07-15-2012, 06:31 PM
The part up to the retroactive retirement bit is plausible on the surface*, but the "retired reactively" part is at least pretty weak - IMHO, actually really lame.
*The explanation about Romney thinking he would still be part-time actively involved at Bain when he went to the Olympics and then found himself unable to be involved at all just doesn't pass the smell test. Here's a guy who developed this company and wants to say that he had a crucial role in its success, but we're supposed to believe that he would keep the title and actual power to determine investment policy at Bain and blithely just let it all go unused even after initially making plans to be at least part-time involved in Bain. I don't buy it. I think he was at least approving any changes in what kinds of firms they would invest in - and that includes that I think he approved the move into investing in firms that did a lot of outsourcing. That wasn't some grubby little detail he could leave to underlings to determine, I'm sure he would have had insisted that he would have to sign off on that kind of change in investment policy.
I also wonder if there was some income/tax advantage in him remaining CEO of Bain. If so, the "retired retroactively" line would be more than lame - it would be completely misleading.
*The explanation about Romney thinking he would still be part-time actively involved at Bain when he went to the Olympics and then found himself unable to be involved at all just doesn't pass the smell test. Here's a guy who developed this company and wants to say that he had a crucial role in its success, but we're supposed to believe that he would keep the title and actual power to determine investment policy at Bain and blithely just let it all go unused even after initially making plans to be at least part-time involved in Bain. I don't buy it. I think he was at least approving any changes in what kinds of firms they would invest in - and that includes that I think he approved the move into investing in firms that did a lot of outsourcing. That wasn't some grubby little detail he could leave to underlings to determine, I'm sure he would have had insisted that he would have to sign off on that kind of change in investment policy.
I also wonder if there was some income/tax advantage in him remaining CEO of Bain. If so, the "retired retroactively" line would be more than lame - it would be completely misleading.