Romney's IRA: Investment gurus can you explain this to me?

[volinbham]

Tx for the correction. I know that, but have a mental block on it.

As to discussion, I'm not the one speculating on how this happened. Its the accountants and lawyers these reports are talking to. And the overwhelming sense I get from these articles, whether they be by or in liberal or conservative leaning publications, is that a return of 227 times over the course of the investment period we are talking about, is nothing short of jaw dropping astounding, and cause for concern.

Big return no doubt but you are adding the "cause for concern" part. The articles speculate on how it may have come about and the WSJ has a pretty plausible explanation.

The Obama campaign I think we all always knew would paint Romney as the epitome of the elite and secretive multi-millionaire, engaged in deals we can't be a part of in every day life. What does surprise me is how ill-prepared it seems that Romney's campaign is to deal with it. They seem so defensive and unable to counter these attacks.

Being painted that way is one thing. Suggesting he represents everything wrong with the system and that he is "mischaracterizing income" or doing something nefarious, unethical, etc. is quite another. You've spent this thread telling us how this is evidence that Romney is the poster boy for social injustice and greed.

I think George will's comments of frustration with Romney over this past weekend hit the nail on the head. You know the day McCain loses in 2008 that you are running and that you are probably the front runner. How you don't at that point in time get out of and resolve the issues created by the blind trusts and the millions in the Cayman's and the Swiss accounts, its just mind boggling how that was not anticipated and handled back then.

Political smartness or lack of is one thing and quite different than thinking this is a legit black mark on Romney as a potential POTUS.

What's missing too is Weezy's conclusion that this plan actually shows the smarts, creativity and understanding of business that is missing in our current POTUS. Amazing that this is being used by some to question his qualifications.

 

[milohimself]

Political smartness or lack of is one thing and quite different than thinking this is a legit black mark on Romney as a potential POTUS.

What's missing too is Weezy's conclusion that this plan actually shows the smarts, creativity and understanding of business that is missing in our current POTUS. Amazing that this is being used by some to question his qualifications.

This whole business thing is overblown.. Romney is a great businessman. Yes, he came from a wealthy and privileged background, but he still succeeded on his own terms, I think. And as for his taxes and personal accounts, he's merely taking advantage of the situation presented to him. I think most of us would do the same.

But as far as being president? Here is a comprehensive list of presidents of the modern era who were generally considered to be successful businessmen/owners: Bush I, Bush II, Carter, Hoover, Harding.

None of the rest had any significant background in business if at all, that list would include Reagan, Ike and Clinton.

 

[Weezy]

I'd have to go open the Wiki pages, but I'd bet W's business experience doesn't read as impressive as Romney's. Romney turned around a company that was heading for dumpsville. The other's I have no clue. I still think it's fair to judge him as a poor candidate elsewhere, I just don't like seeing him in a list with W for business acumen, or any acumen.

 

[lawgator1]

Why won't Romney release more tax returns? - CNN.com


This is an excellent article by some tax experts explaining why Romney needs to release his returns and what the record so far, sparse as it is, tells us may be the reasons he is not. Chief among them:

*The IRA was loaded with very valuable stock whose value was falsified by Romney to get the favorable tax treatment;
*Swiss bank account may not have been properly reported. He might have taken advantage of an amnesty on that in 2010, like others. But maybe not.
* Romney still getting money from Bain, even after insisting that he has been divested for over a decade in order to dodge the question of outsourcing


There are other reasons he may be doing this. Bottom line: he's hiding something bad.

 

[volinbham]

This whole business thing is overblown.. Romney is a great businessman. Yes, he came from a wealthy and privileged background, but he still succeeded on his own terms, I think. And as for his taxes and personal accounts, he's merely taking advantage of the situation presented to him. I think most of us would do the same.

But as far as being president? Here is a comprehensive list of presidents of the modern era who were generally considered to be successful businessmen/owners: Bush I, Bush II, Carter, Hoover, Harding.

None of the rest had any significant background in business if at all, that list would include Reagan, Ike and Clinton.

Okay, let's call it Executive experience. Romney has it from Bain, from being Governor and from taking over the Olympics. Private sector executive, public-sector executive and quasi-not-for-profit org. executive.

What he doesn't have (nor does Obama) that many have had is military officer experience.

Given our biggest issue presently is based in Economics; I think business experience is more important than ever.

 

[lawgator1]

Okay, let's call it Executive experience. Romney has it from Bain, from being Governor and from taking over the Olympics. Private sector executive, public-sector executive and quasi-not-for-profit org. executive.

What he doesn't have (nor does Obama) that many have had is military officer experience.

Given our biggest issue presently is based in Economics; I think business experience is more important than ever.

A guy running a 7-11 has "business experience."

It matters what kind. And how you conducted it.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Why won't Romney release more tax returns? - CNN.com


This is an excellent article by some tax experts explaining why Romney needs to release his returns and what the record so far, sparse as it is, tells us may be the reasons he is not. Chief among them:

*The IRA was loaded with very valuable stock whose value was falsified by Romney to get the favorable tax treatment;
*Swiss bank account may not have been properly reported. He might have taken advantage of an amnesty on that in 2010, like others. But maybe not.
* Romney still getting money from Bain, even after insisting that he has been divested for over a decade in order to dodge the question of outsourcing


There are other reasons he may be doing this. Bottom line: he's hiding something bad.

With you it doesn't matter, you're going to believe he did something bad regardless.

 

[volinbham]

Why won't Romney release more tax returns? - CNN.com


This is an excellent article by some tax experts explaining why Romney needs to release his returns and what the record so far, sparse as it is, tells us may be the reasons he is not. Chief among them:

*The IRA was loaded with very valuable stock whose value was falsified by Romney to get the favorable tax treatment;

Falsified? The article doesn't say that. That is your interpretation and if it is true it is illegal (which you claim you don't think anything illegal is going on. If he falsified the value he's also in trouble with the IRS and there is zero hint of that.

*Swiss bank account may not have been properly reported. He might have taken advantage of an amnesty on that in 2010, like others. But maybe not.

Again, there are regulatory authorities including the IRS to evaluate this. There is zero hint that they found anything wrong yet you run with speculation that he violated reporting law here. No evidence.

* Romney still getting money from Bain, even after insisting that he has been divested for over a decade in order to dodge the question of outsourcing


There are other reasons he may be doing this. Bottom line: he's hiding something bad.

It's clear why he doesn't want to disclose to the likes of you. You don't understand the tax law and make wild, unsupported assumptions that he is violating the law (mischaraterizing income, falsifying values, failure to report) when there is zero evidence of those claims.

 

[volinbham]

A guy running a 7-11 has "business experience."

It matters what kind. And how you conducted it.

A guy running a 7-11 has more business sense than the current POTUS.

A woman working at the DMV has as much business experience as Obama.

A guy running a local food bank has more community organizing and business experience than Obama.

 

[lawgator1]

A guy running a 7-11 has more business sense than the current POTUS.

A woman working at the DMV has as much business experience as Obama.

A guy running a local food bank has more community organizing and business experience than Obama.

I infer from your comments that you don't think any of them would be qualified, despite the fact that they have business experience.

That's why I say we need to understand what any of them did a little better, if they choose to run.

Romney is running, and running on platform that he is a successful businessman. Ergo, we have the right to know what that business was, how he ran it, and how he profited from it.

He must therefore immediately release the tax returns going back to 1999. Anything less is very suspicious.

 

[NEO]

A guy running a 7-11 has "business experience."

It matters what kind. And how you conducted it.

You really dont get how damn smart this guy is when it comes to business.

Let me break this down for you really easy: what he did at Bain was amazing.

 

[lawgator1]

You really dont get how damn smart this guy is when it comes to business.

Let me break this down for you really easy: what he did at Bain was amazing.

I wouldn't know, without his tax returns.

 

[GAVol]

I wouldn't know, without his tax returns.

You still wouldn't know WITH his tax returns.

 

[volinbham]

You still wouldn't know WITH his tax returns.

this is abundantly clear

 

[lawgator1]

You still wouldn't know WITH his tax returns.

I'd have a better sense of it, as would all of you.

As is, you'd rather ignore the incredible explosion in value of his $450,000 and just take his word for it that its just evidence of his good business sense.

I'm not that generous, considering that the experts say it defies logic.

 

[Weezy]

I wouldn't know, without his tax returns.

Troll mode activated.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Strassel: Vampire Capitalism? Please - WSJ.com

GST is a tragic tale, though in a different way. The real story of GST is that of a private-equity firm trying to spark some life into a uncompetitive, over-unionized industry. Bain's crime here—if that's what you call it—was giving a dying steel plant an unexpected eight-year lease on life.

When Bain bought the Kansas City mill in 1993, steel was a scene of carnage. Global players were pouring out cheap products, and America's high-cost steel plants couldn't compete. The industry had lost 200,000 jobs in preceding years. In 1992 alone, the six largest U.S. steel mills had lost a combined $3 billion. Armco, the company Bain would buy the plant from, would lose $641 million in 1993

The Kansas City plant was itself dying. At its 1970 height it employed 4,500; by the late 1980s it was down to 1,000. A year before acquisition, Armco had laid off another 75. Its equipment was old; it faced fierce competition at home and abroad.

B.C. Huselton, a vice president of the business at the time, tells me that in 1990 the Armco CEO held a meeting. "He told us, 'Look, we either try to sell it, or we've got to shut it down.'" Armco had shut down another Kansas City facility, Union Wire Rope, only a few years before.

The late 1990s saw a new outpouring of cheap steel from elsewhere around the globe. The Asian financial crisis walloped the mining industry, cutting demand for GST products. The price of GST's electricity and natural gas skyrocketed. The union dug in, refusing to make concessions. By April 1997, it was on strike, shooting bottle rockets at guards. Labor costs spiked, and by 1999 GSI was reporting $53 million in net losses.

A private-equity firm looking to quickly strip value from a company—to "suck" the life out of it—does not do so by investing $100 million in modernization and holding on for eight years, through bankruptcy. Bain has surely made its share of mistakes, and one may well have been trying to resuscitate a traditional steel firm in the grip of industry upheaval. The irony, says Mr. Huselton, is that this plant "wouldn't even be in today's news, if it hadn't been the opportunity that came with Bain. Those jobs would have been gone in 1993."

 

[lawgator1]

Bain's activities no doubt had many successes in maintaining businesses. Sometimes it worked. Sometimes it didn't.

But Bain does not appear on the ballot. Romney does. Its really his ability to pay 13.9 % on $23 million in income, turn $450,000 into $102 million, and use of Swiss bank accounts and accounts in the Cayman's to bank his dough, that have piqued my curiosity.

 

[BigPapaVol]

This whole business thing is overblown.. Romney is a great businessman. Yes, he came from a wealthy and privileged background, but he still succeeded on his own terms, I think. And as for his taxes and personal accounts, he's merely taking advantage of the situation presented to him. I think most of us would do the same.

But as far as being president? Here is a comprehensive list of presidents of the modern era who were generally considered to be successful businessmen/owners: Bush I, Bush II, Carter, Hoover, Harding.

None of the rest had any significant background in business if at all, that list would include Reagan, Ike and Clinton.

Bush I? Bush II? Bush I was a business clown.

Reagan, Ike and Clinton all had significant piles of executive leadership experience as does Romney. The difference is that Romney had a wildly successful run in the private markets as well.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Bain's activities no doubt had many successes in maintaining businesses. Sometimes it worked. Sometimes it didn't.

But Bain does not appear on the ballot. Romney does. Its really his ability to pay 13.9 % on $23 million in income, turn $450,000 into $102 million, and use of Swiss bank accounts and accounts in the Cayman's to bank his dough, that have piqued my curiosity.

your first sentence is a ridiculous to minimize what Bain did, as if it was some 50-50 proposition they were working.

This idiotic idea of bashing Romney's time at Bain is why the company is in this discussion. The dumbass idea that business success has somehow made Romney a villain will eventually lose steam and Obama's ever growing list of weaknesses will become more apparent (which is shocking to me).

His paying 13.9% on $23 million as a bullet to your argument makes you look stupid. You have no earthly idea what generated those numbers. His turning $450 into $100 million is the American dream and has happened for investors over and over.

I know the real deal: you're just trying to make up your mind about candidates and truly vetting them this time since you got burned in the last go 'round for failing to ask anything.

 

[lawgator1]

.... His turning $450 into $100 million is the American dream and has happened for investors over and over.

That's hilarious.

Even the conservatives say that is a jaw dropping number that none of them can explain, except via the mechanism discussed earlier, which is where he and Bain set the price one day, knowing the market price is many times that, and then shoving it into the IRA to avoid taxes.

So far, that is the only explanation anyone has been able to come up with. And it turns out that could cause Romney huge problems since evidently there is a reg that you can't use that trickeration in retirement accounts.

Uh oh ....

Could that be why we aren't getting his tax returns?

As the National Review -- a very right wing GOP magazine says in its recent editorial -- we don;t want another Nixon tax dodge guy in the White House.

 

[MG1968]

That's hilarious.

Even the conservatives say that is a jaw dropping number that none of them can explain, except via the mechanism discussed earlier, which is where he and Bain set the price one day, knowing the market price is many times that, and then shoving it into the IRA to avoid taxes.

So far, that is the only explanation anyone has been able to come up with. And it turns out that could cause Romney huge problems since evidently there is a reg that you can't use that trickeration in retirement accounts.

Uh oh ....

Could that be why we aren't getting his tax returns?

As the National Review -- a very right wing GOP magazine says in its recent editorial -- we don;t want another Nixon tax dodge guy in the White House.

were you this exercised over Hillary turning $1000 into $100,000 practically overnight? She was once a candidate for president.

 

[BigPapaVol]

That's hilarious.

Even the conservatives say that is a jaw dropping number that none of them can explain, except via the mechanism discussed earlier, which is where he and Bain set the price one day, knowing the market price is many times that, and then shoving it into the IRA to avoid taxes.

So far, that is the only explanation anyone has been able to come up with. And it turns out that could cause Romney huge problems since evidently there is a reg that you can't use that trickeration in retirement accounts.

Uh oh ....

Could that be why we aren't getting his tax returns?

As the National Review -- a very right wing GOP magazine says in its recent editorial -- we don;t want another Nixon tax dodge guy in the White House.

Stop now. I have personally worked for folks that turned over this kind of return and did so more than once. They actually had $300k turn into one billion. That's what makes the private equity world go 'round. If you have people telling you it's unfathomable, they're idiots. Find a new friend.

 

[MG1968]

Stop now. I have personally worked for folks that turned over this kind of return and did so more than once. They actually had $300k turn into one billion. That's what makes the private equity world go 'round. If you have people telling you it's unfathomable, they're idiots. Find a new friend.

come now, LG has experience working with state and local governments, that plus his law degree trumps your personal experience and qualifications

 

[volinbham]

I'd have a better sense of it, as would all of you.

As is, you'd rather ignore the incredible explosion in value of his $450,000 and just take his word for it that its just evidence of his good business sense.

I'm not that generous, considering that the experts say it defies logic.

No one has said it defies logic and they've presented several scenarios under which it could occur.

You keep claiming he did something that will get him in regulatory doo doo but the regulatory agencies have his documentation and he is not in regulatory doo doo. They must be in on the great sham as well.