I was in the private equity/venture capital business for over 25 years.
Most investment funds have three parts:
The Limited Partners (investors like pension and endowment funds, etc.)
The General Partner (the deal makers)
and
the operating company.
The operating company is a pass-through entity that exists on paper for the purpose of paying the rent and writing paychecks to the staff. Usually the founder(s) of the General Partner own the operating company (I owned 50% of our operating company). It means absolutely NOTHING to own or control the operating company since it starts out each year with zero dollars in it and ends each year with zero dollars. It is strictly a way of having a Sub “S” or LLC handle the day-to-day money. In many ways, it is like owning the cash box (shoe box in my kids’ case) at a lemonade stand - it starts out empty and it ends empty, regardless of how much cash it held during the day.
Mitt could own and control the operating company and have absolutely NO INVOLVEMENT with the General Partner.
This is too difficult to explain to Democrats, but the issue will die down as the lawyer-types tell the front men to back off.
Since you have some experience in this, I recommend that you go read the FactCheck article about it that I linked in an earlier posting.
Romney turned over control of Bain to other officers when he went to rescue the Winter Olympics in 1999. He filed documents with the government to that effect. Mitt reportedly was working 16-hour days, 7 days a week in Utah, and didn't have any time for Bain. No one has come up with any evidence to the contrary -- and the Obama campaign can only make vague innuendos.
However, Romney did not officially retire from Bain and become a limited partner until a few years later. To me, it looks like he planned to return to Bain, but after being away for a few years, he decided to make it official.
Next step is ~ the General Partner then engages in disreputable activities ~ although the "investor" might be held harmless there could be moral opprobrium.
Do you agree?
Owning the brothel does not make you a saint.
Next step is ~ the General Partner then engages in disreputable activities ~ although the "investor" might be held harmless there could be moral opprobrium.
Do you agree?
Owning the brothel does not make you a saint.