Glenn Kessler is doubling down on Romney’s version of events. Here are what seem to me his salient points:
In the case of Bain Capital’s funds, it’s reasonable to assume that Romney was considered a “key man,” meaning that each fund’s limited partners could have voted to end the fund’s investment period — or take over fund management themselves — if a super-majority felt it prudent. But that didn’t happen, and Bain saw no reason to expend massive administrative effort to amend existing funds. Instead, it asked Romney to sign documents when necessary, and made the managerial/ownership changes on new funds going forward…. The part about lying to the SEC is absurd, since the SEC doesn’t require an owner to be the operational decision-maker (Romney delegated such responsibilities, as is his right).
Is this right – or is it irrelevant? Or is Henry Blodget correct when he simply states:
Sorry, Mitt Romney, You Can’t Be Chairman, CEO, And President Of A Company And Not Be Responsible For What It Does…
Then this:
In the Massachusetts document, Romney is also listed as 100 percent owner of “Bain Capital Inc.” But there is less than meets the eye here. Bain Capital Inc. was the management firm, which was paid a management fee to run the funds and actually made virtually no profit, since it existed to pay salaries and expenses. After Romney formally left Bain in 2001, a new entity called “Bain Capital LLC” took over the management function.
Is this the source of confusion? Did Romney get his $100,000 salary from Bain Capital Inc.? One way to clear it up would be to release his tax returns or corporate documents that prove that Romney neither lied to the SEC nor the rest of us. We’ll soon see how transparent Romney is.
The Dish 