PDA

View Full Version : Claim: Myth Robme is a drug money launderer



Soflasnapper
10-19-2012, 10:17 AM
Here. (http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/la-times-romneys-a-drug-money-launderer/23896/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ...the [LA] Times story never comes right out and says “drug money laundering.”

It doesn’t have to.

What the Times article does say translates directly and unambiguously as DRUG MONEY LAUNDERING, in caps, exclamation point. According to the Los Angeles Times, Romney’s company, Bain Capital, “paid out a stunning 173% in average annual returns over a decade.”

“Stunning” is not the word. “Criminal” is more like it.

Bernie Madoff was arrested and went to jail because he was paying 10% annual returns. That’s how it came to light that he was running a criminal enterprise. You just cannot possibly pay 10% returns consistently, year in and year out, with legitimate investments. Never happened, never will.

Ponzi schemes sometimes pay as high as 20% – and soon collapse, and the perps go to jail.

But a 173% annual return is far beyond the range of the craziest, most short-lived ponzi scheme.

Romney wasn’t running a ponzi scheme. He was running a drug money laundry. His clients, the Times explains, were shady characters from Panama.</div></div>

eg8r
10-19-2012, 11:27 AM
I am sure the feds are on their way to his place already. Phew thank goodness you helped uncover this atrocity.

eg8r

LWW
10-19-2012, 11:33 AM
LEARN (http://treasureislands.org/a-question-about-bain-capitals-stellar-returns-under-mitt/)

LWW
10-19-2012, 11:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am sure the feds are on their way to his place already. Phew thank goodness you helped uncover this atrocity.

eg8r </div></div>

This is but another example of how leftists use phrases the dembots have no understanding of and use those phrases as raw meat thrown to rabid wolves.

Sad ... very sad.

Gayle in MD
10-19-2012, 01:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Here. (http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/la-times-romneys-a-drug-money-launderer/23896/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ...the [LA] Times story never comes right out and says “drug money laundering.”

It doesn’t have to.

What the Times article does say translates directly and unambiguously as DRUG MONEY LAUNDERING, in caps, exclamation point. According to the Los Angeles Times, Romney’s company, Bain Capital, “paid out a stunning 173% in average annual returns over a decade.”

“Stunning” is not the word. “Criminal” is more like it.

Bernie Madoff was arrested and went to jail because he was paying 10% annual returns. That’s how it came to light that he was running a criminal enterprise. You just cannot possibly pay 10% returns consistently, year in and year out, with legitimate investments. Never happened, never will.

Ponzi schemes sometimes pay as high as 20% – and soon collapse, and the perps go to jail.

But a 173% annual return is far beyond the range of the craziest, most short-lived ponzi scheme.

Romney wasn’t running a ponzi scheme. He was running a drug money laundry. His clients, the Times explains, were shady characters from Panama.</div></div> </div></div>

This story is growing.

LA TIMES now far from the only ones claiming the same thing.

AND, it's far from the first revelation of Mitsey's connections to the worst of the worst. Drug dealers, dictators, and terrorists! Oh my!

LWW
10-19-2012, 01:40 PM
I hate when people ... not you ... get their knickers all in a wad, and then shadow post behind me.

LWW
10-19-2012, 02:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> LEARN (http://treasureislands.org/a-question-about-bain-capitals-stellar-returns-under-mitt/) </div></div>

I guess none of our resident leftists has any desire to learn.

Have any of you any comprehension of what leveraged money or buying on margin means?

These returns by BAIN are not at all unusual. What they are is risky.

When a venture capital firm leverages money they can make enormous returns ... if they are good, and a tad bit of luck doesn't hurt.

OTOH if the lever breaks ... they are ruined.

With minimal risk comes minimal gain ... put your cash in an FDIC insured instrument and you get total safety, and a return that may not even cover inflation.

OTOH an investment leveraged with debt cn in fact return more than a 100% on the actual cpital invested ... but if the bet is wrong you lose your cash, your cars, your compny, your homes, your boats, your jewely and face a mountain debt.

That dembots can be so completely hornswoggled by such rudimentary financial principles is a national disgrace.

Economics is a dismal science, and there is no shame in being ignorant on the topic.

OTOH there is shame in being ignorant on the topic yet pontificating as if one were a Rothschild.

Soflasnapper
10-19-2012, 04:32 PM
These returns by BAIN are not at all unusual. What they are is risky.

When a venture capital firm leverages money they can make enormous returns ... if they are good, and a tad bit of luck doesn't hurt.

OTOH if the lever breaks ... they are ruined.

That's the point here you missed. Risky, and yet they booked large winners every year for 10 years.

About as impossible as Hillary's cattle future trades (which also involved leverage, but...). Difference? Well among the differences is that she got a whole $125,000 out of it, and her 'lucky streak' was approx. 18 months in a very roiling market.

Bain/Robme got hundreds of millions if not billions out a 'lucky streak' that went on for 10 years. Even though we know they had about 25% bankruptcies in the companies they bought, and broke even in about 50% of them, iirc.

LWW
10-20-2012, 05:50 AM
And you cling to the myth ... had someone leveraged the S&P 500 in tne same manner, BAIN barely beat te broader market.

Your comments confirmed what I suspected ... when the terms "LEVERAGE" and "MARGIN" are used you are every bit as lost as snoopy trying to understand what a capital gain is.

Soflasnapper
10-20-2012, 09:13 AM
BS, again.

One cannot do venture capitalism as one would do the S&P 500, since Bain's model wasn't to buy futures or puts and calls on futures, but to buy companies with actual cash, not even LBOs, so far as I've seen.

LWW
10-20-2012, 10:38 AM
Learn before you post.

Stocks are bought on margin routinely, which is more or less what leveraging means.

Let me give you an example.

Let's say I believe a stock will double within a year, but I only have $100K cash available.

So ... if I have $900K in other stocks, bonds and real estate I can leverage my $100K into $1,000K.

If I'm right I sell my $1M for $2M giving me $1M minus borrowing costs. Let's call it $950K ... a return of $850% on my actual investment of $100K.

OTOH if the stocks drops to half it's value ... $500K ... I'm out my $100K, plus have to liquidate other assets to cover the other $400K in losses.

There is no magic involved ... yet dembots continue to buy into such ridiculous tall tales.

The reason Obama is collapsing IMHO is that the regime ... as they said they wold do ... entered into the politics of personal destruction by accusing R-money of murder, tax fraud and now money laundering.

It worked for awhile ... until the public saw the POTUS side by side with im, and then it became apparent that it was all lies.

That you so readily buy into this stuff doesn't speak well of you.

Soflasnapper
10-20-2012, 12:33 PM
I understand all of that very well, thank you.

You discount how many of these deals weren't big money makers. 8% of the investments lost Bain all its investment. Out of 77 deals, just 10 of them made 70% of the entire returns Bain received.

The comparison to the S&P 500 performance is unwarranted, as the period in question included the largest bull market of all time, and instant ability to slide into and out of trade positions, and using butterfly spreads (betting each side of the trade) to hedge out risk. Nothing like that was available to Bain in its private equity investing. It couldn't bet the other way, and it couldn't immediately dump losing positions to minimize losses, and it was dealing with frumpy companies who were not among the industry leaders that were so bad off they were ripe for the picking and stripping, so bad were their business models.

You may remember that when Jack Welch headed up GE, they ALWAYS came in with reported earnings 10 cents a share above the analysts' predictions. That was impossible also, the result of extreme manipulation of the business capital dynamics. Once Welch stepped down, and the next guy didn't focus on rigging the numbers, that remarkable period of always beating the Street's consensus prediction ended abruptly, because it simply isn't possible without manipulation.

The Wall Street Journal piece reporting this (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2012/01/bain-capital-a-users-guide.html) is cited here in the NY Magazine piece.

As for the regime doing this-- no, it's crazies on the fringe. If crazies on the fringe are the responsibility of the campaign itself, then Robme's been stirring the pot with accusations Obama is a gay married man who has been killing his former gay husbands. You want to compare smut charges? By far, the majority have been hurled at Obama, not Robme. In my view, neither campaign has done much of this, and it's been relegated to the bomb thrower brigades either side may muster, except the right has far more of them, and in higher profile public positions.

LWW
10-20-2012, 03:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I understand all of that very well, thank </div></div>

Yet your comments tell an entirely different story.

LWW
10-20-2012, 03:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You discount how many of these deals weren't big money makers. 8% of the investments lost Bain all its investment. Out of 77 deals, just 10 of them made 70% of the entire returns Bain received. </div></div>

And, undeterred, you insist on demonstrating that you have no clue what a venture capital firm does.

They make severl small leveraged bets ... some are blowout losses, some are break even, some are wins and some are monster wins.

And, oddly enough, by your own numbers ... that is exactly what happened.

There are venture capital firms that have doe far better than BAIN.

So, what ... if anything ... is your point?

Soflasnapper
10-21-2012, 02:49 PM
You know, you may be right. It might not have been drug dealing profits laundered after all. It just might have been the Ponzi scheme of the Romney friend.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ...the Romney family, namely Mitt, Ann, G Scott and Tagg Romney, along with Mitt's "6th son" and campaign finance chair have a secretive private equity firm called Solamere Capital Partners. This firms ties to Romney's campaign and bundlers is already well documented, along with its connection to the manufacture and distribution of voting machines. What is not as well documented is a subsidiary of that private equity firm hiring employees of a failed firm tied to a Ponzi scheme that has a long history of money laundering for Latin American drug cartels and to the Iran-Contra scandal.

...Tagg Romney is a director (of Solamere). According to the New York Times, all but one of its 11 employees came from the Charlotte office of the Stanford Financial Group, the US investment arm of convicted felon R. Allen Stanford's offshore banking and fraud network that comprised a host of companies including the Stanford International Bank, Stanford Capital Management, The Bank of Antigua, Stanford Trust and Stanford Gold and Bullion. Three of these employees, Tim Bambauer, Deems May, and Brandon Phillips, received incentive compensation related to their direct sales of securities linked to a fraud that brought down this banking network (Bambauer has left his position as managing partner. May and Phillips remain employed as partner and chief compliance officer respectively).

Allen Stanford is currently serving a 110-year prison sentence for convictions on 13 counts of fraud. His companies were placed in receivership. $8 billion of Stanford's stolen money has yet to be recovered and the victims are in court to recover those funds and incentive pay bonuses to Stanford employees (including Bambauer, May and Phillips)...

...All of the these dealings by Stanford, and the complicity of his employees in facilitating them, was public information before January 2010, when Mitt Romney addressed the first full meeting of Solamere's investors. Yet his son Tagg chose to hire into his family these alleged white collar criminals as soon as Stanford's criminal empire collapsed. The Romney family stands by the new employees ...evidenced by Tagg's response to interview questions from ThinkProgress regarding Solamere's ability to reign them in: "Hey guys, We're done here".</div></div>

Here (http://truth-out.org/news/item/12231-employees-of-romney-familys-secret-bank-tied-to-fraud-money-laundering-and-drug-cartels)

OR, both are possible, of course, since Mr. Stanford's prior dealings were with national security connected drug traffickers.

LWW
10-21-2012, 04:13 PM
LEARN (http://www.angelblog.net/Venture_Capital_Funds_How_the_Math_Works.html)

A VC firm having an investment with a 100% return is not only common, to have a reasonable return on all gambles such returns are a requirement.

The reality is that returns of 1,000% and more on single investments are fairly common ... as are 100% losses.

Soflasnapper
10-21-2012, 05:31 PM
Thank you, Mr. Obvious!

The question isn't that one or more hit the multiple return, but that given the 20% threshold of respectability, and 10 years worth in a row, that far larger return of 173% per year, not just on their winners but overall, net, and for that many years in a row.