the value of capital firms

dogtowner

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 24, 2009
Messages
17,849
Location
Wandering around
a Bain success story

making lemonade from lemons is what they do. cant blame them for companies failing to keep themselves relevant.


Since the 1960s, only one American corporation has independently begun to produce steel on a large scale, and Bain Capital deserves a good deal of the credit for its success. In the spirit of globalization and creative destruction, private-equity firms are supposedly drivers of off-shoring and outsourcing, accelerating the decline of key American industries. Though it’s impossible to say what effect Mitt Romney’s work at Bain Capital has had on American industry overall, he can point to at least one success story in an ailing American industry: Steel Dynamics.
Bain’s investment in another steel firm, GS Technologies, was the impetus for a Reuters story repeatedly cited as an example of the worst kind of private-equity investment — loading a company down with huge debt, extracting dividends for the investors, and charging for consulting services. But Bain’s more successful involvement in Steel Dynamics, an Indiana-based company, has not received nearly as much attention (though the Romney campaign has cited it as a counter-example). From its founding in 1994, Steel Dynamics (SDI) has grown to be America’s fifth-largest producer of carbon-steel products, one of just six major U.S.-owned steel companies.

Keith Busse, now chairman of SDI, made his reputation in the 1980s as an executive at Nucor, one of the largest steel firms in the U.S., pioneering a new type of steel mill, “mini-mills,” which use electric-arc furnaces instead of blast furnaces, an innovation that giants such as Bethlehem Steel had not embraced. After he was passed over for promotion in 1993, he and two of his colleagues began discussing the possibility of striking out on their own. They saw potential in mini-mill technology, which had typically been used for applications such as automobile manufacturing, as a way to produce higher-grade steel at a much lower cost.There were significant obstacles: The steel industry is highly capital-intensive, the American steel industry was hardly a hot startup market, and the venture would be staggeringly expensive — well beyond their own means, and those of most investors. According to a 1996 interview with Busse in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, early meetings with traditional investment bankers were unsuccessful; there was little interest in supporting a new, independent steel venture with the hundreds of millions of dollars that would be needed before any mills would even become operational. But Busse persevered and eventually found two firms willing to provide the millions in initial funding: GE Capital and Bain Capital.​

Brad Seaman, who worked for GE Capital on the deal, explained the role of these two firms in an interview with National Review Online. Two strategic investors were already committed to providing half of the startup funding, but GE could only provide another quarter. Seaman suggested the deal to Bain, which agreed to supply the other quarter of the financing needed, putting up $18.2 million. But the approximately $80 million in initial investments was just the seed financing, and more than $600 million would be necessary before SDI began production, with no guarantee of success. Compare this with, say, a technology company, which might begin business with a round of angel financing of well under $1 million and a much easier path to getting a product to market.

As Seaman explains, the involvement of the two financial firms “really did two things that were necessary.” The commitments by two respected firms provided confidence to the type of investors who had earlier shied away from the project, and, more important, Bain and GE Capital “got some really smart investors in with the necessary experience to make the project happen.” Seaman gives an exceptional amount of credit to the three steel executives who made the jump from Nucor, noting his “enormous respect” for their industrial expertise. But expertise alone does not make a steel mill, he says. “What we added was to get the company funded,” he says. “Without that, it couldn’t have happened.”

In the early 1990s, a particularly difficult time in the financial markets, Bain and GE managed to raise the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary for the project. After the recent financial crisis, it is tempting for liberals and conservatives alike to deride the work of financiers as simple, or even perverse, “financial engineering” — a legitimate criticism at times. But in this case, an enormous industrial project would not have been able to find financing and hire American workers without the blend of investment-banking and management-consulting expertise Bain brought to the table. Seaman explains, “The folks from Bain did an outstanding job. The company wouldn’t have gotten off the ground if they hadn’t been there.”

Just 19 months after the initial funding was raised, in January 1996, SDI began production. Seven months later, it managed to turn a profit, and the company held an initial public offering in November of that year. Bain held on to all of its shares as the company continued to grow, using the capital raised to open two new mills of different types in 1997 and 1998.

In 1999, Bain Capital sold its stake in SDI for $104 million, generating an internal rate of return for investors of 55.4 percent (my calculation, without dividends and consulting fees). Since then, SDI has continued to grow, and it generated $6.3 billion in revenue in 2011 while employing more than 6,000 American workers. Sadly, many U.S. steel producers have continued to move abroad or go bankrupt, as Seaman noted, “precisely in the order they fall along the cost curve,” unable to beat foreign producers’ prices. But SDI’s technology has provided a way for American steel producers to compete. The success of SDI has even helped fuel a virtuous cycle — a true job creator, Busse has used some of his wealth to endow a range of engineering professorships and entrepreneurial-studies centers at Indiana universities.

It is impossible to determine exactly the overall effect private equity has on American workers and domestic industry (though studies have tried). But Steel Dynamics offers a particularly positive case; its courageous origins and clever management have allowed it to compete with foreign manufacturers in what most considered an industry for which the die had been cast and America had lost. For every tragic story of a company that fails at the expense of its workers and investors, there are stupendous successes such as that of Steel Dynamics, and they would not happen without the capital and expertise of firms such as Bain.
 
Werbung:
a Bain success story

making lemonade from lemons is what they do. cant blame them for companies failing to keep themselves relevant.
Capitalism is funded by wall street. I dispute the idea that such activity is not productive. Somebody had to back Microsoft and IBM when they got started. So the ebb and flow of markets creates the liquidity necessary for growth. Very well stated, but I am going to take it farther..a post I made on raging bull..Trading is a zero sum game though the use of capital by the businesses is not. So it may not look particularly productive but if not for the participants, there would be no liquidity and no market makers so there would be no marketplace to determine value. So I would hardly call what wall street does as non-productive but most libs do..

Some people resent the fact that other make and have more money than others. A guy with a shove in his hand works harder than a guy on wall street. But that alone doesn't make then more valuable. Value is what is offered in the exchange and for a trader that is the ability to understand markets and have the brass to make the trade and deal with the consequences. Traders are much smarter than the guy with the shovel generally.

The fact that wall street rewards sometimes questionable ethical behavior, and in the case of goldman there seems to be no limit to their gov. influence, but for most traders, what we have is a very fair world.

Anybody with any race, gender, or nationality or religion can trade. Nobody discriminates. A disabled person can trade just as well as an athlete. It is capitalism at is best. It is pure and it is fair; all you have to do is be good at it. That takes work. Very few are really good at it. But its a discipline. Luck teaches and rewards bad habits. But luck is not investing; its gambling.

Most traders operate off equal knowledge. The congress of course does better than any of the pro traders because they operate off insider information. So one must assume that somebody always knows more than you the honest trader. That is part of trading; spotting the anomalies and riding the trend blindly.

The fact that we trade doesn't make us less productive because without us, Capitalism would have no markets to measure anything. How much would wheat be worth or oil? Prices would fluctuate in extreme and uncontrolled ways; nobody could rely on any price or even monetary stability. So we are very productive; we are traders; we are the markets and that is very productive work even if it doesn't look like Karl Marx definition of labor which is generally manual labor.

But whatever man dreams of making, from a skyscraper to a rocket to go to the moon, the guy with the shovel does very little compared to the productive work of market and capital formation.

The one industry where America is the unassailable leader is Capital formation. Sure the Japanese make great cars. But we make the global markets and grease the wheels of manufacturing. Trading is an abstract profession which is why woman are generally lousy at it;(just kidding) so are most people but unlike any other line of enterprise, trading is opened to one an all and does not discriminate. There is no affirmative action in the markets and there is no nepotism. Success is a matter of personal skill opened to all.

Is there fraud? sure. But the guy who leans on a shove instead of digging is committing fraud. Fraud is in human nature. There is not one trader that hasn't hit a dishonest company. But now its better, capitalism has fixed itself by allowing traders to invest in indexes to avoid disasters caused by cases of investor fraud. Sure there is fraud but the smart trader can avoid most of it.

A lot of traders are here to get rich. I like being rich. I don't like spending money but I love money; I collect it. I would trade in markets 24/7 if I could and I do trade in the overseas markets. I wish markets were all 24 hours a day.

A good trader is a wise person. People don't like my political dialogue but I'm no sucker; politicians are crooked frauds to me. Talk about corruption. Don't you find it odd that they are calling capital markets crooked. Like obama a guy that can't even keep his birth certificate straight. Give me a break its laughable. And you know if a black guy wants to trade; what's stopping him? Does he need some affirmative action? No. That's just a political crutch.

Markets are honest, perhaps the only thing that is honest; politicians are not; most are wholly corrupt. I think pelosi is one of the most despicable persons on earth, bush and obama; most all of them. Not markets.

There is a great wisdom to markets. If oil goes to high, the global markets eventually crush it. Every forced perturbation is met with unlimited jungle justice. Markets are wise and Capitalism is honest; honest enough to destroy the crooks even if politicians keep bankrolling them.

I love being a trader and I am vastly more honest than the obamas and I work harder at it and get less vacations.

You ask me who is more corrupt the corrupt guy on wall street or the black guy collecting welfare that doesn't deserve it. I answer it this way and the way I answer people with infidelitous spouses.

I am only responsible for my own moral conduct not the conduct of others. To allow the moral conduct of others to affect me negatively is only harmful to me. I try to avoid those people and generally do a good job of it. If a crook were to try to rob me they would run a huge risk of receiving the death penalty. That is called risk and reward; clearly he would be a very poor trader; completely lacking in wisdom and discipline.
 
Werbung:
Capitalism is funded by wall street. I dispute the idea that such activity is not productive. Somebody had to back Microsoft and IBM when they got started. So the ebb and flow of markets creates the liquidity necessary for growth. Very well stated, but I am going to take it farther..a post I made on raging bull..Trading is a zero sum game though the use of capital by the businesses is not. So it may not look particularly productive but if not for the participants, there would be no liquidity and no market makers so there would be no marketplace to determine value. So I would hardly call what wall street does as non-productive but most libs do..

Some people resent the fact that other make and have more money than others. A guy with a shove in his hand works harder than a guy on wall street. But that alone doesn't make then more valuable. Value is what is offered in the exchange and for a trader that is the ability to understand markets and have the brass to make the trade and deal with the consequences. Traders are much smarter than the guy with the shovel generally.

The fact that wall street rewards sometimes questionable ethical behavior, and in the case of goldman there seems to be no limit to their gov. influence, but for most traders, what we have is a very fair world.

Anybody with any race, gender, or nationality or religion can trade. Nobody discriminates. A disabled person can trade just as well as an athlete. It is capitalism at is best. It is pure and it is fair; all you have to do is be good at it. That takes work. Very few are really good at it. But its a discipline. Luck teaches and rewards bad habits. But luck is not investing; its gambling.

Most traders operate off equal knowledge. The congress of course does better than any of the pro traders because they operate off insider information. So one must assume that somebody always knows more than you the honest trader. That is part of trading; spotting the anomalies and riding the trend blindly.

The fact that we trade doesn't make us less productive because without us, Capitalism would have no markets to measure anything. How much would wheat be worth or oil? Prices would fluctuate in extreme and uncontrolled ways; nobody could rely on any price or even monetary stability. So we are very productive; we are traders; we are the markets and that is very productive work even if it doesn't look like Karl Marx definition of labor which is generally manual labor.

But whatever man dreams of making, from a skyscraper to a rocket to go to the moon, the guy with the shovel does very little compared to the productive work of market and capital formation.

The one industry where America is the unassailable leader is Capital formation. Sure the Japanese make great cars. But we make the global markets and grease the wheels of manufacturing. Trading is an abstract profession which is why woman are generally lousy at it;(just kidding) so are most people but unlike any other line of enterprise, trading is opened to one an all and does not discriminate. There is no affirmative action in the markets and there is no nepotism. Success is a matter of personal skill opened to all.

Is there fraud? sure. But the guy who leans on a shove instead of digging is committing fraud. Fraud is in human nature. There is not one trader that hasn't hit a dishonest company. But now its better, capitalism has fixed itself by allowing traders to invest in indexes to avoid disasters caused by cases of investor fraud. Sure there is fraud but the smart trader can avoid most of it.

A lot of traders are here to get rich. I like being rich. I don't like spending money but I love money; I collect it. I would trade in markets 24/7 if I could and I do trade in the overseas markets. I wish markets were all 24 hours a day.

A good trader is a wise person. People don't like my political dialogue but I'm no sucker; politicians are crooked frauds to me. Talk about corruption. Don't you find it odd that they are calling capital markets crooked. Like obama a guy that can't even keep his birth certificate straight. Give me a break its laughable. And you know if a black guy wants to trade; what's stopping him? Does he need some affirmative action? No. That's just a political crutch.

Markets are honest, perhaps the only thing that is honest; politicians are not; most are wholly corrupt. I think pelosi is one of the most despicable persons on earth, bush and obama; most all of them. Not markets.

There is a great wisdom to markets. If oil goes to high, the global markets eventually crush it. Every forced perturbation is met with unlimited jungle justice. Markets are wise and Capitalism is honest; honest enough to destroy the crooks even if politicians keep bankrolling them.

I love being a trader and I am vastly more honest than the obamas and I work harder at it and get less vacations.

You ask me who is more corrupt the corrupt guy on wall street or the black guy collecting welfare that doesn't deserve it. I answer it this way and the way I answer people with infidelitous spouses.

I am only responsible for my own moral conduct not the conduct of others. To allow the moral conduct of others to affect me negatively is only harmful to me. I try to avoid those people and generally do a good job of it. If a crook were to try to rob me they would run a huge risk of receiving the death penalty. That is called risk and reward; clearly he would be a very poor trader; completely lacking in wisdom and discipline.


Well said but there are those who find it easier to throw poop than think.
 
Back
Top