Talk:Bain Capital

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

T. Coleman Andrews?[edit]

How is it that Bain Capital was co-founded in 1984 by T. Coleman Andrews - considering that he died in 1983? [12:37, July 25, 2006‎ 66.203.65.132]

co-founder was T. Coleman Andrews III, not the gentleman who died in 1983, but his grandson. [18:57, April 13, 2007‎ 67.34.120.131]

I doubt the neutrality of this article... OUR STAFF[edit]

Bain Capital (Europe) Limited, an affiliate of Bain Capital, LLC, is dedicated to investment opportunities in the European market. Based in London and Munich, and building off Bain Capital's successful European investment track record since 1987, our experienced multi-national staff pursues a wide variety of investment opportunities. [12:41, August 3, 2006‎ 83.99.107.234]

The whole article reads like a corporate press release. It uses jargon and leaves out the negatives. Bain has been associated with corporate raiding and massive layoffs.Cannoneo (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree. Tagging it with a pov tag until it gets cleaned up. Joe056 (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • These issues have all be addressed - you are responding to comments that are more than two years old and do not apply to the current version of the article.|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 22:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add me to the list of those who strongly agree that this article, in its current form, is a blatantly non-neutral PR piece. It took me some research to find the edit summary explaining why this paragraph, which I added the other day, was deleted without a trace:
In his 2010 book The Buyout of America: How Private Equity Is Destroying Jobs and Killing the American Economy, Josh Kosman described Bain Capital as "notorious for its failure to plow profits back into its businesses," being the first large private-equity firm to derive a large fraction of its revenues from corporate dividends and other distributions. The revenue potential of this strategy, which may "starve" a company of capital,<ref name=BuyoutAmerica106>{{cite |title=The Buyout of America: How Private Equity Is Destroying Jobs and Killing the American Economy |last=Kosman |first=Josh |date=2010 |page=106 |isbn=1591843693}}</ref> was increased by a 1970s court ruling that allowed companies to consider the entire fair-market value of the company, instead of only their "hard assets", in determining how much money was available to pay dividends.<ref name=BuyoutAmerica118>{{cite |title=The Buyout of America: How Private Equity Is Destroying Jobs and Killing the American Economy |last=Kosman |first=Josh |date=2010 |page=118 |isbn=1591843693}}</ref> In at least some instances, companies acquired by Bain borrowed money in order to increase their dividend payments, ultimately leading to the collapse of what had been financially stable businesses.<ref name=WashPost12142011>{{cite |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/romneys-bain-capital-record-shows-mixed-record-on-bankruptcies/2011/12/13/gIQANksluO_story.html |newspaper=Washington Post |title=Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital tenure shows mixed record on bankruptcies |first=Jia Lynn |last=Yang |date=December 14, 2011}}</ref>
The edit summary says "a journalist's comments, not specifically directed towards Bain Capital, are not notable enough to deserve a paragraph-length treatment." Excuse me for thinking that third-party publications that discuss Bain in the context of its industry are appropriate sources for Wikipedia. Apparently revealed truth can be found in corporate press releases. --Orlady (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I think you need to identify what parts of the article are not consistent with WP:NPOV. The absence of a critique (and I do think there are non-favorable elements) does not make something biased. A factual account of investments made as part of a narrative account of the firm's history is not a press release. Look at any article on any company and identify what issues exist in this article. I think if you want to create a section around the political commentary on Bain as part of the presidential election that is fair but tagging the top of the article is just not appropriate. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 05:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When reliably sourced information (in this instance, an entire paragraph that contained three reference citations) is deleted from an article, there had better be a good reason for the removal. The statement "not notable enough to deserve a paragraph-length treatment" is not a convincingly good reason. As it was, I had written that paragraph as part of a general discussion of the firm's business strategies over time, and it had been moved way down to the end of a long list of the firm's acquisitions -- ostensibly to place it in chronological order by the date of the book, but most likely as a first step toward getting rid of it. --Orlady (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the Kosman argument was sort of getting lost where it was. I've created a new top-level section, "Appraisals and critiques", and moved this material into there. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Agree that Article is biased, article reads like a press release for Bain Capital and probably is directly managed by them. It would be in the best interest of humanity if much of the article was stripped.M4bwav (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that this article is strongly biased. It does sound like something put out by a PR company. This is a very important page right now, and it should reflect both sides of Bain. I don't know how to fix it, though. I certainly am no expert on Bain.69.255.44.231 (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Dade International. This needs to be remedied, it has no page of its own and the Baxter page makes no metion of what occured.164.221.194.2 (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a brief description of Dade here, pulled over from the Mitt Romney article. There actually is an article on it, at Dade Behring, although it doesn't go into the effects of the Bain involvement much. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Six months and many edits having passed, I have removed the neutrality tag from the History section. I believe all specific complaints about lack of neutrality have been addressed, and that the section is reasonably even-handed. That doesn't mean it's perfect or that additional changes cannot be made, just that it does not deserve tagging. And note that any objections to the current content must include specific mention of statements objected to or missing and suggestions for remedy; general complaints like "It does sound like something put out by a PR company ... I don't know how to fix it though" are unactionable. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this in 2019: more of a whitewashed ad for Bain than a Wikipedia page. Pretty awful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:12C0:16D:DC79:8E86:E55:4D40 (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about the buyout of Michael's?[edit]

Didn't that deal for $6 billion USD go through in 2006? Wouldn't that count as a major deal? [23:31, May 3, 2007‎ 132.79.14.15]

Copied from Bain's website[edit]

"... the venture capital affiliate of Bain Capital, focused on seed through late-stage growth investments in software, hardware, information, healthcare, and technology-driven business services companies."

"... is one of the nation's leading managers of high-yield corporate credit obligations. With approximately $23 billion assets, Sankaty invests in a wide variety of securities, including leveraged loans, high-yield bonds, stressed debt, distressed debt, mezzanine debt, structured products and equity investments." EthanHerd 09:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image gallery[edit]

The purpose of the image gallery included in the article is to provide a clear illustration of the companies in which Bain is invested. This was suggested in another private equity WP:GA discussion and appears to be consistent with WP:IG guidelines. This serves the function of quickly identifying brands using free images from commons. The usage guidelines state "use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject". Clearly here, the use of images illustrates Bain's portfolio of images in a way that could not be accomplished in the text. While inline images are also used, this provides a broader group of companies than could be illustrated through inline images. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 01:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, the image gallery is meaningless eye candy. It reminds me of a cartoon of a big game hunter's wall covered with the heads of animals the hunter shot. The gallery of images related to various Bain affiliates and acquisitions does not tell me anything more about Bain Capital than the collection of hunting trophies tells me about the guy who shot them. A little eye candy has its place in the encyclopedia, but the main purpose of images should be to illustrate the subject, not decorate the page. --Orlady (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that response is consistent with WP:IG and there is a reason there are community guidelines for these topics. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 13:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

Our article says that Romney was CEO from 1991 until 1992, but there are a gracious plenty references on the internet to him as being CEO until much later. For instance, [1] says he was CEO until 2001. [2] says "Romney was still listed as Bain's CEO in 2001, despite having left the company to head up the Salt Lake City Olympic organizing committee". So I'm guessing/assuming that he was the CEO on paper for some amount of time before they formally gave someone else the title? Do we have a reliable source for when he was actually working for Bain and doing CEO stuff? I can't find anything supporting the 1992 claim our article currently makes. --B (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes to clarify this. The rough timeline is (months given in article):
  • 1984 - 1990 CEO Bain Capital
  • 1991 - 1992 LoA Bain Capital, CEO Bain & Company during their rescue
  • 1993 CEO Bain Capital
  • 1994 LoA Bain Capital, running for U.S. Senate
  • 1995 - 1998 CEO Bain Capital
  • 1999 - 2001 LoA Bain Capital, CEO of Olympics
  • 2001 Resigns from Bain Capital Announces he won't return to Bain Capital
  • 2002 Final separation from Bain Capital
Hopefully it's clear ... Wasted Time R (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you - that makes a lot more sense to have it clarified. --B (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[3]This new article says that Romney didn't leave Bain until 2002 according to government documents. [03:35, July 13, 2012‎ 75.157.46.6]

I've updated the above timeline to indicate that the final separation from Bain Capital didn't happen until 2002. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that everyone agrees that Romeny lef Bain in Feb 1999, but SEC filings continued to list him. Apparently he left quite suddenly and he was still the sole stockholder and a transition occurred as he tranferred his shares to the new managing group. http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/12/politics/john-king-bain/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
Anyway, I don't believe this political stuff belongs in the lede. Is there a justification for it?LedRush (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't belong in the lead at all. I've moved all of this detail material to a new section, "Transition: 1999-2002: Romney departure and political legacy". Wasted Time R (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street Journal 1/9/2012 online article should be cited on Bain page for more balance[edit]

I AGREE - looks like the Bain PR team wrote this page.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204331304577140850713493694.html This is a link to a Wall Street Journal on-line article that looked at 77 companies Bain invested in. Some of the findings - Under Romney, they found 22% closed or filed bankruptcy and another 8% ran into trouble losing all of Bain's money. Ten deals produced the big money gains for Bain's investors and four of those eventually filed for bankruptcy. Bain has done great things for it's investors. This is absolutely true. But the taxpayer and other companies have been left holding the bag when Bain's companies have failed and left pensioned unfunded. Bain is claiming privacy and won't reveal all the companies they have invested in. I think it is because they do not want a real balanced look at the actual results. My opinion only. Bain is a certain type of investment company who makes money for its own investors and the goal is not to create jobs - private equity, venture capital - all about the $ return for the investors - is it part of American capitalism - not good or bad - just the way it is. Claiming this is job creating experience is misleading in my opinion.

A good example from my own professional experience of this type of investing is ESL - Eddie Lampert's hedge fund which buys distressed companies - Eddie is a billionaire and his investors are multi - millionaire/billionaires and very sophisticated investors. When Eddie took over Kmart and other companies, he cut benefits, fired workers, closed stores and SOLD the REAL ESTATE resulting in huge profits for himself and his investors. Many low income neighborhood were hurt BUT Eddie is not seeking public office or presenting himself as a job creator. Like Romney, he got a leg up from his father's success.

Someone with the time and more knowledge than I do needs to do a real analysis because I think Romney is telling half truths about his background and real experience and a voter looking for facts will be misled by this page which only present the sunny side of the business. That is the beauty of PRIVATE equity - it is private and not required to disclose. I can't see how Romney can call himself a job creator by any stretch of the imagination - it is simply NOT the function of the CEO of a private equity firm. Romney is, however, a money creator - he makes an excellent return for his already wealthy investors. The average American is not financially smart enough to figure out the difference and will never have the funds to be accepted by a private equity firm. They don't know how companies use bankruptcy to become free of debts of all types (often hurting small companies they owe money to as well as 401k and pension plans). And they don;t know how their own income taxes often come to the rescue after the investors walk with their profits taxed at only 15-20%. I don't know if I broke any rules here, just trying to point to some additional info - if so - mea culpa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoneyTalks1980 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umm ... when you buy distressed companies, you are buying companies that are predisposed to go out of business and, in many cases, would have gone out of business if not for a buyer being found. So the WSJ article is no real surprise - you would expect Bain to lose money on some of their investments or for a lot of them to go out of business. It's a little disingenuous to complain about the assets being liquidated, people being fired, etc, because all of that would have happened anyway if not for the investment. And whatever Eddie Lampert's hedge fund has or hasn't done has nothing whatsoever to do with an article on Bain. For that matter, Romney and the presidential election has very little to do with an article on Bain - this article is about Bain, not about the current political arguments. --B (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New article[edit]

This article is about Bain Capital and expanding it to include this controversy will not work. I suggest a new article, Mitt Romney Bain controversy gets created in which all sources and the positions expressed by sources about this issue, very much along the lines of what has been captured at John_Kerry_military_service_controversy and Jeremiah_Wright_controversy and thus create a neutral article about this subject. Cwobeel Cwobeel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of what Romney's role was in Bain Capital during the 1999-2002 period is a fair subject for this article. It shouldn't dominate it, which is why I moved it out of the lead and into a focused section within the chronology, and it shouldn't be given undue weight within the overall history of Bain Capital, which is why the section is pretty short. If this controversy becomes as big as the two you mention, then yes maybe it could merit its own article. But it isn't there yet. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If? It is already substantial, don't you think? 339,000,000 hits in Google for "Romney Bain" vs 73,300,000 for "Obama Wright". We can certainly fill an article on the controversy, and it can also be summarized here. Cwobeel (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The names Romney and Bain are connected with or without the controversy.LedRush (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I believe we need a separate article is to help readers understand stuff like this:

"CRAWFORD: But you were the sole owner? I mean, how should we be thinking about this? What was your role? You were the sole owner until 2002?"

"ROMNEY: I was the owner of a, of the general partnership but there were investors which included pension funds and various entities of all kinds that owned the, if you will, the investments of the firm. But I was the owner of an entity which was a management entity. That entity was one which I had ownership of until the time of the retirement program was put in place. But I had no responsibility whatsoever after February of '99 for the management or ownership - management, rather, of Bain Capital."

Cwobeel (talk)

The first portion of this article at Yahoo! Finance provides a good framing on the nature of this controversy, and why it matters: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/mitt-romney-bain-controversy-why-matters-left-company-125511084.html Cwobeel (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You Google search numbers are bogus, since most of the hits for <Romney Bain> have nothing to do with the recent dates-of-departure controversy. Nevertheless, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and you are free to create a new article if you wish. You may have to defend it at AfD - Seamus (dog)/Mitt Romney dog incident survived, while Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident bit the dust. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip. I will get started on the article. Cwobeel (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support the creation of a separate break out article as too much coverage in this article will be undue and there is scope for a lengthy treatment of this "controversy". Of course some mention must still remain here though, with the article linked from here. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part time[edit]

Where and how best to include Romney's own words?

"Romney said he will stay on as a part-timer with Bain, providing input on investment and key personnel decisions. But he will leave running day-to-day operations to Bain's executive committee." Mitt Romney, quoted by the Boston Herald in February 1999 (Greg Gatlin, “Romney Looks To Restore Olympic Pride,” The Boston Herald, February 12, 1999)

Cwobeel (talk)

Unless there's evidence that he actually did this, not worth mentioning here. Of course, in a breakout article you can try to mention everything under the sun. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about the evidence he did or did not had a part time involvement. It is about reporting what Romney said in 1999. If you we are reportingin this article that he said he took a leave of absence, why not to also report that he said he stayed part-time? Are we going to report only partial facts about what Romney said? I'd appreciate an answer. Cwobeel (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like this FactCheck.org piece says, "Romney’s statement that he would remain a “part-timer” is merely a statement of intent, issued just as he was leaving for the Olympics job and before he knew how much time it would consume. It is not evidence of what actually happened." I've found in doing these articles for 7½ years that it's hard enough to handle what actually happened, and rarely worth devoting any attention to what someone thought might happen but did not. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I think you missed my point. What I am referring to is about the statements that he made and that are supported by sources. It is not up to you or me to decide which statements to report, that is the principle behind neutrality of articles. I fail to see how you could apply your rule to the statement about "part time" but not apply the same rule to the statement about "leave of absence". Either we include both, or none. To another issue, which you may be able to help as you seem knowledgeable, do you know who was appointed interim CEO at Bain when Romney took his purported leave of absence? That would also be worth reporting. Cwobeel (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to this interview with a former partner, a management committee ran day-to-day operations during Romney's absence. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good 'ol Chris Hayes, nailing that interview. Thanks for the link. Note that in the interview, it was made clear that Romney was “legally” the chief executive officer and sole owner. Cwobeel (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I give up on this one, go ahead and add all that you want, then remove the POV tag that you added. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added some, hope it is OK. Otherwise, feel free to amend. Cwobeel (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undid revision 513625947 by Dgharmon[edit]

"Undid revision 513625947 by Dgharmon (talk) coatrack for Taibbi piece - not a WP:RS and not representative of the mainstream media scrutiny"

Since when is the Rolling Stone magazine not 'representative of the mainstream media scrutiny' or since when is 'not representative of the mainstream media scrutiny' a Wikipedia category ?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829

Dgharmon (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because Taibbi's piece is not typical of the mainstream straight press descriptions of Bain Capital practices and Romney's time there. Taibbi's thesis seems to be that no one in the financial or political press has ever realized how leveraged buyouts work, which is not correct. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion needed[edit]

This edit by Z126 needs to be reverted. I previously reverted this earlier edit by Z126 but both are bad. (If no one else sees this, I'll do the reversion once the election articles probation is over and 1RR limits are not possibly in play.) Wasted Time R (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're playing Calvinball now. It's not officially 1RR, but you can be topic-banned even for that. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like an advertisement and should be marked as such.[edit]

Where is the section on controversies around this company. Surely everyone would agree there have been a number of negative stories about Bain Capital in the mainstream press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.144.146 (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Separate "Controversies" sections are a bad idea. Some of what you are looking for is in "Appraisals and critiques" section, and some is in the regular chronological history sections, especially "1990s". And some is probably not Bain Capital-specific but more general unhappiness with private equity and leveraged buyouts and capitalism, and should be discussed in those articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appraisals and critiques[edit]

I believe this section appears to be completely arbitrary. The company has been around since 1984 and likely receives these type things constantly. Yet there are a couple random ones included. Does not seem very much like an encyclopedia to have such arbitrary information. We certainly can't include it all appraisals and critiques. I understand these sections are on some pages, but those are usually when a singular or one time event took place. I guess I am not seeing why such a section should exist on this page in particular when they have to be picked at random. ManorOfFact (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Assessments like Fortune magazine's that Bain Capital's approach became widely copied within the private equity industry, and the quote from Steven Kaplan, definitely deserve to be in the article. So to do the assessments from Josh Kosman and the Washington Post on the effect of Bain's practices on company health. If there are other representative assessments from high-value sources, they too should be added. Now if you want to put this material in the article in some other place than a separate section called "Appraisals and critiques", that's okay, but this material shouldn't just be wiped out. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary and random? Seriously? The firm is only known in the public consciousness for its political legacy. That's by far the most public part of the firm's reputation. To remove all of that content is absurd. Trayvon1 (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This section has nothing to do with the firm's political legacy. So I am a little confused as to how that applies to the comments we have had in this section. It is about their business practices and deals. ManorOfFact (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the section removed from the lead, it seems to create a political bias to the page for a company not involved in politics. The information is covered throughout the course of the page as part of the company history. Singling it out at the top doesn't seem to lend to having a NPOV. ManorOfFact (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply reflecting reality. Most people have heard of Bain Capital because of Romney. But I don't feel as strongly about this one as the first. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is the most prominent part of the firm's reputation. Of course its business activities should be discussed, and they occupy the bulk of the lede anyway. Inserting one small section about the firm's media, cultural, and political reputation does a service to the vast majority of readers. Trayvon1 (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most prominent according to who? It was during an election, but it's a 30 year old company that was well known before the election and continues to be in the news well after it for other reasons. ManorOfFact (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bain Capital. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bain Capital. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bain Capital. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bain_Capital&oldid=1205633274"