Which one is it? Either he created a ton of jobs with companies who have been marred by scandal, or he had nothing to do with these companies besides funding them. As I see it, he can’t have it both ways. He can’t claim that he created all these jobs without taking responsibility for the actions of the companies that he was involved with. He also can’t distance himself from these companies while at the same time praising his job creating abilities.
Please share widely!
(Note – I apologize that this is repetitive to what I just posted in response to one of David’s threads. There are some similar threads and questions on the site right now.)
<
p>
As for the Herald story, you can take some credit for the jobs, but not necessarily the subsequent actions of the companies in question under these scenarios. The money you provided or invested help to prop up the company in question/bought them time/gave them working capital and allowed them to grow (i.e. jobs), but the money invested did not provide you with enough of a stake to be in day-to-day control of the company (i.e. majority stake) and make decisions on how things would be done. Also, if you helped create jobs with your money invested, but subsequently moved on prior to the bad acts specified, how can you be held accountable for that? Would some of these companies had been around in later years without the seed money from Gabs & friends? Probably some no and others likely yes.
<
p>
Let’s review the companies sited in this story.
<
p>
1) Alkermes Inc. and Epix Pharmaceuticals were sued in 2005 by shareholders for corporate fraud, but both suits were dismissed.
<
p>
2) Gabrieli was a key investor and board member with VistaCare, but cut his ties in 2002, two years before shareholders levied charges against the company for bogus accounting practices and fraudulently inflating earnings.
<
p>
3) Gabrieli invested in PerSeptive, but years before the Framingham-based company paid out $12 million in 1995 to settle stockholders claims that the company reported bogus earnings. The company came under fire again in 2000 when an executive paid a $200,000 fine for insider trading and fraud.
<
p>
4) “Gabrieli was an investor in Oclassen in 1992 when 10 patients died during clinical trials of fialuridine, a drug made by the company to treat hepatitis B. Oclassen partnered on the drug with Eli Lilly & Co. before the National Institutes of Health oversaw the deadly trials. The deaths resulted in a flurry of lawsuits against Lilly, the NIH and Oclassen that were settled confidentially with the dead patients families.”
<
p>
This is tragic, but what is the insinuation here? Did Gabrieli actually do anything wrong here or did he possibly make an investment that did not turn out as intended. As someone who has dabbled in the market and made some $, my batting is average is good, but nowhere near as good as Gabrieli’s. If it were, perhaps I would be running for governor. God help us! 🙂
<
p>
On a serious note, if I or anyone else bought stock in this company and/or any of the others sited this morning, would we somehow be disqualified from higher public office and service? Tragedies happen unfortunately, but Gabrieli is not responsible for this one. Isn’t this is much like Deval being involved with Ameriquest, Texaco, & UAL and saying he was responsible for all of their allegedly “nasty” activities? Is he disqualified for his ties to these companies?
<
p>
Gabrieli’s record is overwhelmingly positive. He has made hundreds of investments over the years, the overwhelming majority were successful and a ton were for good causes and results. Yes, Gabrieli made a lot of $, but he has been incredibly generous in sharing that wealth for great causes and those less fortunate.
<
p>
In this case, it is a matter of whether Gabrieli made any of the decisions that led to and/or resulted in the negative actions sited in the article (i.e. did he have the authority or power to enact what is noted in the story?). Or did he simply invest money to help get these companies off of the ground and stay afloat to eventually grow and create jobs? He did not have sufficient control based upon my research – end of story although I am sure not the end of insinuations given where we find ourselves on the calendar.
I’m not saying that Gabrieli had anything to do with the improprieties of these companies he helped start. Rather, I am saying that just as he didn’t have much or anything to do with these scandals, he didn’t have much or anything to do with “creating” jobs. I’m sure that you wouldn’t claim that because you invested in companies that you helped create jobs in those companies, to take your own example.
<
p>
And I don’t agree that it is a similar situation to Deval’s. Deval’s situation with Coca-Cola, Texaco, and Ameriquest has been well documented at every point of the campaign, for good or bad, whereas Gabrieli has made it a point (and an incorrect one) to show off his job creating skills. My question is why there is little or no scrutiny about this claim? And I guess my point is that maybe there shouldn’t be because he had so little to do with these companies besides putting money into them, not running them, not structuring them, not even overseeing them, but simply putting money into them at the outset.
<
p>
Again, I don’t think Gabrieli did anything wrong, but I also don’t think that he can claim to have any effect over a company’s job growth many years after his initial investment and I think this Herald article highlights that point, in an albeit circular manner.
I posted this in Dave’s thread as one of my replies and thought that I would also include it here. Best, SSG
<
p>
I am hoping this example clarifies my position. Most of these investments involve multiple parties, so in my example I will limit the investors to a total of two. Let’s call them Chris and Bob.
Let’s assume that Bob is the sole investor in a real estate enterprise until he runs into some cash flow problems in 1991. Without an infusion of some cash and some management expertise, Bob’s firm will very likely go under and have to go out of business or file for bankruptcy protection. While doing some research, Chris thinks Bob’s enterprise has some potential, thinks he can help keep Bob afloat/turn things around, and contacts him. In exchange for a 30% stake in the enterprise, Chris pumps in an equivalent level of cash into the venture. Chris allows Bob to maintain day-to-day operations of the firm, but does make some suggestions that would in his opinion likely make the firm more successful and profitable. They reduce the most important of these suggestions to writing (i.e. a contract) and agree that they will be enacted as part of the business plan until/if he & Bob agree to change the plan and/or Chris cashes out. With that 30%, Bob follows these suggestions and hires some people (i.e. jobs), pays his bills, makes some repairs, is a positive presence in the community, increases advertising etc. The next two plus years prove to be very profitable. Chris decides to cash out his 30% for a nice profit in early 1994.
<
p>
Three years after Chris cashes out (i.e. 1997), Bob lays off some workers, cuts some corners, and runs into some trouble with the law as it pertains to the enterprise.
<
p>
Question: Does Chris deserve some – certainly not all, only some – of the credit for the jobs created from 1991 to early 1994.
Answer: Yes
<
p>
Question: Is Chris at all responsible (legally, ethically, morally) for the problems encountered and created by Bob in 1997 (i.e. three years after Chris departure physically and financially)? Answer: No
<
p>
Now I recognize that this is an over-simplification, but let’s look at the “real world” examples sited in today’s Herald. In most cases and in lieu of proof, Chris Gabrieli was no longer involved with the companies when their problems were encountered/created as he had moved on – similar to the example outlined above.
<
p>
So let’s ask some questions.
<
p>
1) Was Gabrieli still an active investor when the companies in question did what is sited in the article? If no, then end of story. If yes, what did he do about it and when did he do it?
<
p>
2) Was Gabrieli in a position of control where the actions sited were the result of his decisions, recommendations, and/or maneuvers made by Chris and his team? If answer is no, then end of story.
<
p>
I hope that this helps. I’ll try to check in occasionally over the weekend to answer any replies or questions. Best, SSG
A company needs money. It goes to the Gabbers. The Gabbers has a choice of giving the company any combination of money, support and expertise. If there are no strings attached to the money, Gabs is just giving money and doing nothing to create jobs or anything else. Or, if he is giving advice and support, he’s either part of a business solution or a business problem (even if problems appear after he takes the money and runs). Repeat: Sloppy investing results in Enrons and Ameriquests.
read my posts again lolorb as I already explained how “both ways” are feasible and appear to be the case here based upon the facts in evidence.
And it doesn’t explain anything.
<
p>
Making money is not the sole indicator of success. Creating a company that doesn’t fall apart after you’ve made your nice profits should be the vision (you know, so that jobs stay there). All that is possible when investing. Gabbers, at the front end of investments, has the ability to put controls in place. If there is a history of that NOT being done, I would like to know why not. It’s a valid question. It speaks to his abilities to handle something as problematic as the Big Dig.
<
p>
Venture capital is an insiders game with all sorts of potential. Take Neil Bush for example. He is selling his venture cap funded software to the Florida school system article here and a good one here. Nothing like having a brothers. All sorts of things are possible — good or bad — in the venture cap business. I think all of us need more information on Gab’s history and approach. And, I would be asking the same questions even if Deval Patrick didn’t exist.
We should expect that the controls Deval Patrick put in place in the Civil Rights Division in Washington DC during the Clinton Administraion are still in effect, otherwise Deval’s a failure?
<
p>
That is absurd, just as your argument about Gabrieli is absurd. The bottom line is that Chris Gabrieli has had more successes than failures.
<
p>
<
p>
At the end of the day, the main problem is Chris Gabrieli is not trying to be something he isn’t. Chris Gabrieli isn’t going around acting like a Saint, when he isn’t one. That is the real issue here. When you act as yourself, instead of someone you aren’t, there are fewer “inconsistancys and internal conflicts.”
<
p>
“And that, my dear Brutus,” is the source of the questions about Deval. The talk of “environmental justice” and the problems at Texaco don’t ad up. A question, incidentally Deval flubed at the MIT Kresge debate and has yet to fully respond to publically. The talk of “workplace justice” and the questions around the Coca Cola bottling plant union activist deaths don’t ad up. I could go on, but I’ll surely be accusted of re-cycling the questions that have been asked and answered.
<
p>
Shouldn’t we all aspire to leaving a legacy of something that works? Isn’t that even more important in government, since you’re quoting Teddy Roosevelt of all people?
<
p>
The way I see it, Deval has been the “on call guy” who goes in after the failures to fix the things that weren’t set up well to begin with. If his methodologies are in question, I don’t see why Gabber’s methodologies for investements should be given a pass. Fair is fair. You question Deval and I’ll question Gabbers. Hope the media catches on to the whole concept.
<
p>
Thanks so much for reminding us of the Killer Coke brigade (debunked and being used by a candidate doing bidness as usual), the DP legacy in the Civil Rights Division (which, to my knowledge is excellent) and all the other red herrings being used in the “bidness as usual” campaign.
<
p>
I’ll agree with you one thing, Chris Gabrieli is not going around trying to be something he’s not. He’s going around being the wealthy, insider, self-financing, egotistical politico that he is.
Anything good, take all the credit in the world.
Anything bad, it’s not Gab’s fault. He only gave them the money to do their evil deeds. His charter school company opens for business in Worcester, and he takes credit for the jobs and after-school programs created at the charter. He has no responsibility for the fiscal damage the charter did to Worcester, and the after-school programs that were eliminated due to the ensuing budget shortfall.
<
p>
Sounds like a true believer.
<
p>
I still want to know, how can Gabrieli make so much money out of corporations where the small investors are so outraged that they file claims of fraud?