Is the failures of Bain Capital just like the Green Energy scams of the Obama Administration?

Question

Weren't all of them a bit of 'Take the money and run'?

Answer 1

Yes except the government didn't offer the services of restructuring so the plants had a better chance at being successful. GM and Chrysler may be better examples of how not to restructure a business. The only ones who benefited were the UAW. Stock holders, dealers, and white collar workers bore the brunt of government breaking contracts and left GM paying high wages and being far less competitive than other auto manufacturers. Nearly 2000 of the most successful car dealerships were discontinued while less successful ones were kept to be "fair". You know, give the little guy a chance. Then GM was told what car to build. The Volt. What a flop.



Academics know nothing about business. They catered to the people who donated the most to the democrats. When the dealerships closed, mechanics, car salesmen, and suppliers were the losers as well as the communities where they resided. The one in my little community had been in business since 1927. They lost their dealership. They made it through the Great Depression but not through the Obama debacle. Many people lost their pensions in my state as well because the stocks went to the union. They sued and lost. No way should they have lost because the government broke an established contract.

Answer 2

Years ago I read a book by a guy who specialized in cannibalizing companies. Forget his name, started with an S. Famous takeover/turnaround artist. He made the case that by buying mismanaged companies, breaking them up and selling off the parts, he actually created a whole lot of jobs and everyone made money.



Think of it as remodeling a house. You tear off the unwanted parts of it, add on desirable parts and in the end it is worth more than what you put into it.



I think what bothers people is disruption of the status quo. Employees get a chance to realize they are interchangeable parts and nobody wants to feel like that. But that's the reality of it.



What happened in the crash of 2007/8 is companies cut the fat (losing millions of jobs) and realized they could be much more profitable being lean and mean, without that 10% fat (employees). While painful, it was a good housecleaning. The good news is, productivity is now max'ed out so to do any growth or expansion, they will have to hire more people.



I have not heard anything about Bain failing, but I don't follow such things. As for the green energy scams, I have noticed that most of the time when Obama visits some factory, soon thereafter it fails. Weird huh? Correlation does not imply causation, but the trend was pretty clear for a while.



Meanwhile, back at The Ranch, USA has put a 30% (up to 250%) tariff on Chinese solar panels because they have been "dumping" them on our markets at below the cost of production (& transportation) to kill our domestic suppliers. That is surely a factor in our companies failing.



Meanwhile, back at Obama's "stimulus" bill, which really only served to bolster State/local governments and unions and "payback" to his supporters, for that same almost $1Trillion we could have put 2KW of solar panels on the roof of every owner-occupied house in America. The average house uses 4KW, so it would have cut in half the need to produce electricity in giant plants using fossil fuels.



But of course Obama's NWO couldn't tax that and it would have increased the independence and self-reliance of the middle class, and of course we can't have that now, can we......

Answer 3

??????



No.



Bain capital made money by cannibalizing companies and ruining the lives of millions of people.



The Obama administration invested money in green companies, a couple of which turned out to be bad investments, the rest of which were well worth it.



No, the Obama administration didn't profit from those investments, the citizens of the US are benefiting and will benefit much more in the future.



See how wrong morons can be?

Answer 4

Here is an interesting timeline:

July 2005: Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law, creating the 1703 loan guarantee program. By the way, the GOP controlled Congress during this time.



February 2006 – October 2006: Solyndra raises its first round of venture financing worth $10.6 million from CMEA Capital, Redpoint Ventures, and U.S. Venture Partners. In October, Madrone Capital Partners, an investment arm of the Walton family, invests $7 million. The Waltons have donated millions of dollars to Republican candidates over the years.



Late 2007: Loan guarantee program is funded. Solyndra was one of 16 clean-tech companies deemed ready to move forward in the due diligence process. The Bush Administration DOE moves forward to develop a conditional commitment.



November 2008: Silicon prices remain very high on the spot market, making non-silicon based thin film technologies like Solyndra’s very attractive to investors.



January 2009: In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush Administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee before President Obama is inaugurated.



March 2009: The same credit committee approves the strengthened loan application. The deal passes on to DOE’s credit review board. Career staff (not political appointees) within the DOE issue a conditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee.



June 2009: As more silicon production facilities come online while demand for PV wavers due to the economic slowdown, silicon prices start to drop. Between June of 2009 and August of 2011, PV prices drop more than 50%.



September 2009: Solyndra raises an additional $219 million. Shortly after, the DOE closes a $535 million loan guarantee after six months of due diligence. This is the first loan guarantee issued under the 1703 program. From application to closing, the process took three years – not the 41 days that is sometimes reported.



January – June 2010: As the price of conventional silicon-based PV continues to fall due to low silicon prices and a glut of solar modules, investors and analysts start questioning Solyndra’s ability to compete in the marketplace.



November 2010: Solyndra closes an older manufacturing facility and concentrates operations at Fab 2, the plant funded by the $535 million loan guarantee.



February 2011: Due to a liquidity crisis, investors provide $75 million to help restructure the loan guarantee.



March 2011: Republican Representatives complain that DOE funds are not being spent quickly enough.



June 2011: Average selling prices for solar modules drop to $1.50 a watt and continue on a pathway to $1 a watt.



August 2011: DOE refuses to restructure the loan a second time.



September 2011: Solyndra closes its manufacturing facility, lays off 1,100 workers and files for bankruptcy. The news is touted as a failure of the Obama Administration. However, the DOE the $535 million loan is only 1.3% of DOE’s loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that’s known to be troubled.

Answer 5

My 401K has seen a steady increase since I switched over to green energy in 2009.

Check it out!

http://www.ecostocks.com/

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/yingli-green-energy-to-announce-first-quarter-2012-financial-results-on-may-30-2012-2012-05-14

http://www.greenworldinvestor.com/2011/04/15/best-and-worst-stock-markets-to-list-a-renewable-energy-company-hangsengftsenasdaq/



Hard to say with Bain Capital their stocks have been down for a while

http://www.insidermonkey.com/hedge-fund/brookside+capital/160

Answer 6

The failure of Bain Capital is one incident. The green energy scams probably constitute thousands of incidents. So the answer is it is not like the green energy scams. Heaven help us God bless you God bless America.

Answer 7

NO, Bain Capital was private money and Soylandra was your tax money.

Bain was a risk that Romney took that used his money and investors money. They all knew the risks.

Solyandra used your money without asking you or anyone else if this was OK.

Answer 8

Pretty much, both want America to be run like a Business and its people(us) like employees. Whether they personally want this is debatable but they have no say in the matter since Goldman Sachs is funding both of them, whatever they say goes.

Answer 9

What "failures"? Bain is still in business!

Answer 10

Bain Capital is hardly a failure,,,,,obama administration is.



Bain did not loose tax payer dollars,,,,,,obama administration did.



Bain actually saved or created jobs,,,,,,,,,,obama administration did not.

Answer 11

weak one

Answer 12

Bain didn't involve TAXPAYER dollars...you failed to point out that very SIGNIFICANT fact.