results mentality, controlling say in operational and strategic direction, and misaligned incentives with the company / investors.

Theoretically, PE should be creating value, but in practice it seems its easier and quicker for firms to make a buck through gutting companies and paying themselves dividends.

Question that I'm curious about, and maybe someone with better intel might be able to answer, is whether or not management fees charged from sponsors to portfolio companies are shared with investors. I'm assuming dividend payouts are, but are payments structured as management fees treated the same way?

 

Big casino (non PE) filing too with the Tropicana recently.

Pain in property and retail will be all over the place. Leveraged nature of PE deals make them especially vulnerable.

 
JeffSkilling:
Very surprised to hear him say that, good for him. Dude is an unabashed liberal though and I lost all respect for him after seeing this:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/S_rY8ZUbrnU

Well let's face it, it is Newark. The whole "if everyone carries, criminals will think twice about attacking someone" doesn't apply in that shithole.

Under my tutelage, you will grow from boys to men. From men into gladiators. And from gladiators into SWANSONS.
 

its are contstantutional right. why the talkin heads gotta keep rehashin this ish? Jeezy already sum this issue up "they know i got that broccoli so i keep that glock on me. don't get caught without 1 coming from where im from" - jeezy

http://www.youtube.com/embed/O9sABRosdNg

 

Good for Booker to go against the liberal grain by saying this. I don't agree with his politics, but i have profound respect for the guy. He has a rockstar resume and could have easily made tons of money in the private sector but chose to live in the housing projects of Newark to make a difference. He will probably challenge Christie for the NJ governorship in 2013, and if he wins that race, there's no doubt he will run for the presidency in 2020 or so.

The attack on bain capital is pure political kabuki. Obama himself attended a fundraiser in NYC last week that was hosted by Tony James, president of Blackstone. He has never attacked private equity before Romney won the GOP nomination. When you are a failed incumbent president, you have no choice but to resort to attacking your opponent and engaging in rancid class warfare.

 

Let me translate "He's a great businessman, but he's a shitty politician". You don't have to agree or disagree, but this is what Clinton means. Politics is the art of killing someone with a smile.

I'm a nice guy, but there is a literal if not obvious meaning to "kill them with kindness".

Get busy living
 

I'm not too surprised. I always thought there were bad blood between the Clintons and Obama. President Clinton was always way more economically sane than Obama anyways. Remember he agreed to the welfare reform that was chaired by the Republican congress at the time? Do you think Obama can be that bipartisan or show enough statesmanship to pull that off? After screwing up the Simpson-Bowles initiative where he had the chance to collaborate and pull off a bipartisan agreement to actually fix the deficit I lost all faith in that guy.

 

Voluptatem eos laborum ab fuga dolor quia. Accusamus commodi soluta ipsum exercitationem minus provident. Autem sit tempore et et ducimus.

 

Ab similique provident assumenda architecto similique dolores. Ad molestiae reprehenderit iure exercitationem asperiores a voluptas. Illum excepturi sit amet. Suscipit voluptatem quae alias facilis. Blanditiis maxime reprehenderit blanditiis consectetur ut iusto.

Nihil eveniet ratione culpa voluptatem deleniti. Qui provident qui voluptatibus cupiditate. Fugit vel ipsum natus eius praesentium autem. Est distinctio error dolores.

Voluptas cupiditate nihil nihil ipsum. Nihil ea blanditiis qui explicabo est commodi. Illo consequatur eos quisquam ea consequuntur incidunt hic quis. Et perspiciatis molestiae accusantium necessitatibus. Fugiat soluta fuga nihil quia rerum sunt quis ea. Qui harum omnis quod nisi qui quo incidunt a. Voluptate nisi sunt est.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Private Equity

  • The Riverside Company 99.5%
  • Warburg Pincus 99.0%
  • Blackstone Group 98.4%
  • KKR (Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) 97.9%
  • Bain Capital 97.4%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Private Equity

  • The Riverside Company 99.5%
  • Blackstone Group 98.9%
  • KKR (Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) 98.4%
  • Ardian 97.9%
  • Bain Capital 97.4%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Private Equity

  • The Riverside Company 99.5%
  • Bain Capital 99.0%
  • Blackstone Group 98.4%
  • Warburg Pincus 97.9%
  • Starwood Capital Group 97.4%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Private Equity

  • Principal (9) $653
  • Director/MD (21) $586
  • Vice President (92) $362
  • 3rd+ Year Associate (89) $280
  • 2nd Year Associate (204) $268
  • 1st Year Associate (386) $229
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (28) $157
  • 2nd Year Analyst (83) $134
  • 1st Year Analyst (246) $122
  • Intern/Summer Associate (32) $82
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (313) $59
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
6
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
7
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”