Skip to main content

View Diary: Boston Globe: Romney Lied Under Oath In 1991 (93 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Which messy fact thing? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    citizenx, annecros, VClib

    Apparently, he testified as to his opinion. Is there any evidence that he testified to something other than his opinion?

    •  You are missing something (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, coquiero

      If you run a company and say its worth jack shit...."just my opinion" ain't gonna help you.

      At least that's what I was taught in my first year of law school 21 years ago.

      "Deserves got nothing to do with it"-William Munny, "Unforgiven"

      by GDoyle on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:35:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  he wasn't running Staples (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kane in CA

        it was his best informed opinion and a whole year for it to increase in value - that's not unheard of is it?

        "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

        by eXtina on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:54:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm sorry (8+ / 0-)

          He had information as being the director of Bain which owned Staples.

          I don't believe he thought it was worth $2.25 and his buddy called him as a witness because that's what he believed with all his heart.

          And then miraculously it sold for ten times that a year later. They were preparing the IPO at the time of the  testimony. They had all the internals, the balance sheets, the inventory sheets. He knew that company. And yes, an opinion IS in fact a lie and perjury if you're under oath if its not what you truly believe.

          "Deserves got nothing to do with it"-William Munny, "Unforgiven"

          by GDoyle on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:58:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  10x in under 1 year......very very rare (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          glitterscale, coquiero, eXtina, Sunspots
          •  DEM - this is more complex (3+ / 0-)

            The year before the IPO the common was behind the debt, all other liabilities and the preferred stock, which had a liquidation preference. It was not until the IPO, when the preferred converted to common, that the value of the common was the same as the now converted, old preferred.

            The pre-IPO value was a big enough issue for the IRS that in 2005 they issued guidance in Sec 409A. Now these private companies have to have an annual, independent, valuation of the common. Those 409A valuations of the common usually are 1/5 - 1/20 of the preferred.

            What happened to the value of the common at Staples was not uncommon at the time. In addition, the value of pre-IPO common stock, in a venture capital financed company, is at best guesswork.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:49:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Etch-a-Sketch (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Do you really think that opinion was sincerely held at the time he testified?  In other words, was it really his honest opinion?

      •  No, I have no idea (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        annecros, johnny wurster, VClib

        Do you? Is there any evidence that it wasn't his opinion at the time he testified?

        •  we know where to look (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          eXtina, DEMonrat ankle biter, elwior

          I'm sure Bain's internal valuations of Staples were much higher than the prices at which the ex-wife sold.

          Did she get access to those valuations in this litigation?  I infer she didn't.  

          So Mitt and his buddy got away with it.  Again.

          •  I'm not really concerned with what she got (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            johnny wurster, Neuroptimalian

            It seems no one has had access to this information, yet there are people more than willing to convict him of a crime he wasn't even accused of 20 years ago.

            And no, nothing is obvious about this story.

            •  I am missing something here (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              johnny wurster, coquiero, Sunspots

              When we are talking about a company's stock and the stock is wholly owned by Bain and Tom whosits, then the stock price should be based on internal calculations of inventories, assets etc. Then when they take the same stock that they claimed was only $2 and something in SEALED testimony and run the IPO asking $20 using those same internals cause really in a year not much would have changed then something is screwy.

              American Television is a vast sea of stupid. -xxdr zombiexx

              by glitterscale on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:26:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Do you know (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                that they used the same internals? Was there any consideration to the fact that the stock may have been a very small minority interest, was privately held, the company had never made a profit, and there may not have been a market for that small interest? The problem I have is that no one seems to know what was used to arrive at that value, just the assumption that not only was it a wrong, it was a lie. It's possible that the estimate was accurate. It's possible that the estimate was wrong, and still made in good faith. And it's possible that Romney lied.   None of those choices are obviously correct.

          •  jcbdem - Bain Capital was holding primarily (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            preferred stock which would have been valued at the "last round price" or the price paid by the last venture syndicate providing capital to Staples. This trial was about the value of the pre-IPO common stock which would typically be 1/10 the value of the preferred because it was the most junior security and behind all of the debt, the other liabilities, and the preferred.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 08:27:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  What did Romney do to make his money? (6+ / 0-)

      He sought out companies from which he could extract value for personal gain.  He is/was obviously good at this, whether or not you find the activity virtuous, immoral or just plain evil.

      So it seems far more likely to me that he lied than that he was mistaken and just stumbled into the profit a year down the road.

      "... the best of us did not return." Viktor Frankl

      by RMeister on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:37:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (125)
  • Community (60)
  • Elections (31)
  • Media (31)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (27)
  • Environment (27)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Civil Rights (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Culture (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Labor (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site