Take that further...should they reduce their risk, say, with the use of coercion, intimidation, insider information (which is everywhere BTW)? Should they use legal ledgerdemain?
I, for one, don't have a problem with aggressiveness when buying companies. To be successful, one must be aggressive...and there's the rub. Raiders sometimes step over the law...way over (ask Ivan Boesky). And they take actions that put others (their opponents) at a great financial disadvantage.
Some hard core "capitalists" find this business too morally ambiguous...it requires them to do things they are uncomfortable with...they find their consciences cannot stand the burden of their actions. That's why the few "dealmakers" who are successful at it are VERY successful. They are seldom guided or burdened by conscience.
And that is what America will want to know about Romney. What was his role in this career? Where did his conscience draw the line?.
None of the 240 acquisitions Bain made were “hostile” takeovers. In most cases, no one wanted the companies because they were faltering and Bain was the only bidder with the intent of restructuring, building them up and selling them. In some cases they were risky startups like Staples with one store which Bain actually grew to 2000 stores nationally.Bain lost money on most of them because that is the nature of the the risky turnaround game. Many losses along the way with big massive winners that create the bulk of your profits.Gordon Gekko imagery overdramatized by Oliver Stone in that cheesy movie has now been imbedded on the American psyche for all time that venture capitalists are all evil looking to throw folks out of their jobs and eat their young.
Romney. What was his role in this career? Where did his conscience draw the line?.
_____________________________________
ROFLMBO