Question about Bain and Romney

[JaneQPublic]

It's often said by persons right, left, and neutral that the No. 1 job of Bain was to make money for its investors. However, it's also reported that even during that time Romney was "retroactively retired" from the company, he was still the CEO, president, and -- most importantly for my question -- Sole Shareholder.

Pardon my ignorance, but if Romney was the company's "Sole Shareholder," wasn't he its main -- if not only -- investor? (I'm thinking the primary way to invest in a company is to buy shares, right?)

And if that's the case, isn't it fair to say the the No. 1 job of Bain -- even after Romney's so-called departure -- was to make money for Romney?

If true, then how could Willard ever claim to have severed ties with the company if it's main reason for existing was still to make huge amounts of money for HIM? So any decisions about layoffs and outsourcing -- whoever made them -- were made especially to benefit Romney, right?

Please feel free to tell me how this is totally off base, but i"ve been wondering about it for days.

[liberal N proud]

1. It might explain why he will not show his tax returns.

[taught_me_patience]

2. He may be the sole owner but not the main investor

Sole owner typically implies equity ownership. Investors in Bain might have been debt investors with no equity stake. Romney would have benefitted the most from layoffs and outsourcing because that would affect the equity value of the company.

[JaneQPublic]

3. OK, so "Sole Shareholder" probably means "Sole Owner"?

Interesting. So even if he wasn't making decisions (which seems highly unlikely, considering the latest AP story), he was still reaping most of the benefits of layoffs and outsourcing.

Thank you so much for your help!

[cleduc]

5. He was the sole 'investor' in Bain itself because he owned 100% of it

From Bain, Romney formed/acquired other companies, groups and partnerships and solicited investment while adding some of his or Bain's own money into those ventures. In those other companies, groups or investments, Romney typically had a much lower % of ownership/investment.

It's complicated by the fact that various companies and partnerships existed.

[KurtNYC]

4. Bain invested for their clients but Bain itself was not a company

that was open to investors, eg. public.

Romney owned Bain but Bain managed money and investments for their clients. The clients could not buy into Bain.

The whole convoluted evolution is here. There are several related entities with Bain in their names so it gets confusing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bain_%26_Company

[JaneQPublic]

6. Good explanation

Not open to investors (public): That's where I took a wrong turn.

Those people who actually think Romney would be better than Obama at improving the jobless rate, etc. should take a look at that Wiki article. Maybe then they'd get a clue that Romney and his ilk don't know and don't care anything about jobs for the masses. They're all about the very rich soaking up even more wealth wherever they can.

[KurtNYC]

7. there is another mystery in the Bain saga

which is how Romney got more than the usual limit of $4,000 per year into his IRA (tax shelter). Romney's is $21 to $102 mil in 15 years.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-15/the-secret-behind-romney-s-magical-ira.html