Romney has a good story to tell, if he's willing to tell it.
About
the best that can be said about the Republican attacks on Mitt Romney's
record at Bain Capital is that President Obama is going to do the same
thing eventually, so GOP primary voters might as well know what's
coming. Yet that hardly absolves Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and others
for their crude and damaging caricatures of modern business and
capitalism.
Bain's business model is little more than "rich people figuring out
clever legal ways to loot a company," says Mr. Gingrich, whose previous
insights into free enterprise include years of defending the
taxpayer-fed business of corn ethanol.
A super PAC supporting the former House Speaker plans to spend $3.4
million in TV ads in South Carolina portraying Mr. Romney as Gordon
Gekko without the social conscience. The financing for these ads will
come from a billionaire who made his money in the casino business, which
Mr. Gingrich apparently considers morally superior to investing in
companies in the hope of making a profit.
Mr. Perry, who has no problem using taxpayer financing to back his
political allies in Texas, chimes in that "I have no doubt that Mitt
Romney was worried about pink slips, whether he was going to have enough
of them to hand out. Because his company Bain Capital, with all the
jobs that they killed, I'm sure he was worried he'd run out of pink
slips."
Politics isn't subtle, and these candidates are desperate, but do they have to sound like Michael Moore?
***
We have our policy differences with Mr. Romney, but by
any reasonable measure Bain Capital has been a net job and wealth
creator. Founded in 1984 as an offshoot of the Bain consulting company,
Bain Capital's business is a combination of private equity and venture
capital. The latter means taking a flyer on start-ups that may or may
not pan out, something that neither Mr. Gingrich nor Mr. Obama seem to
find offensive when those investments are made by Silicon Valley firms
in "clean energy."
One Bain investment during Mr. Romney's tenure was to back an
entrepreneur named Tom Stemberg, who was convinced he could provide
savings for small-business owners if they were willing to shop at a
store instead of taking deliveries. Today, the Staples chain of
business-supply stores employs 90,000 people.
Bain also backed a start-up called Bright Horizons that now manages
child-care centers for more than 700 corporate clients around the world.
Many other venture bets failed, but that's capitalism, which is
supposed to be a profit and
loss system.
Boston Globe via Getty Images
Mitt Romney at Bain's offices in Copley Plaza in 1990.
The loss part is what seems to trouble
the Gingrich-Perry-Obama critics, especially in Bain's private-equity
business. Like some 2,300 other such U.S. equity firms, Bain looks to
buy companies that are underperforming or undervalued and turn them
around.
Far from "looting," this is a vital contribution to capitalism and
corporate governance. One of the persistent gripes of the left is that
too many CEOs make too much money even as their companies flounder.
Private-equity firms target such companies or subsidiaries, replace
their management, and try to unlock the underlying value in the
enterprise.
Private equity helps to promote dynamic capitalism that creates
wealth, rather than dinosaur capitalism of the kind that prevails in
Europe and futilely tries to prevent failure. Sometimes this means
closing parts of the company and laying off employees, but the
overriding goal is to create value, not destroy it.
A Wall Street Journal news story this
week reported that Bain in the Romney era differed from many equity
firms in buying more young and thus riskier companies. This contributed
to a higher rate of bankruptcy or closure—22%—for companies held by Bain
after eight years.
Bain disputes the Journal's calculations, but one test of overall
success is whether investors keep entrusting a firm with their money.
Mr. Romney and his colleagues raised $37 million for their first fund in
1984. Today, Bain Capital manages roughly $66 billion. Its investors
include college endowments and public pension funds that have increased
their investments in private equity to get larger returns than stocks
and bonds provide. The people who benefit from those returns thus
include average workers.
Bain's turnaround hits include Sports Authority and tech-research
outfit Gartner Inc., which was once a small division of an advertising
firm and is now a public company worth more than $3 billion. Another
success was Steel Dynamics, which used Bain money to build a new steel
factory and now employs 6,000 people.
The tougher questions for Mr. Romney involve the cases in which Bain
took early payouts in dividends and management fees after purchasing
existing businesses that ultimately went bankrupt. There are several in
this category, including another steel company called GSI, though its
hundreds of job losses were far fewer than the jobs created at Steel
Dynamics.
The medical-equipment maker once known
as Dade International is now much larger than it was when Bain bought
it in the 1990s. But Mr. Romney's company later sold its stake, and
heavy debts taken on during the Bain years forced Dade to spend two
months in bankruptcy in 2002 and cost 2,000 jobs. The company later
resumed its rapid growth, and Siemens bought it in 2007 for $7 billion.
Certainly Bain Capital made sure that its investment partners were
paid first, but the larger truth is that the invisible hand worked
pretty well. Notice that because the overall job statistics for Bain
investments are by all accounts positive, many critics attack the Romney
record with claims about private equity in general. The left is
cheering a study commissioned by the Census Bureau that found that
companies bought by private-equity firms suffer more job losses soon
after a buy-out than similar firms that didn't experience buy-outs.
But this is hardly surprising since the companies were acquired in
part because they were underperforming. The critics also don't mention
that the Census study found that firms acquired in private-equity
transactions created more new jobs in the ensuing decade. Imagine what
might have happened if Chrysler or GM had been bought by private equity
two or three decades ago. They might have been turned around much
earlier, at far less pain to fewer workers, and without any taxpayer
cost.
***
The larger political point is that Mr. Romney has a good
story to tell if he is willing to elevate this ugly rumble into a debate
over free enterprise and America's future. This is not Mr. Romney's
strength, as he prefers to talk in personal terms ("I'm an optimist!")
or to lapse into his default mode as the corporate technocrat. This
invites personal attacks in return and it leads him into mistakes like
this week's gaffe that "I like being able to fire people who provide me
services."
Mr. Romney needs to rise above the personal and base his claim to
office on a defense of the system of free enterprise that has enriched
America over the decades and is now under assault. Mr. Obama will attack
Mr. Romney as Gordon Gekko because the President can't win by touting
his own economic record. Mr. Romney's GOP opponents (with the admirable
exception of Rick Santorum) are embarrassing themselves by taking the
Obama line, but Mr. Romney should view this as an opportunity to stake
his campaign on something larger and far more important than his own
business expertise.
No comments:
Post a Comment