Simply Running with It?

Tweet

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303360504577412403839709854.html This makes sense to me, more sense than what some campaign ads are claiming. Here's some quotes: - "The basic Obama-liberal critique goes like this: Bain buys a company, loads it with debt and then sucks out cash before foisting the wounded business upon an unsuspecting buyer or a bankruptcy court." (Destroying all jobs and retirement) "In the risk-taking world of private equity such a scenario can certainly happen.. but, if Bain's standard operating procedure were to hand the next owner of one of its companies a ticking bankruptcy package, how is Bain still finding buyers nearly three decades later? And who would agree to lend money to a company backed by Bain? Wouldn't word have gotten around by, say, 1987 that Bain's portfolio companies weren't creditworthy?" - "The liberal critique of private equity assumes that the financial industry is full of saps who have been eager to lose money across the table from Bain for 28 years.. it's a logical conclusion that Bain had to be creating value along the way—for investors, for lenders, and that means for workers too." -- here's the link again, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303360504577412403839709854.html Which side do you come down on? This or the campaign ad claims?