奥巴马总统的连任竞选团队日前将火力集中了在米特•罗姆尼的从商经历上，专门推出了一个网站，着重列出私募股权公司贝恩资本（Bain Capital）在罗姆尼执掌期间进行的一些交易。

    奥巴马竞选团队的副经理斯蒂芬妮•卡特在发出邮件宣布推出这个网站之后表示：

    罗姆尼和其合伙人在美国各地收购公司，收购过程往往让这些公司背负上债务。他们总是大幅缩减养老金、福利和工作岗位，用积累的债务直接付给自己和股东。

    由于这些债务，有几家公司已经破产，工人失去了工作，没有了养老金，也没有了医保——而罗姆尼及其合伙人总是能将数百万美金收入囊中。

    每个人都知道业务会有起伏——有时还会遭遇失败——没人质疑罗姆尼按自认方式经营公司的权利，也没人质疑整个私募股权行业。

    但造成数千人失业、原本健康的企业破产，只为少数人大赚一笔，这个时候就需要质疑——这样的价值观就是美国人希望在总统身上看到的吗？这些价值观能建立起一个可持续的经济和支撑起强大、有保障的中产阶级吗？

    网站目前重点关注贝恩资本的三项交易：GST Steel、Dade Industries和Stage Stores。

    不幸的是，就像今年早些时候支持共和党候选人纽特•金里奇的SuperPAC发布的“纪录片”，奥巴马的竞选团队也有一些可疑的细节问题。比如，它是这么说Dade Behring的：

    米特•罗姆尼和他的投资者接手了Dade Behring这家业务健康的公司后，让它背上了沉重债务。他们没有卖掉这家公司，而是让Dade背负更多贷款买下他们的股票，将公司推入破产深渊。近3,000名工人失业，罗姆尼及其合伙人却赚取超过2.5亿美元利润。

    我不知道定性为“健康公司”是基于什么。2004年，贝恩以4.48亿美元收购Baxter International旗下的医疗诊断业务，创立了Dade International。当时，这就是一个失败的业务部门。比如，MLA当时刚刚取消了同Dade的一大宗血液分析仪/试剂供应协议。Dade不仅丧失了一大块高利润的经常性收入，还多了MLA这样一个有力的竞争对手（贝恩最终在日本找到了替代供应商）。

    我能想到的就是奥巴马竞选团队巧妙地选用了Dade Behring这个名字，这是Dade International成立两年后改用的名字，是在Bain收购一家德国公司（Behring）和一项杜邦（DuPont）诊断业务之后。你也许会说，那时来看，Dade曾是一家“健康的公司”——但这全赖贝恩之赐。而且，有些“利润”是与收购Behring相关的现金。

    先申明一点，正如我过去所述，我并不支持贝恩在Dade所做的一切。但奥巴马竞选团队也没有任何理由往这个事情上添油加醋。

    President Obama's reelection campaign today took its most pointed shots at Mitt Romney's business career, launching a website that focuses on select Bain Capital deals from Romney's time running the private equity firm.

    Stephanie Cutter, Obama's deputy campaign manager, said the following in an email announcing the site:

    Romney and his partners bought companies across the United States, often loading them up with debt in the process. Too often, they slashed pensions, benefits, and jobs, while paying themselves and their shareholders straight from the debt they'd accumulated.

    Because of that debt, several of these businesses went bankrupt, leaving workers without jobs, without pensions, and without health care -- all while Romney and his partners walked away with millions.

    Everyone understands that businesses rise and fall -- and sometimes fail -- and no one is challenging Romney's right to run his business as he saw fit or questioning private equity as a whole.

    But when a handful of people make a fortune by putting thousands out of work and bankrupting once-healthy businesses, it's legitimate to question whether those are the values America needs in a president -- and whether those are the values that will create an economy built to last, with a strong, secure middle class.

    The website currently focuses on three Bain Capital transations: GST Steel, Dade Industries and Stage Stores.

    Unfortunately, somewhat like the "documentary" distributed earlier this year by a SuperPAC supporting Newt Gingrich, the Obama campaign gets a bit bedeviled by certain details.

    For example, look at what it says about Dade Behring:

    With Dade Behring, Mitt Romney and his investors took over a healthy company and loaded it with debt. Rather than sell the company, they then had Dade take out even more loans to buy out their shares, driving the company into bankruptcy. Nearly 3,000 workers lost their jobs, while Romney and his partners made more than $250 million in profit.

    I have no idea where the "healthy company" characterization is coming from. Bain originally created Dade International in 2004, by purchasing the medical diagnostics business of Baxter International (BAX) for $448 million. At the time, it was a failing unit. For example, MLA had just canceled a large blood analyzer/reagents supply contract with Dade. Not only did this cost Dade a large chunk of high-profit, recurring revenue, but it also set MLA up as a viable competitor (Bain ultimately found a replacement supplier in Japan).

    All I can think is that the Obama campaign cleverly used the name Dade Behring, which is what Dade International was renamed two years later once Bain had acquired both a German company (Behring) and a diagnostics unit from DuPont. One could argue that, by that point, Dade was a "healthy company" -- but only thanks to Bain's efforts. Moreover, some of those "profits" were cash tied to the Behring acquisition.

    To be clear, I'm not a big fan of what Bain did with Dade, as I've previously written. But there is no reason for the Obama campaign to embellish on the history. 

    对于GS T Steel，奥巴马竞选团队这样写道：

    堪萨斯城的GST Steel曾是一家成功的公司，米特•罗姆尼和其合伙人在1993年取得这家公司控制权的时候，该公司已有103年的钢条制造史。他们压缩产品线，不断从GST Steel抽取利润，令公司负债累累。当公司最终宣布破产时，工人无法获得全额养老金和医疗保险，联邦政府只能介入为其养老基金提供救助。

    基本正确——虽然由于预算紧张，GS Steel事实上早就在压缩产品线了——除了省略不语的部分：GST Steel倒闭时米特•罗姆尼已经离开了贝恩。这似乎是一个相当显著的事实。

    另外一方面，罗姆尼的竞选团队日前也收回了候选人的一些不当表述：罗姆尼自称虽然他投资了GST，但没有真正管理这家公司。如果你拥有这家公司，贝恩的确拥有，你就是负责人（包括选择经理人）。在杠杆控股收购中绝不会有这样的事出现。

    最后是Stage Stores。内容摘自RomneyEconomy.com网站:

    上世纪80年代末，米特•罗姆尼及其合伙人买了数百家成功的小型服装店，合并组建了Stage Stores。罗姆尼和他的团队让这家公司负债，然后当这家公司股价处于高点时，他们几乎卖出了所有的股票，大赚了一笔。不到三年，该股暴跌，Stage被迫宣布破产。

    这些情况全都属实，但我不知道这里是要指责罗姆尼和贝恩什么。奥巴马竞选团队承认，Stage Stores破产时，贝恩已退出近三年了。贝恩或许让这家公司背了很多债，但机构投资者从贝恩购买这家公司股票的时候都知道——而且，显然都认为这是可以偿付的债务。除非有欺诈指控（即贝恩隐瞒这些债务），否则Stage破产责任很难扣在罗姆尼和贝恩的头上。

    而且，如果贝恩要为售股后发生的事情负责，那么如今Dade（隶属于西门子（Siemens））以及Stage Stores业务兴旺，是否也要归功于贝恩呢？或者罗姆尼是否可以宣称，他和贝恩参与投资了史泰博（Staples），这家公司之后很长时间内创造的所有工作岗位也应归功于他呢？

    从更广范围来看，史蒂芬妮•卡特特意声明没人“质疑私募股权整个行业”。这有些像竞选团队经理吉姆•麦西纳2月份讲话的翻版。但这不是真的，不是吗？

    在这里，贝恩被指责的一些行为事实上在私募股权行业中平常可见。因此，如果“有道理质疑这样的价值观是否是美国人希望在总统身上看到的”，就有道理质疑私募股权是否符合美国价值观。这完全是欲盖弥彰。

    我已试图联络奥巴马的发言人，如有回复，就会更新这篇博文。罗姆尼的团队已发表了几页观点，大部分都只是针对Solyndra贷款攻击奥巴马阵营（双方都在做可笑的争辩。）

    译者：早稻米

    As for GS T Steel, the campaign writes:

    Kansas City's GST Steel was a successful company that had been making steel rods for 103 years when Mitt Romney and his partners took control in 1993. They cut corners and extracted profit from the business at every turn, placing it deeply in debt. When the company eventually declared bankruptcy, workers were denied their full pensions and health insurance, and the federal government was forced to step in and bail out the pension fund.

    All mostly true -- although GS Steel had already cut down its product line due to budget constraints -- except for what is omitted: Mitt Romney was no longer at Bain when GST Steel bust. Would seem to be a fairly salient fact.

    On the other hand, Romney's campaign today recycled its candidate's absurd claim that while he made the GST investment, he didn't actually run the company. If you own the company, which Bain did, you're in charge (including of picking managers). There is no such thing as an arm's-length leveraged buyouts.

    Finally, there is Stage Stores. From RomneyEconomy.com:

    In the late 1980s, Mitt Romney and his partners bought up hundreds of successful small clothing stores and combined them to form Stage Stores. Romney and his team loaded up the company with debt, and then, when the company was at its height, sold nearly all their shares at an enormous profit. In less than three years, the stock had collapsed and Stage was forced to declare bankruptcy.

    All true, but I don't quite see what Romney and Bain are being accused of here. The Obama campaign acknowledges that Bain had been out of Stage Stores for nearly three years when it went bankrupt. Bain may have heaped debt on the company, but institutional investors knew that when they bought the company's shares from Bain -- and apparently thought it was a solvent bet. Unless there is some claim of fraud (i.e., Bain somehow hiding the debt), then Stage's bankruptcy is hard to pin on Romney and Bain.

    Moreover, if Bain is going to be blamed for what happened after selling its stake, should it also get credit for the current thriving businesses of both Dade (now owned by Siemens) and Stage Stores (SSI)? Or can Romney claim credit for all those Staples (SPLS) jobs created long after he and Bain were involved with the company?

    As a broader point, it's interesting that the Stephanie Cutter went out of her way to say that no one "is questioning private equity as a whole." Kind of mirroring a similar message from campaign boss Jim Messina said back in February. But it's not really true, is it?

    Bain is being accused here of taking actions that are commonplace in private equity. So if it's "legitimate to question whether those are the values America needs in a president," then it's apparently legitimate to question whether private equity is consistent with American values. Pretty sure that's a broad brush masquerading as a razor blade.

    I've reached out to Obama spokespeople, and will update this post if they reply. Romney's team already has issued a couple pages of talking points, but most of it is simply attacking Obama for the Solyndra loans (proving that both sides can make silly arguments).