Skip to main content

So the Globe story is out about Mitt Romney's testimony in a 1991 hearing and deposition related to a Massachusetts Norfolk County divorce. While The Globe doesn't use the term directly, the implication and evidence is clear.....Romney lied.

::::more below::::

Essentially the transcripts tell the story that Romney testified on behalf of his friend, Tom Stemberg, about the value of Staples stock. Apparently there was some post-divorce litigation in Stemberg's divorce from his first wife Maureen in which the ex-wife claimed she hadn't received fair value for the Staples stock in 1988.

By the time the litigation happened in connection with the by then concluded divorce, it was 1991. Romney testified that she got fair value for the stock even though he took it public (as did his very close friend Stemberg) barely a year later at ten times the value. Romney testified there was "very little chance" the stock would skyrocket a year earlier.

Stemberg's ex-wife received $2.25 and $2.48 per share in 1988. A year later, in 1989, it went public at $22.50 value, exactly ten times of the first shares she sold. Romney essentially argued Bain had made a mistake investing in the company at the time of the divorce proceeding, but a year later made a huge profit off taking it public. Its been the premier centerpiece of Romney's time at Bain used in his various campaigns since.

Romney was then to Tom Stember, and remains to this day as Stemberg spoke at this year's GOP convention in favorable terms about his friend Mitt Romney.

Apparently he owes him big time.

http://bostonglobe.com/...

Edit: I would assume the ex-wife's claim was that in 1988 when they got divorced whatever financial info Stemberg disclosed led her to believe the stock was worth $2.25 or $2.48. But when Bain sold it in 1989 at $22.50 per share, she probably re-opened the claim and said he didn't disclose enough that led me to know it would be worth that much in a year.

That's where Romney came in and testified for his friend that, yep, it was only worth $2.25 in 1988 even though we took it public a year later at ten times that.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  It's the Boston Globe this time, (20+ / 0-)

    and not just TMZ.  Otherwise, this is the same story that broke two days ago.  Hopefully this is getting picked up by the mainstream media beyond the gossip/entertainment 'zines.  

    •  No There There (12+ / 0-)

      Unless someone can establish that Bain and Staples were already preparing an IPO with a target price well above $2, at the time of the sales, there is no perjury.

      It is not at all clear why the wife thinks she has a claim here. It appears that the shares were simply split evenly, so valuation did not figure in the division of property. If her sales were third party, I don't know why she would have a complaint about the settlement with her husband.

      On the other hand, if she had to make a deal to sell to someone with an interest in the company because it was still private, and relied on representations of fair value, then misrepresentation may be an issue which involves her husband, and if Mitt supported the valuation knowing that the IPO was underway, that would be material and perjurous.

      So to make a story - find out the terms of the sale - was there a market in the stock or did she seek company (or husband) guidance on a value and who bought those shares. And when did planning on the IPO pick up.

      Lacking this there is only testimony by Romney that she got a fair price unrebutted by evidence and without clear materiality. No story.

      •  That has been reported (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, rb608, Lujane, codairem, whenwego

        I've seen in other places that they worked for well over a year with an investment firm preparing the IPO. I don't think that is the issue.

        The problem is did he mean the value was $2.25 in 1988 or 1991? That is the issue.

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

        by GDoyle on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:46:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  no market because the year before the IPO (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, wilderness voice

        This was decades before the sort of Facebook pre-IPO private market.

        Of course Rmoney knew that there was an IPO in the future, and that in 1988, Bain hoped it would be able to sell for a far higher price.  

        What do you think venture capital lives for?

      •  The Ex-Wife (7+ / 0-)

        Has litigated this several times over the years.  It's less that she's going back to the well yet again (last time was in 2006), but that she hates her Ex and Mitt.  So she wanted Mitt's testimony out there to make Mitt look like the lying dog that he is.

        I don't think it's terribly beneficial now.  It would have been more useful back in the early summer when Mr. Staples was running around pumping up Mitt.  He's still doing it, but after the 47% comment, I suspect most that would ever care have already written him off as a 1%.

  •  Yeah, that's an October surprise (12+ / 0-)

    I woud imagine that a statute of limitations applies to the legal aspect but...lying under oath is NOT a good look if you want to be POTUS.

    •  You forget, it's OK if you are a Republican. (7+ / 0-)

      Laws and ethics only apply to the little people.  Rulers and gods are exempt.

      “when Democrats don’t vote, Democrats don’t win.” Alan Grayson

      by ahumbleopinion on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:28:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  what I don't understand - there was no (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chitown Kev, VClib

      assigned value to the stock yet at the time he testified was there? He was just asked to give his expert opinion of what he thought the value was. Correct? So it sold for ten times what he thought it was, making him a terrible investment analyst but not a liar, right?

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

      by eXtina on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:53:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Chitown - what lie? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kane in CA, Neuroptimalian

      Romney was testifying regarding his opinion of the value of common stock in Staples a year before it went public. It was an opinion about an issue where there is no right or wrong answer. How could anyone commit perjury in that circumstance?

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:51:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why do people think this? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, CoyoteMarti, Sunspots, madhaus

        Do not understand what people's understanding of perjury is. I'm a lawyer so maybe its so ingrained in my understanding. But there definitely seems to be a misconception going around.

        Of course you can commit perjury on an opinion. If you state something...even an "opinion" to oh, say,  HELP YOUR FRIEND FINANCIALLY, that you don't honestly believe you better believe that is perjury.

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

        by GDoyle on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:04:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  GDoyle - but how could we know that he (3+ / 0-)

          really believed something different from his testimony? As I read the transcript he is explaining industry norms regarding these valuation issues. My guess is that, given his testimony, that he really did believe what he was testifying to. How could any prosecutor prove anything else? It would be one thing if his testimony was some unique, offbeat, convoluted explanation, but it's plain vanilla and accepted industry norms.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:12:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Its like anything else (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib, Sunspots, madhaus

            You present the evidence and let the trier of facts decide. Not complicated. Some people seem to think you need video or a tape or a document to prove something.

            You can listen to something, consider the context, analyze what he said and how and why and say....do I believe that?

            If no and there is some evidence to support that conclusion. Sure, it can be perjury.

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

            by GDoyle on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:34:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  And by the way (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib, highacidity, madhaus

            You just did it yourself. You said...yes I believe he really believed. Okay, well that's how its done the opposite way too.

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

            by GDoyle on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:36:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  GDoyle - the only reason that I think he (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Neuroptimalian, Kane in CA

              believed his own testimony is because on this particular issue his testimony is accepted industry norms. If he had some unusual method of valuation I would be the first to point out that it was suspicious.

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:59:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Okay (0+ / 0-)

                That's fine. He stated a lot of industry norms. That doesn't mean he really believed it was worth what he said and then got 10x more valuable a year later. But you're entitled to believe him, just as I personally doubt that was what the motivation for arriving at that opinion was.

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

                by GDoyle on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 08:05:35 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That poster isn't here to engage you GD (0+ / 0-)

                  S/he's here to sow doubt.  Whenever ANYTHING financial comes up, this poster is advocating in a way that most benefits Romney or other Republicans.  If the item is really egregious, s/he whittles down the issue to some irrelevant backwater.  Check out its history.  Not a single denunciation of any Republican, not a single statement of support of any Democrat that I've ever seen.  I admit I haven't read every single post, so I could be wrong, but I've read hundreds and hundreds of them.

                  That tells you all you need to know about its real purpose here.  This poster is a highly sophisticated troll.

                  In capitalist America, bank robs you!

                  by madhaus on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 11:11:04 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly, GDoyle. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GDoyle

          I'm not a lawyer, but I do understand the concept of a chain of evidence--a similar principle exists in science, where you try to support every step of your reasoning with peer-reviewed or your own experimental evidence.

          In this case, it's possible that Mitt knowingly deceived the court, and his buddy's (soon-to-be) ex about the value of the Staples shares.  But in order to prove it as perjury, as a lie under oath, you need to prove that the stock's value, when Mitt said it was one thing, was really higher, and that Mitt knew this.  

          It gets grayer when you consider the stock's tenfold increase in value in less than 12 months.  Subpoena enough documents and you might be able to establish that Romney and his fellows at Bain really did have a better opinion of Staples than he let on.  If there were memos (sorry, no e-mails then!) where Mitt emphasized the potential of this company, then that could be the basis for perjury.  But without that, Mitt's "huh, who'd'a guessed?" defense is enough.

          •  agramante - valuing pre-IPO common stock (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Neuroptimalian, tardis10, Sunspots

            in venture capital backed companies is difficult to determine and hard to quantify. In venture financed companies like Staples the common stock is junior to all of the debt and preferred stock and its likely at that time that Staples had a negative net worth, as shown by its balance sheet and was cash flow negative.

            The issue of pre IPO common stock valuation is one that is problematic not only in divorce, but also estates and IRS issues. The IRS issue revolves around the value of common stock for the purposes of employee stock options. This was resolved in 2005 by the issuance of guidance by the IRS in Section 409A of the code. Since 2005 to take advantage of the safe harbor companies must have an independent third party perform an annual evaluation of the value of the common stock. These are referred to as a "409A Valuation". These valuations typically value the common stock at somewhere between 1/5 to 1/20 the value of the preferred. This value can rise significantly as a company approaches an IPO, but until all the preferred stock converts to common, at the IPO, there will always be a significant discount.

            If today a divorce, or estate, included a pre-IPO stock like Stapes everyone would now look to, and likely accept, the 409A valuation.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 08:18:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Section 409A (0+ / 0-)

              A valuation performed by a qualified independent appraiser is presumed to be a "reasonable valuation method" for purposes of 409A only if it is done in good faith.  In addition, the presumption applies only to the extent that subsequent events (such as an IPO) do not have a material effect on the valuation.  In other words, if an IPO is planned, the valuation must take that into account.

              In certain cases, a company can do its own valuuation (the "illiquid stock of a start-up corporation" method).  Such valuations are only valid if there is not a prospect of a change in control or IPO (again, no low-balling when a liquidity event is imminent).

              However, valuation methods such as the use of a preferred stock price to common stock price ratio or other “rule of thumb” methods do not satisfy the requirements of the Section 409A regulations.

              "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

              by Old Left Good Left on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 09:33:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  OLGL - I was trying to help people understand (0+ / 0-)

                two issues. First, that the valuation of common stock in venture backed companies is an inexact process for which there is no right or wrong answer. There is a range of reasonable answers. Second, that the issue was big enough that the IRS had issued guidance starting in 2005 to bring some third party evaluation and process to the question.

                Prior to 2005 the IRS routinely accepted a 10:1 difference between preferred and common. The timing of the Staples IPO is an interesting issue, but I don't think the IRS challenged the pricing of stock options at what turned out to be about a 10:1 difference a year before going public. Had the IRS challenged the pricing of the options, I am sure it would have been in the court documents and would have been powerful evidence.

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 10:00:20 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  I'm missing something (8+ / 0-)

    Where is the claim or the evidence that he lied?

    •  it's one of those reality things (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Delevie

      the republicans won't understand this messy fact thing....

      •  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:
          elwior

          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:
                    Neuroptimalian

                    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:
                Neuroptimalian

                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 ]

    •  Its in testimony (4+ / 0-)

      The Globe reviewed the evidence in the form of transcripts of Romney's testimony.

      Romney valued Staples at $2.25 and claim it has all kinds of problems and the value won't change significantly. He was high up in running the company and knew everything about it. But then a year later he, among others, took it public for ten times higher Romney had said it was worth.

      You don't need to check common sense at the door. ,Do you think he was honest about the value a year earlier while testifying on behalf of one of his closest friends?

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

      by GDoyle on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:30:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The problem is that it may only have been (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        citizenx

        worth 2.25 and Romney found a sucker (GS, so unlikely) to buy it at an inflated price.

        Romney was dishonest, of course, but he has counters here and I just don't see this as having legs.  Hopefully it will.

        "The attack on the truth by war begins long before war starts and continues long after a war ends." -Julian Assange

        by Pierro Sraffa on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:34:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  He never thought they should do the Staples (0+ / 0-)

        deal, so it's theoretically possible he still thought it was a bad deal

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

        by eXtina on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:55:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I took a scan of the testimony, but its (11+ / 0-)

    zillions of pages and doesn't strike me as terribly interesting.  absent some smoking gun, this probably won't make a dent.

    OTOH, it does confirm that Bain had, like many had speculated, set up two-tiered equity, with preferred stock and common stock, the latter being valued at a small fraction of the former.  that is the center piece of both this story and the story re mitts huge IRA (ie, mitts testimony confirms the speculation about how his IRA got so big)

    •  johnny - that's how every venture deal (6+ / 0-)

      is structured. The cash investors receive preferred stock which has a liquidation preference and the founders and employees have common stock. In 1988 the standard was to value the common at 1/10 of the preferred although 1/20 was not uncommon. Because the common stood behind the debt, all the other liabilities and the preferred, a low value was accepted by all parties, including the IRS.

      My guess is that the divorce lawyers used the price at which Staples was granting employee stock options in 1988. In any event the value of a company a year before it goes public is an opinion, not something that can be subject to perjury because there is no correct answer. In a year both the company and the public market can change so dramatically that pre-IPO values are guesswork at best.  

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:38:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Problem is (4+ / 0-)

    He was testifying as to what the value was in 1988 not 1991 or 1992.  It sounds like he testified in 1991 about the value of the stock in 1988.  Unless the testimony said he was testifying about it's value then, I don't see it.

    •  yep. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kane in CA, coffeetalk, VClib

      iow, they asked him, "mitt, how could the company have put such a low value on a company that proceeded to increase so much in value?". and then he talked about stock classes and liquidation rights and shit.  he was an expert witness here, so its boring, boring stuff.  there may be some gems in there, but its deep in there.

      •  Was he an expert witness? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johnny wurster

        It would seem unlikely since he wasn't independent. Not sure what it would be called in MA, precipient witness? Person most knowledgeable? "Expert" would require probably require independence, which as a principle of the company he couldn't possible have, the other two maybe not.

        •  Looks like he's not an expert witness, per se, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib

          but they do at times qualify him as such and go over his background, blahblahblah.

        •  "Experts" are not necessarily "independent" (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib, Neuroptimalian, nextstep

          as a practical matter.  Remember, experts are typically paid by, and offered as witnesses for, a party in the litigation precisely because the testimony the witness will give is favorable to that party.  Typically, each side has its own expert, and the experts contradict each other.  So, it may be that she had an expert who said something different.  

          •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coquiero

            But theoretically, they are still presenting an idependent opinion. They are hired by advocates, but they are not participants in the case. They have no financial interest in the outcome other than than the fees they charge irrespective of the outcome. Romney probably wasn't paid for the testimony. And in any case, as a former owner of the company in question, he would be disqualified as an expert. It's semantics, but he was probably some other sort of witness.

    •  That's a valid argument (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior

      If there was no plans to take it public in 1988. So maybe you're right. But I think they had plans from the moment Bain got involved from other things I've read that aren't in the Globe story.

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

      by GDoyle on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:41:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  wrong (5+ / 0-)

      Don't you see how this fits the Romney pattern of big profits for insiders and friends, but chump change for the rest of us?

      Here's the chronology that the Globe article gives.  

      Sullivan Stemberg also kept the couple’s Dedham home, worth $690,000 at the time, and in February 1988 sold 175,000 shares of Staples stock at $2.25 per share to pay off the mortgage. She sold another 80,000 shares two months later, at $2.48 per share.

      “In my opinion, that’s a good price to sell the securities at,” Romney, now the Republican nominee for president, testified in June 1991.

      But on April 28, 1989, barely a year after Sullivan Stemberg sold more than half of her shares on the premise that they were worth less than $2.50 apiece, the company made its initial public offering at $19 per share and ended its first day at $22.50.

  •  I don't think (10+ / 0-)

    women will think very highly of the old boys club sticking together on this one. It shows yet another smarmy side to this man.

    Truth is harmonious, lies are discordant.

    by Babsnc on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:36:10 PM PDT

  •  well he also thought Staples was a terrible bet, s (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jcbdem, bluezen, DEMonrat ankle biter

    so what does he know?

    He also thought the auto industry was a bad bet which he was hoping to be able to say "I told you so" today

    (as did his very close friend Stemberg) barely a year later at ten times the value. Romney testified there was "very little chance" the stock would skyrocket a year earlier.
    And I thought he was supposed to be this great investor

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

    by eXtina on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:48:53 PM PDT

  •  The real news is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    citizenx, Villanova Rhodes

    that Gloria Allred wanted her client freed from the Impoundment Order so that she could go to the press and present her personal feelings about the Mittster.  (I watched the trial live online.) This aspect, (amendment of the Order) was let go by the Globe so that they could get the transcripts and denied by the Judge since their was no motion before her to that effect.  The Judge further said that amendment of the Impoundment Order and its implied contract were not in her jurisdiction to rule on, but GA was free to file anything she wanted regarding amendment to the Order.

    This was a red herring from the get go and will have no affect on our reelection of the President.

    "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier." Rudyard Kipling

    by EdMass on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:50:16 PM PDT

    •  wish I had an idea what all that meant nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      amsterdam

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

      by eXtina on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:59:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Mrs S is under a gag order and (2+ / 0-)

        cannot speak to anyone regarding the circumstances, agreements or adjudication of the divorce.

        "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier." Rudyard Kipling

        by EdMass on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:17:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  All she can give is her lay, personal opinion... (0+ / 0-)

          anyway.  She is not qualified to opine with any expertise on the subject of the valuation of companies.  She's a disgruntled litigant who has taken many bites at the apple since the divorce judgment was entered and keeps losing.  The court never bought into it, so why should anyone else?

          "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

          by Neuroptimalian on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 08:55:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  you are missing a key fact (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, DEMonrat ankle biter

      Allred says she is going to keep asking for an amendment of the gag order.  

      Previously it seems that the ex-wife was piggy-backing on the Globe's request to that effect.  Now the ex-wife will have to make the request herself.

      If anyone can get this done, Allred can.

      •  It was implied in the last sentence (0+ / 0-)

        and if it is ever presented it will be adjudicated sometime way past Nov 6 and is therefore irrelevant.

        "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier." Rudyard Kipling

        by EdMass on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:15:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  ok i am not a lawyer, but (0+ / 0-)

          since we have empirical evidence that the "teflon-con" is a sleazy, lying SOB, let's just put this out there, so that other people who want to vote for him even though they know or have heard that he's liar, think about their vote, hesitate, or even change their mind and either vote for the President or not vote for the teflon-con.

          THE TEFLON CANDIDATE-----> WILLARD MITCH ROMNEY

          by longtimelurker on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:31:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You need to be more than a lawyer (4+ / 0-)

            you'd have to understand valuations, venture capital and IPO finance...

            Yes the Mittster is a liar about many things, but with 12 days left this is not the peg to hang our hats on...

            "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier." Rudyard Kipling

            by EdMass on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:34:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  here's the issue 12 days (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GDoyle

      before election : women will see how willing Mittsey was to screw his partner's ex- during the divorce...if there are any holdouts thinking he is only a craven jerk taking the most extreme conservative anti-women policies in order to get elected and that he'll be moderate and helpful to women after elected.......

      that's over - - it effects election narrative for women who were clinging to straws to vote GOP

      Not this again, what happened to 'The Voice' ~ President Obama

      by anyname on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 08:29:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Romney didn't testify during the divorce. (0+ / 0-)

        His testimony came several years after the divorce was granted and the assets were split.  Years later, after the stock price rose, the wife tried to have the judgment altered and the husband called Romney as a witness (and, presumably, other experts as well).  The wife's attempts (yes, there was more than one attempt) to get more money have all failed, thus it's clear no judge has been swayed by her arguments.  

        The bottom line for us is that Romney's testimony had nothing whatsoever to do with the original divorce action ... or how much money the wife received as a result.

        "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

        by Neuroptimalian on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 09:01:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Would Staples IPO description of past and promised (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, Sunspots

    performance be instructive?

    Sometimes these let you know what the past performance has been over the prior couple of years.

    Romney is saying that in '88 Staples was dog, a dog they previously deemed worthy of significant investment. Did the previous years of financials, summarized at the time of the IPO, agree with Romney's downbeat assessment? Surly employees, long check-out lines and all.

    •  Exactly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ItsSimpleSimon

      You've pinpointed the issue

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

      by GDoyle on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:05:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here is some useful data - does not support (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, johnny wurster, Kane in CA

        the narrative of a goldmine in waiting.

        Well, not unless you knew all the particulars, plans, and had faith in those plans.
        Funding Universe.

        By May 1988 Staples had opened 16 stores, and the company's revenues had risen to $40 million. In its rapid Northeastern expansion, the company sought to lock up prime retail locations throughout the region so that competitors would have difficulty establishing their own stores. To support this rapid growth, Staples solicited three more rounds of financing from the investment banking community, raising a total of $32 million.

        The number of Staples stores had grown to 23 by the beginning of 1989. Whenever Staples opened a new store, the company bought a list of all the small businesses located within a 15-minute drive of the outlet. Buyers of office supplies from these firms were then contacted by telemarketers who announced the store's opening and garnered data about the buyers' purchasing habits. In return they received a coupon for free copy paper that would hopefully bring them into the store and spur word-of-mouth advertising.

        In addition, the company offered customers a free Staples card that offered discounts on goods purchased. When customers filled out a card application, the company got data about the nature of their businesses. The numeric code on the card also enabled Staples to track their purchases precisely. All of this information was collated at the company's headquarters on a daily basis.

        In February 1989 Staples introduced its Private Label products--generic office supplies at exceptionally low prices. This strategy was one that Stemberg had first implemented in the grocery business, when he introduced company-label groceries for Star Markets. In April Staples sold stock to the public for the first time, raising $37 million to fund its further expansion. By the end of that month, the company's sales had reached $120 million. Despite this strong growth in revenue, Staples had yet to make any earnings, although the company did turn in its first profitable quarter at the end of January 1989. Overall, losses since Staples' founding had reached $14.1 million.

        These losses were caused by the high cost of the company's start-up and expansion as well as the strong competition the company faced. As Stemberg had predicted, Staples had quickly been joined in the office supplies market by a host of imitators around the country. In mid-1989 the company slipped to second place in revenues behind Office Depot Incorporated; Office Club was making a strong showing in California; and retail giants Kmart and Ames were also deliberating a move into the stationery field. To counter these threats, Staples continued its rapid pace of new store openings. By the end of the year the company was operating 38 stores, and it had racked up sales of $182 million.

        Not so much a dog, more a player in waiting. But, certainly not a guaranteed winner.

        How this might have been pitched in a prospectus, I don't know.

  •  I think this solves the IRA mystery. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Villanova Rhodes, Kane in CA, rennert

    On page 145 of the testimony, he testifies to the share price:

    . But you're telling the Court that the
    2 common stock on that date was really worth
    3 something about $1.30?
    4 A. That's correct.
    5 Q. On the same day?
    6 A. That's correct.
    7 Q. Now, was it your true belief when you
    8 voted on September 22 that the value of the stock
    9 was a tenth of a cent?
    10 A. It was my true belief that one could
    11 justify one-tenth of one cent as the value of the
    12 common stock, but that the stock was probably
    13 worth more than that.
    So, Mittens believes the stock was worth $1.30, but the company values it at 10% of a penny.  If they put it into the IRA at that valuation, then there's a 1300% gain on day 1!
  •  Is there a statue of limitations on Perjury (0+ / 0-)

    and  is there still time to get this message. Women, especially divorced women need to hear this.

    a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.

    by Jamesleo on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:34:38 PM PDT

    •  Yes there is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johnny wurster

      it's long gone. There's so far no evidence of perjury. And it's unlikely it would ever be proscuted anyway.

      What there might be is a lie. Will a 20 year old lie be more persuasive than the scores of lies he's told every day during this campaign?

      •  Did he lie about the value of the stock ? (0+ / 0-)

        Thats the question?

        a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.

        by Jamesleo on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:57:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's the allegation (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib, Neuroptimalian

          No proof, not even much in the way of evidence. Just an accusation.

          •  The Boston Globe (0+ / 0-)

            is saying he did . Are they printing a false article?

            a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.

            by Jamesleo on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:14:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, the Boston Globe article doesn't say that (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib, Neuroptimalian

              And even if they did say it, they present no evidence that it's true.

              •  You're right Many of us (myself) are looking for (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Kane in CA

                "smoking" gun thats not there I believe he lied but  there the evidence is flimsy at best
                "People who fight monsters should never become one"

                a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.

                by Jamesleo on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:33:09 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Jamesleo - if the Globe is saying he lied (3+ / 0-)

              then they really don't understand how startups are funded by venture capital. That would be very sad given that the Boston area is one of the primary sources and benefactors of venture capital.

              There is nothing in the Globe article that has a hint of proof that Romney lied on the stand. If you read the transcript, and have knowledge in this area, his testimony was a vanilla primer on pre-public financing and the valuation of different classes of stock. He then offered an opinion on a issue to which there is no right or wrong answer.

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 08:39:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Romney lied??? I don't believe it! n/t (0+ / 0-)

    JON HAUGEN FOR U.S. CONGRESS! 3RD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.

    by keeplaughing on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:55:41 PM PDT

  •  perjury (0+ / 0-)

    stock manipulation and possible consumer fraud

    Not this again, what happened to 'The Voice' ~ President Obama

    by anyname on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 08:22:08 PM PDT

  •  This happened to me in 1985 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GDoyle

    Exact same scenario except without Romney.

    What people need to understand is two things:

    -First, it  takes a year at least to prepare for and take a company public. It cannot be done without a long process of readying the company books, lining up the underwriters, and doing a national dog and pony show. There is no way that current investors and company management would not know a year ahead of time that they were planning to go public or sell to a big deal firm like Goldman.

    -Second, a company CEO has a fiduciary duty to all shareholders. That would include to the wife. Romney didn't just do his friend a favor by testifying, he kept him from being found guilty of charges of breach of fiduciary duty, which is not a small thing and which could have BIG financial consequences. We're talking punitive damages, SEC trouble, etc.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site