Featured Article

Is That Santorum On Your Sheets?

by Tim O'Leary on January 29, 2012

Like most of the country I’ve never been a fan of Rick Santorum.  I don’t like his politics. I can’t support someone that wants to intermingle God and government.  I particularly resent his attempt to group the gay community with pedophilia and beastiality. In most cases I believe in the disgusting old addage “he who smelt it  dealt it” – and when I see politicians overly concerned with attacking the gay lifestyle I can’t help but picture those same politicos sneaking off and tapping their toe under the stall in a public restroom – especially when they favor sweater vests normally only worn by 7th grade Life Science teachers and child molesters. (OK – maybe I’m being a bit hard on the sweater vest thing, and Life Science teachers.  I actually own a couple sweater vests that I think look pretty good when worn under the appropriate sports coat.  And we could all use a little more Life Science in our lives.)

But the fact is that my disdain for Santorum has never really been an issue, because like most voters I have never considered him to be a serious candidate.  In America there are a lot of people that like to watch programs that feature characters like the Kardashians, “Real Housewives”, and the loser oddballs that appear on the “Judge” shows, but I don’t really consider those programs real TV. And accordingly we have the political equvalent of that kind of entertainment, featuring candidates like Santorum, Palin, Trump, and Perry.

But as much as I don’t agree with Santorum, I did have a twinge of pity for him (just a twinge, mind you) when I saw how a few smart digital types used the web against him when he became so vocally anti-gay.  For months I had heard John Stewart and other comedy commentators urging viewers to Google “Santorum”, but had never really done so until today.  And so to save my valued readers a little time, if you have never taken the time to Google this guy’s name, here is the number one listing that comes up, right under his paid campaign listing. (Please note, I am making you go to the site as opposed to cut and paste the content here, as even the very open-minded Bizzy Life has to maintain some content standards.)

www.spreadingsantorum.com/

One Response to Is That Santorum On Your Sheets?

  1. Bizzy Life Author Avatar Mike Wilcox says:
    January 30, 2012 at 8:15 am

    I wish I could wear a sweater vest…my arms are too short….oh yeah, I like Santorum too for the “Little Train that Could” aspect of his candidacy. Gotta love someone who is getting smoked and is so blissfully unaware of his own predicament. It’s gotta be killing the Newt….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Posted in Politics

The Re-Tooling Of An American Corporate Shark.

by Michael Wilcox on January 17, 2012

Editor’s Note: Michael Wilcox is a Massachusett’s resident with a slightly different take on the Romney candidacy versus our last post. 

As the Republican primary season unfolds the theme, to the extent that there has been one, it seems that Republicans have managed to dispose of the Tea Party candidates and have all but settled on Mitt Romney. This has occurred because the Tea Party has struggled to produce a single candidate who can deliver the Tea Party message with a straight face to the nation. It seems to me that the Republican merry-go-round of “front runners” has somehow managed to work to eliminate the Perry, Bachman and Cain candidacies….We can disagree about the degree of government spending but people are not going to vote for someone as uninformed as Bachman or Perry, and the allegations made against Herman Cain were just too much for anyone to ignore. It should soon become clear that Rick Santorum is so desperately out of step with American voters on “social” issues that the Republicans cannot nominate him either.

What’s that? Why am I ignoring Newt and the crazy old fella from Texas? Oh that’s easy, they’re both nuttier than squirrel crap and would be a dream come true for Obama. So the race looks to be all but won by Mitt Romney, and let me be clear….as a Democrat I am least offended by Mr. Romney as a prospective President because he is not who he plays on TV.

Like it or not my Republican friends, Mr. Romney is a big government moderate who championed universal health care when he was the Governor of Massachusetts. Yes my good Republicans, Mitt Romney was ahead of the Democratic curve and actually implemented a system where people are ordered to obtain health insurance or they are penalized come tax time. Big BIG government stuff.  Mitt, the man who convinced Massachusetts voters that he was “Pro-Choice” is much closer politically to Bill Clinton than he is to Ronald Reagan. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of “Romney the candidate” is that he has flourished in the primary lead-up,  where the best that can be said about the guy is:

  1. He doesn’t debate as well as Gingrich.
  2. He’s not your grandaddy’s conservative.
  3. His “jobs” record as Mass. Governor was abysmal.
  4. He’s a notorious flip flopper on big ticket issues like abortion and health care.
  5. He’s a Mormon.

Then there’s his past at Bain Capital, and this is where Mr. Romney has encountered trouble in the past. We need to be clear, Mr. Romney was an enormously successful businessman who did nothing illegal in the manner in which he directed Bain Capital. That is not the question here. The real issue is how Bain Capital’s business record under Romney will play with an American public which is desperate for jobs. For those of you who do not know, Bain Capital was a private equity firm that invested in underperforming companies and in most cases they managed to improve performance. A great story,  no? Well, the story goes that companies such as office supplier Ampad was acquired by Bain and then used as a platform to acquire other companies, borrowing to make the acquisitions to such a degree that Ampad ended up with $400 million in short term debt. Eventually, Ampad was bankrupted, its stockholders were left with worthless shares and its employees were left without jobs while Bain pocketed millions in fees for the acquisitions and management of the company. A great bit of news if you were invested in Bain or worked there….not such a glad time for Ampad, its employees or shareholdershowever.

The Ampad story is not news, as it was first published in the Boston Globe back in 1992. Mitt challenged the late Ted Kennedy in a 1994 senate run and that story devastated Romney’s election bid. Will it pose problems this time around? In the current economic climate Romney cannot shed the story and will likely respond with some of Bain’s many successes as his remaining Republican opponents seek to use the Kennedy tactic against him. No matter how many jobs Bain actually created, and let’s be clear Bain Capital did create jobs, the fact remains that Bain made money in some cases from the systematic destruction of once viable, albeit underperforming, companies.

Romney, during at least his private equity career, believed in “creative destruction” as a means of keeping companies efficient. The idea that companies should be prepared to take steps, including layoffs and overseas expansion, to remain competitive and profitable is clearly good for stockholders and in a broader sense the economy itself. The question which voters will need to answer is whether the “creative destruction” model is “good business” or is it business that is anti-American job. The issue this year is, after all, jobs, jobs and oh yeah…jobs. Labeling oneself as a jobs creator when the cold hard fact of the matter is that “creative destruction” is about maximizing share value often at the expense of jobs is risky business. Mitt Romney is a shrewd politician as evidenced by his remarkable ability to convince primary voters that he is a conservative. I suspect he may have a harder time explaining away the Bain Capital years….but who would ever have thought that the pro-choice, universal health care champion, liberal governor would get a single vote in Iowa. It should be fun to watch either way.

7 Responses to The Re-Tooling Of An American Corporate Shark.

  1. avatar Rickie T. Weiner, Esq. says:
    January 18, 2012 at 6:55 am

    Nicely written and well thought out but the question really is at present who would be better for this country. Obama who had done nothing prior to becoming president and has continued that trend as president, or Mitt Romney who has done much more whether you like what he has done or not?

  2. Bizzy Life Author Avatar Mike Wilcox says:
    January 18, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    Rickie: The truth is that Romney has done a great deal in business, there can be no questioning of his business chops….my concern with him arises from the lack of any core belief that he’s been able to stick with for any period of time. As I said, though, he would not be as harmful as President because he is a moderate.

  3. Pingback: Herman Cain 2012 President » hermancain.electionnewstweets.com » The Re-Tooling Of An American Corporate Shark.

  4. avatar Dave Petkauskos says:
    January 18, 2012 at 9:53 pm

    I guess that being a Capitalist in the ‘ole US of A and understanding how to manipulate the system without abusing it like many of the Wall Street and Washington cronies have done is pretty much what the game is all about, isn’t it? At least a sophisticated Investor and successful Business mogul knows how to make things happen, and in this Economy would probably be a welcome sight for many.
    (see Daniel Henninger’s Wall Street Journal Article today entitled: Bain Capital Saved America)

    Wandering aimlessly like this Administration does on Economic, Social and International issues with a Greenhorn at the helm for four more years will be a catastrophic end to our Nation as we know it.

    Meanwhile, don’t forget that many of the 100′s of Businesses Bain pumped money into like Staples, Burlington Coat Factory, Dunkin’ Brands, Toys R Us and The Weather Channel to name just a few, have been extremely successful and were sound investments for Bain and it’s Client (see USA Today Robert Robb’s Romney was no “Vulture Capitalist” January 18, 2012 from the Political Notebook)

    Romney’s Fifteen percent Income Tax, predominantly based on
    his income derived from Capital gains on his extensive investment portfolio, again is perfectly legal and not unlike many, if not all of our Political Leaders, Republican and Democrat alike. So, as for his peers in the Political Arena where greed and corruption prevail, I guess 15% sounds like “no harm, no foul” to me. My math shows that 15% of what he earns is better than 35% of what he hides…
    Doesn’t Warren Buffet pay less in taxes by his own admission?

    There’s not a CPA on the Planet that will not try to minimize the client’s tax liability “legally” wink, wink….

    I’ll take the Businessman over the Politician in 2012.

  5. Bizzy Life Author Avatar Mike Wilcox says:
    January 20, 2012 at 2:02 pm

    Good reply Dave, thanks for checking out the BizzyLife.

  6. avatar Scott says:
    January 20, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    Mitt is the coice of the media. I find it strange that 2 states and roughly 128K people have decided the GOP nomination. The real test would be to divide the US into 4 areas and then have an area vote. Start this in February and give about 4 weeks between elections. Cycle the areas every election so that your area gets to be 1st every 4th election cycle. It might spread the candidates, but keeps them in the same geographic location. As for me, I would rather have a businessman in the WH.

  7. Bizzy Life Author Avatar Mike Wilcox says:
    January 20, 2012 at 2:36 pm

    I think Mitt has also done a pretty fair job of convincing main stream Republicans (eg McCain and Christie) to support him. I think Mitt is more substantial than people give him credit for. I also agree that Mitt’s business acumen is needed now, but the question is, and has been, which Mitt will we get on the social policy side of the ledger. I like the idea but would be concerned that regionalized voting would only serve to further compartamentalize the nation….
    Thanks for the insightful response either way Scott.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Posted in Politics

Is Private Equity Evil?

by Tim O'Leary on January 15, 2012

There is a lot of debate right now concerning whether or not Mitt Romney’s experience working in private equity is good or bad for his campaign,. Romney is anxious to claim the position of “job creator” – stating that his history of providing financing for companies has been a positive for the economy and makes him more qualified to be President.  His opponents would claim that private equity is not a path towards job creation, and in fact just represents another aspect of greedy corporate America stripping profits out of the business landscape, and actually might really cause the loss of jobs.

This week NPR featured a business professor from Kellogg University who had completed a study of the effects of private equity on the job market.  The study concluded that private equity is really fairly neutral in terms of job creation; that is, it neither creates nor destroys employment.

Over the course of my career I have had a fairly significant amount of experience in private equity.  I have invested my own money in private equity funds to be invested in other companies, and I have received significant amounts of capital to invest in my companies from private equity funds.  For me personally, private equity financing has in most cases been extremely lucrative from both perspectives.  I am currently invested in a private equity fund that was an early investor in companies like Facebook and other very hot technology companies, and my investment in this fund, though not fully realized, at this point is very profitable. More importantly for me, I have received significant financing over the years from private equity funds that have allowed me to expand my company and acquire other companies, significantly increasing the value of my ownership.

Here is how private equity financing works.  A private equity firm forms an investment fund.  This fund raises money from institutional and high net worth investors, banks, trusts, and other entities with significant amounts of money to invest.  A single investment fund may range in value from a few million to billions of dollars.  The fund then takes that money and buys ownership, or significant positions, in multiple companies.  The managers of the private equity fund typically take significant or full management positions in the operational management of those companies, and for forming the funds they take a significant share of the profits and money raised; typically 2% of the funds raised and up to 20% or more of the profits if the fund is successful.  Most funds have a set time frame for the investment, typically five to seven years, at which point the private equity firm hopes to exit the investments with large profits for themselves and their investors.

The benefits of private equity.  Romney claims to be a “job creator” because private equity financing can certainly expand companies and potentially create jobs.  Many incredible companies that employ thousands of employees were spurred to growth by private equity, literally growing from basements into major international conglomorates.  PE money can certainly be beneficial to the American economy and industry, providing crucial funding to technology companies and other cutting-edge businesses that can help keep us at the top of the world economy, and I believe that there is a strong case to be made that this kind of financing has been an inportant component of continued American dominance in the world technology market.

But private equity and job creation do not always go together. Lets not misunderstand the purpose and goal of PE investing.  The mandate is not to expand employment or the power and reach of corporate America, or some other kind of patriotic objective.  The goal of private equity investing is to make money for the investors; nothing else.  If a company becomes more valuable by employing more workers, then the PE firm is happy to see more people hired; but if more money can be milked out of the transaction by cutting back and firing people then they will be equally happy to shrink a company.    Similarly, if a firm can be made more profitable by outsourcing jobs oversees or moving manufacturing, the PE firm will almost certainly make those moves.  Often in a PE transaction several companies will be merged together, with layers of employees eliminated in the merger to make the company more profitable.

The other potential downside of PE financing is its typical short-term exit strategy, though this might vary by fund.  Maximizing a company’s profits over five to seven years normally requires a different strategy than managing a company with a longer time horizon.  In essence, a PE firm is always looking for how to sell a company for the maximum amount, as opposed to how to build a great company for the long haul.  And perhaps the biggest problem with many PE transactions is the use of debt.  Though I have participated in PE funding deals that did not incur any debt, most PE firms will layer on as much debt as feasible onto a company they acquire so they can spread out their investment capital to more companies.  This weakens the acquired company, and can often hinder its development.

So the bottom line…. PE investors do not invest to build great companies and make America stronger; they invest to make money, and the only real yardstick for success among PE professional like Romney is how much money they and their investors make. There is nothing illegal or necessarily immoral about that; most corporate executive’s primary mandate is to make money.  But there is a big difference between a PE executive, and the entrepreneur that starts a great company and builds it with pride so it will last for generations.  I would argue that we need more great entrepreneurs with big ideas, and that we also need to maintain a PE structure to finance some of those ideas.  I have also met many great individuals that work in PE that would not be qualified to actually run a company; they are primarily of value for their investment and input as board members.  They understand how business and finance work, but they do not have the operational skill set to visualize and orchestrate the proper path for an organization.

It also makes perfect sense to me that PE financing is job neutral. While I am sure there are many cases where funding has allowed stratospheric growth for firms, there will be as many examples where the PE management mandate was to cut employment.

But the big question is; does Mitts background in private equity make him a more qualified candidate to be President?  There are many skill sets that a successful PE executive must possess that I think translate well to The White House.  A good PE executive is typically very intelligent and well-educated.  They understand finance and the flow of money, they are usually well-organized, they understand business structure, and they are often very skilled at negotiations. They tend to be very good with budgets, which would be a big plus in this economy.  So if the job requirement hinges on a solid background in business, a PE resume would be a plus.

But I think there is much more to being President than an understanding of business.  A great President has vision, compassion, life experience, great communication skills, a knowledge of history and its potential impact on the future, charisma, and the ability to bring people together; all attributes that don’t exist within any set profession.

 

 

2 Responses to Is Private Equity Evil?

  1. avatar Scott says:
    January 16, 2012 at 12:58 pm

    A great CEO knows how to get key performers working for him to make himself look better, thus more of a Warrior that can find good workers. For many, many years, we have been lacking that leadership in the Whitehouse and I think we have too many weasels in positions that they are unable to perform in. Not a Mitt fan, but we need someone that will take responsibility and get things done.

  2. avatar search engine marketing says:
    January 22, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    The following is a ranking of the largest private equity firms published in 2011. The ranking was compiled by Private Equity International , which reveals that the world’s 50 largest private equity direct investment programs have raised in excess of US$325 billion since 2006.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Posted in Politics

And the Lord Said….Statue of Liberty on Three!

by Michael Wilcox on January 11, 2012

The talk of the NFL season has not been the play of Drew Brees or the strength of the Green Bay Packers…this has been the year of Tim. The man who, as a second year NFL player, has become the starting quarterback of the Denver Broncos and a veritable national lightning rod. Tim Tebow is, you see, a devout Christian, and he makes no bones about that fact, often dropping to one knee, or “Teebowing”, on the field after plays.

The problem is that Tebow the quarterback is at times historically awful, throwing balls well over heads and into the ground. He has been at times this year so bad that it was fair to ask how it was that Denver strung together a long mid-season win streak….the guy was awful using any measure. But after his game winning pass against the Steelers this weekend he broke a Twitter record with 9420 tweets per second-per second! So the Tebow story has captured our national attention and set the stage for the battle of “the pundits versus the converts”.

Regardless of your views about Tebow the man, he has not been a very highly skilled quarterback in terms of his ability read defenses or throw the ball. In fairness to his critics, he’s been historically bad and despite the six game win streak he threw for 69 and 60 yards in two games against Kansas City this year. But Denver won both games so Tebow kept his job. Based on performances like that he’s been ridiculed by the pundits who predicted his swift and humiliating demise.

The Converts, on the other hand, pointed to Denver’s penchant for last minute comebacks, often in the most improbable ways as a sign that Tim Tebow was benefiting from Devine intervention. Tim wins, and Jesus saves, I guess.

The truth about Tebow is that he really seems to be a genuinely good guy, he performs missionary work, he meets with sick kids, and most importantly he doesn’t have a blip on his record—he is clearly a great role model. But at the same time, it is difficult to imagine a more annoying individual because of his near constant references to Jesus and his Lord….we get it buddy….please do not become the NFL Evangelist.  Like most Americans I like to separate my sports from my religion. So Tim Tebow is annoying, but can he play?
Most so-called pundits are too quick to judge football talent which is why we have been blessed with the likes of Brian Bosworth, Ryan Leaf and Akili Smith- all fabulous busts after being “projected” as great NFL talents. Then there are the really bad projections like quarterback Tom Brady, arguably one of the best of all time, who was selected in the sixth round and was said not to be able to throw well or long, he didn’t respond well to pressure and he was slow. Pundits be damned!

These so-called experts generally miss as many as they get right, so let’s wait and see on Tim Tebow the player. Remember we here in TV land will not decide if or when Tim Tebow will become a successful NFL quarterback. Those decisions will be made, for the most part, by the defenses he will face and the coaches who direct those defenses in the next year or so. It will not be a complicated evaluation process either: Tim Tebow will succeed or he will not and there is not going to be a lot of hand wringing if he doesn’t.

You see, the road to the Pro Football Hall of Fame is strewn with the likes of Todd Marinovich, Ryan Leaf, Jeff George, Art Schlicter and the hapless Jamarcus Russell. There is simply no room in the National Football League for people who cannot perform at a high level week in and week out, especially at the quarterback position regardless if they are getting the play call from Jesus or not.

The public debate about Tebow the player, man, and role model are just an ESPN fueled sideshow, as every ESPN football analyst has predicted Tebow’s future. They do not, however, have any say in the outcome of the grand Tebow experiment. No my friends, only Tebow and his teammates on offense can write the ending to this story. If any trend has emerged it is that this guy will manage to have a professional career and may become a very strong player if he can continue to improve. In the past five weeks the Tebows, I mean Broncos, played the New England Patriots, Buffalo Bills, Kansas City Chiefs and the Pittsburgh Steelers, and the questions remain. Prior to the start of the playoffs Tebow looked ill equipped to handle the pro game, he passed the ball poorly, he didn’t manage to run well and in the final three games of the season the Broncos were beaten actually crushed by the Bills and Patriots. Tebow struggled mightily and whether you are a Tebow fan or not there was an unsettling sense that Tim’s days were numbered. Despite the poor record, the Broncos play in the weakest division in pro football and they qualified for the playoffs with an 8-8 record.

In Tebow’s first playoff game he would face the famed Pittsburgh Steelers and even the Bronco players seemed resigned to their demise at the hands of a typically ferocious Steeler defense. This past weekend, however, we were treated to an all new Tim Tebow. He still threw the short ball poorly but he went deep frequently, he threw very few bad balls and he was not intercepted once. In a must win game Tebow was not only “not awful”; he was very good,  throwing for 316 yards and an implausible (not miraculous) win over the heavily favored Steelers. So the story will continue with this guy and I’m sort of rooting for him except for this weekend where I’m hoping that the Patriots destroy him. But later, I hope he can become a viable quarterback because this league needs fewer Rex Ryan’s and more like Tim Tebow. So good luck Tim, just not this weekend. Go Pats.

One Response to And the Lord Said….Statue of Liberty on Three!

  1. avatar Scott says:
    January 12, 2012 at 9:37 am

    As the old meme goes – “Haters gonna hate”, but he remains consistant in his message. I am not a Tebow fan, but I admire him for his conviction. He is one of about 1600 people playing at the NFL level. Even the guys that suck, are still better than almost everyone else. So while we predict the demise of players and their off-field action (Pacman, TO, etc) he continues to put forth the effort and moves forward. It’s funny how lucky a hard working man can be.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Posted in Man Cave