BREAKING NEWS: Bain Capital Really, Really, REALLY Did Not Want to Lend GM and Chrysler Money For Their Managed Bankruptcies!”*
Oookaaaayyy. Normally when I receive an email message that I want to forward or mention elsewhere, I first ask permission of the emailer. Not this time, though.
The following email was sent to Angry Bear last evening, and forwarded to me by Ken late last night:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Charlyn Lusk <CLusk@stantonprm.com> wrote:
You currently have a blog posting regarding Bain Capital, GM and Chrysler, which is incorrect. Refer to the CNBC retraction below. Please update your story accordingly.
Best,
Charlyn Lusk
Charlyn Lusk
Stanton Public Relations & Marketing
880 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
212-366-5300 (main)
646-502-3549 (direct)
Allow me, please, to not just refer the CNBC retraction Ms. Lusk links to be to republish it here in its entirety:
WITHDRAWN: CNBC Report that Bain Advised Obama Administration on Auto Company Bailout Has Been Refuted
By Andrew C. McCarthy
January 13, 2012 8:56 A.M.
UPDATE: CNBC HAS WITHDRAWN ITS EARLIER REPORT THAT MITT ROMNEY’S FORMER FIRM, BAIN CAPITAL, ADVISED THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ON THE AUTO BAILOUT. CNBC says the “Bain Consulting” in the report turns out not to be related to Romney’s Bain firm.
I am deleting my earlier post about it, though I will save it in the event there needs to be some record of it — I haven’t thought that through, but in fairness to the Romney campaign, I want to delete the earlier post now.
Ah. Who knew? Okay, well, who who doesn’t read the National Review or watch CNBC knew?
Anyway … late last night, Ken emailed Ms. Lusk back:
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 11:43 PM
Subject: Re: Your story on Bain Capital, GM and Chrysler
Subject: Re: Your story on Bain Capital, GM and Chrysler
Updated to make the distinction clear. I leave it to Beverly if she wants to change her title and/or any of the other text.
Ken
He cc’d it to Dan, Bruce Webb and me. I responded, clicking the “All” response button:
Yikes. The title of that post was intended as facetious. Given the content of the post—which did not say that Bain actually wanted to lend GM and Chrysler money for their managed bailouts, but instead made the point than no private equity money or other private-source funding was forthcoming or likely to be forthcoming—I assumed that it the facetious intent of the title of the post would be obvious.
Silly me. But then, I actually had no idea that there had been a report last month saying that Bain had … whatever … much less that the report was withdrawn.
Geeeeez.
I will write up a separate post now explaining this. The title of the post? How about: “BREAKING NEWS: Bain Capital Really, Really, REALLY Did Not Want to Lend GM and Chrysler Money For Their Managed Bankruptcies!”
Beverly
By then, Dan had emailed me saying simply, “Can you follow up on the correction?
And so I have.
Lessons learned:
1. Never, ever write facetiously for public consumption without specifying that what you’re writing is intended as sarcasm, satire, whatever;
2. Subscribe to the National Review, because you never know when it might have to retract a statement about a corporation, at the request of the corporation’s PR firm;
3. That Bain Capital is an entity entirely distinct from Bain Consulting; and
4. That I really need to retain a PR firm. Or a lawyer.
What I didn’t learn, but really want to now, is what, exactly, Bain Consulting advised the Obama administration about the auto bailouts. I can guess, though. That it should allow the two auto companies to file for unsupported bankruptcy, so that vulture capitalists—er, venture capitalists can acquire what they want of the companies’ remnants on whatever terms they dictate, maybe?
Beverly
—–
*I just corrected the formatting of the post so that the font and font size are consistent throughout. The weird font changes in the original were the result of cut-and-paste things (as well as my utter cluelessness about how to avoid such things). I did not intend that parts of the post make it look like I was shouting. Not that I wouldn’t mind shouting. Or screaming. But ….
What, a company like Bain whose founder is in perpetual presidential campaign mode and said company is the real life copy of “Larry the Liquidator” Inc. had no interest or talks with people connected to the proposed rescue of 2 of the largets manufacturing companys to possibly go under?
Man, I must be all messed up in the head to think that politics and money do not mix like rum and coke.
Well, he sure gave some public advice about it: Let the two companies die–liquidate.
I’m still sorta dismayed that the title of my post was treated, even by a PR firm representing (I guess) Bain, as a representation of fact rather than as the sarcasm that it pretty clearly was. Oh, well.
Beverly
But it does raise the question what is the relation between Bain Capital and Bain Consulting. Just a coincidence?
Perhaps it will ultimately be the bain of his election.
I took a quick scan through the two web sites and could not find any likely link between the two companies. What is strange to me is that two companies in closely related businesses, (though Bain & Co. the parent of Bain Consulting is more diverse), have such similar names and have taken no steps to sort themselves apart. One might be expected to mistake doing business with one for the other.
Well there is this connection from Wiki, which may or may not be accurate: Facing financial duress, Bain Capital partner Mitt Romney was asked to rejoin and lead Bain & Co. as interim CEO. Bringing along two lieutenants from Bain Capital, Romney began a traveling campaign to rally employees at all Bain offices globally. Romney also negotiated a complex settlement between the Bain partnership and the firm’s lenders, including a $10 million reduction in the $38 million Bain owed the Bank of New England,[10] which by that time had been seized by the FDIC and placed in Chapter 7 liquidation.
Bain Capital was founded in 1984 by several former Bain & Co. partners that include Mitt Romney (later to become the 70th Governor of Massachusetts), T. Coleman Andrews III, and Eric Kriss.[7] On account of these shared roots, Bain & Co. still maintains a strong institutional relationship with Bain Capital. Many current Bain Capital MD’s and professional staffers began their business careers at Bain & Co.[17]
Perfect!
Hmmm. Sorta like George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. Or something.
“…strong instiututional relationship…” means they can’t be forced to testify against each other?
Comedy! That was COMEDY! Sheesh.
Well, I think they may be gay. So unless they’ve married since Massachusetts legalized gay marriage ….
Kinda of like Anna Lee can do whatever she wishes and I don’t have a thing to do with it. Nice, I knew that Anna Lee gal was useful.
Anna
are you saying that Bain has an evil twin?
Well coberly, I was just awaiting the next installment of the “Bane of Bain” but I guess I’ll have to wait for the book. Boy these guys are Internet paranoid. Meanwhile, no, Bain may not have an evil twin nor a gay partner. Bain’s evil twin and gay partner may very well be a alternate persona that spins off as needed.
I got to thinking that maybe I’ve been wrong in saying that running business and running government are very different things. I hadn’t considered spin-offs. So we have 9-11 and Bush spins off a very gianormous Homeland Security that does DOD sorts of things for the “homeland”. I think Romney has some practice and might be much better at expanding government than Bush was. Of course those consolidations are deadly (FEMA, etc.).
Jack,
This all seems rather confusing. If the Wiki entry noted below is correct, the parent company of Bain Consulting, Bain & Company was liquidated in a Chapter 7 proceeding. Is the late Bain and Company now Bain Capital? What relationship, if any, does Mitt Romeny’s Bain Capital have with Bain Consulting? Maybe we should send an e mail to the PR firm for clarification.
The slime and sleaze continues to ooze from Bain and Mitt…