Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Does the Rauner ICE hit fall flat?

Posted in:

Illinois

Gov. Bruce Rauner this year reported turning a profit from a health care group that services U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention centers, including facilities that hold immigrant families with children. […]

Rauner’s financial disclosure does not specify the level of profit from Correct Care, except to say he earned more than $5,000 from GTCR’s Fund X, which owns the company. GTCR, Rauner’s former private-equity firm, raised $3.25 billion in capital for its Fund X and used that money to acquire companies, including Correctional Healthcare in 2012, which later became Correct Care Solutions through a merger.

In 2017, Moody’s reported Correct Care held $1.2 billion in revenue and listed GTCR as among the company’s top co-investors. [Emphasis added.]

* Fund X is a $3.25 billion fund and it’s quite broad-based…

GTCR Fund X, L.P. specializes in buyouts and corporate finance. The fund seeks to invest across healthcare, banking, financial services, financial technology, business services, information technology, software, data, and services. The fund also seeks bolt-on acquisitions. It targets investing in North America. GTCR Fund X, L.P. comprises of GTCR Fund X, L.P. and parallel funds GTCR fund X/A LP and GTCR fund X/B LP.

And while Fund X may be a “top investor,” to claim that it “owns the company” may be an exaggeration.

* Also from yesterday…

In his "blind-trust commitments", Rauner promised he would donate "any proceeds from investment interests that I may hold that have any contract with the State of Illinois"

Has he donated his profits from Correct Care? Are there other investments like this? pic.twitter.com/eXwdU2Hqju

— Illinois Working Together (@IllinoisWorking) July 9, 2018

* From Rauner press secretary Patty Schuh…

GTCR still owns the investment so there are no profits or losses yet. If and when there are profits, the Governor will abide by his agreement and donate any profits to charity.

In other words, while Rauner has “turned a profit” off of the massive Fund X, he says he hasn’t yet made any money off of Correct Care. If that’s accurate, a retraction may be in order.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:03 am

Comments

The mere fact I was MIA yesterday but out with civilians and none yesterday or today even brought this up while bringing up toilets, taxes, costumes… in conversations about news of the day…

I’d say a big fail to make this an issue… so far.

Now, it’s merits to honesty…

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:10 am
So he hasn’t “turned a profit.” Fine. Investing in private prison healthcare still makes his fund a bottom-feeder in my opinion.

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:10 am
my question in these kinds of things is always, can you make an ad out of it — and it needs to be sufficiently contrasting enough so that you don’t take an equivalent hit — is the message simple enough?

the other question is, do you have better stuff to go w?

Comment by bored now Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:10 am
Does Fund X get dividends? I bet an accountant can figure out how much in dividends came from what fund. It wouldn’t be counted as profit unless the dividends were swept into a personal account. if they are just re-invested, then no profit.

Comment by 360 Degree TurnAround Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:12 am
If you’re explaining, you’re ….

Comment by Soccermom Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:13 am
To put a finer point on my comment;

You go specific, it better be specific enough people can remember and know why they should be upset.

This is Rauner, blind trust, broken trust… in a malaise?

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:14 am
Soccermom, while you’re right, that doesn’t excuse the piece.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:14 am
==in conversations about news of the day==

Depends on the crowd you’re with. The folks I saw yesterday talked about it. But I would definitely say it hasn’t permeated like Quincy or the budget crisis.

Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:15 am
“In other words, while Rauner has “turned a profit” off of the massive Fund X, he says he hasn’t yet made any money off of Correct Care. If that’s accurate, a retraction may be in order.”

No, it’s not. That’s a semantic game they’re trying to play. When you’re a private equity investor and your investment does well, you write up the value of the investment on your books. So even though you may not have had a liquidity event (such as a company sale or follow-on round where you took some chips off the table), that doesn’t mean you haven’t realized some of the value of the investment.

Do we know how big a stake GTCR Fund X owns in the company? Is it a controlling stake? Again, just because they don’t own 100% doesn’t mean it’s not their company. It’s actually pretty rare for a PE firm to own 100% - usually there are coinvestors, legacy investors, employees and others who own share along side.

Comment by Chicago Cynic Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:16 am
===Depends on the crowd you’re with. The folks I saw yesterday talked about it. But I would definitely say it hasn’t permeated like Quincy or the budget crisis.===

This is where I see it as well, and hopefully my more pointed followup explains, as I agree.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:17 am
===that doesn’t mean you haven’t realized some of the value of the investment. ===

True. But Rauner has not yet personally received money from that increased value. So, to claim Rauner “reported turning a profit” from the company is not accurate. He reported a profit from Fund X.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:18 am
==You go specific, it better be specific enough people can remember and know why they should be upset.==

OK, yeah, I agree. There’s a simple message you can do here, but you’d need to do it and sustain it, and I’m not sure anyone will.

Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:20 am
===hasn’t permeated like Quincy or the budget crisis===

Well, yeah, because the budget crisis consumed almost 3 years and Quincy has been in the media for months. This just popped yesterday. And unless Pritzker uses it in his ads, I don’t expect it to continue considering the story’s possible inadequacies.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:21 am
==There’s a simple message you can do here, but you’d need to do it and sustain it, and I’m not sure anyone will.==

There’s also the fact that national politics will suck up all the oxygen for the next few days- a situation that had hurt Rauner more often than not the last few months.

Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:22 am
What?
Huh?

If you want to beat Rauner, you don’t using arguments that are only attractive to Pritzker supporters.

C’Mon people. Does anyone know how to even win over Rauner voters?

Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:22 am
===And unless Pritzker uses it in his ads, I don’t expect it to continue considering the story’s possible inadequacies.===

Yep.

It fell flat on what was propped up as “one thing”, but in reality, it could be something wholly different than portrayed, and further, that portrayed propping, it fell flat to a pop… more of a fizzle, if it’s only going to be a day or two point.

Not great.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:24 am
Wait a minute. You mean to tell me that IL Working Together *may* have jumped the gun? I refused to believe it. /s

Comment by Exclamation Point Deleted Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:26 am
So are we saying that the multi-billionaire is more concerned about ill-gotten profits, than the multi-millionaire?

With Pritzker as your choice, you can’t claim one rich guy is more ethical than the other rich guy because when you dig down, they’re more similar than different, and neither guy is like any of us.

Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:28 am
Wow he hasn’t turned a profit yet.. Is that suppose to change something?

Comment by Real Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:29 am
What’s to prevent Rauner from investing in a company, pumping it full of state contracts and then selling that investment the day after he isn’t Governor? It feels like there’s a giant, obvious loophole here.

Comment by The Captain Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:30 am
===Is that suppose to change something? ===

Yes, because if what Patty says is accurate the story claimed he reported turning a profit.

A news story has a higher bar than a campaign hit.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:32 am
I think the average voter will care nothing about if it turned profit or not. The fact is he is still invested in it.

Comment by Real Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:36 am
==Well, yeah, because the budget crisis consumed almost 3 years and Quincy has been in the media for months. This just popped yesterday.==

That is absolutely the reason why the two hits have different effects so far. But it underscores the fact that Rauner opponents have more work to do.

==I think the average voter will care nothing about if it turned profit or not. The fact is he is still invested in it.==

Yes- *if* someone works to keep the story in the news.

Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:42 am
Yet no one raised an eyebrow about Pritzker profiting off the destruction of the environment with the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:45 am
==the destruction of the environment with the Dakota Access Pipeline.==

Yeah.
It was so much better for our environment to fill tanker ships and railcars with crude oil because they never experienced any leaks during transport.

Blagojevich was a cook during the building of the Alaska Oil Pipeline and I think he told us that in building it, the entire state was flattened with atomic bomds and they wiped out all the wildlife./s

Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:55 am
Cmon people. Nothing to seee herre. The Guv’s investments are in a blind trust and his back porch meeting with Kip wasn’t about an investment but rather litigation about an investment.

Comment by Henry Francis Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:55 am
Fitzgerald: The rich are different from you and me.

Hemingway: Yes, they have more money.

Comment by don the legend Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:58 am
Sorry, but when both candidates are billion dollar madams, one side can’t claim virginity because the require payment up front.

Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:58 am
===Yet no one raised an eyebrow===

Another ignorant victim heard from.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 11:04 am
If only someone could tell us how that company is doing, like some sort of bookkeeper. Don’t you think if they were losing money he’d call it out like he was running an orphanage out of sheer generosity? Give me a break. He’s dodgin, that company is profitin. Rich people track their money - he knows their bottom line.

Comment by Sonny Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 11:09 am
==Yet no one raised an eyebrow about Pritzker profiting off the destruction of the environment with the Dakota Access Pipeline.==

I’m a member of the Sierra Club and all, but kids in cages is quite a bit more visceral than a pipeline.

Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 11:17 am
“And unless Pritzker uses it in his ads, I don’t expect it to continue considering the story’s possible inadequacies.”

To use this in ads would be a less-than-smart move by Team Pritzker.

When you choose oligarchs to represent you, there must be a reconciliation with the financial facts. The trusts, shell companies, silent partnerships, etc., are standard operating procedure.

Don’t poke the other guy unless your ready for the counter-punch.

Pritzker is smart enough to not engage and is probably trying to calm down @IllinoisWorking.

Comment by cdog Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 11:21 am
“With Pritzker as your choice, you can’t claim one rich guy is more ethical than the other rich guy because when you dig down, they’re more similar than different, and neither guy is like any of us.”

With respect, that’s like saying it doesn’t matter how one makes their money. If they’re rich, they’re inherently bad. That’s ridiculous.

It matters how you make your money. There are investors that get rich by being financial engineers that buy companies, strip pension funds and leave employees destitute. Or, in a more specific example, say an investor who buys nursing homes, strip out services and have patients neglected and some die from neglect.

Comment by Chicago Cynic Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 11:22 am
The facts are what they are. The story isn’t accurate. If you want to judge him on his investments, that’s a slippery slope… Um, JB like anyone Uber wealthy has many off shore investments and shells… It’s what the rich do to stay rich… Rauner doesn’t corner the market.. They all do..

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-met-jb-pritzker-bahama-offshore-shell-company-20180313-story.html

Comment by Benfolds5 Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 11:39 am
==If they’re rich, they’re inherently bad. That’s ridiculous.==

Nah, this is pretty much right. If you have over $20 million, you’re a bad person. I’m willing to negotiate what the right line is, but there is a certain amount of money that is irresponsible to have.

Comment by Chris Widger Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 11:40 am
Cynic… do you know all of the companies your 401K is invested in? I bet if you wanted to judge folks on their investments, including ourselves, you would be surprised. The slope is real slippery…

Comment by Benfolds5 Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 11:44 am
==that’s like saying it doesn’t matter how one makes their money. If they’re rich, they’re inherently bad. That’s ridiculous.==

I didn’t say that.
I said the two candidates are more alike on this issue than they are to any of us.

And that’s correct.

Few of us can have as much as either of these two have and hire financial people to work their wealth.

Neither candidate sits at a kitchen table and diddle into these things as though they’re choosing bdtween a burger or a burger with cheese.

Finally, no one is going to switch their vote from rich guy Rauner to even much, much, much richer Pritzker. If Rauner can get caught with this at a half billion in wealth, then Pritzker with 12 times the wealth, probably has something similar.

It’s a complete wash.

Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 11:45 am
“Finally, no one is going to switch their vote from rich guy Rauner to even much, much, much richer Pritzker.”

Care to put a wager on that proposition? I know a helluva lot of GOPers who voted for Rauner who are considering voting for Pritzker because of the utter fiasco that has been the Rauner Governorship. It’s not just about the wealth.

Comment by Chicago Cynic Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 11:50 am
===I know a helluva lot of GOPers who voted for Rauner who are considering voting for Pritzker===

Are they Democrats?

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 11:53 am
Benfold, that’s a ridiculous argument, starting with the fundamentally flawed comparison between a 401k and a PE fund.

More importantly, CC ain’t the Governor and he ain’t signing State contracts with companies in his 401k.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 11:53 am
the point is… you can be outraged by anything… look in the mirror first… he may have state contracts, but he has not made a profit. keep up.

Comment by Benfolds5 Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 11:55 am
I love how rich people are never responsible for their investments. “Ah, they all do it” is such a moral dodge. And pretty effective, it looks like.

Comment by Albany Park Patriot Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 12:31 pm
==“Finally, no one is going to switch their vote from rich guy Rauner to even much, much, much richer Pritzker.”==

My fault…didn’t finish sentence -

Finally, no one is going to switch their vote from rich guy Rauner to even much, much, much richer Pritzker over this.

Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 12:45 pm
Finally, no one is going to switch their vote from rich guy Rauner to even much, much, much richer Pritzker over this.

-I don’t think being rich is a fsctor in the decision. The fsctor would remain if they want Rauner or JB irregardless who is more rich. And another factor would be if someone agrees or is against this Rauner investment decision. I would bet in Illinois it would make more people vote against him than to change there vote to vote for him.

Comment by Real Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 1:01 pm
Albany.. do you know what your 401k is made of? not just rich people benefit from the investments. the tax dodges, yes. But all of us have 401ks that have companies I can GUARANTEE you may not be comfortable with. Look at them, then come back with the moral high ground. See how that goes both ways?

Comment by Benfolds5 Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 1:16 pm
If you don’t like what an investment is returning or how it is performing, there are ways to get out. There may be a penalty and you might lose money, but if you don’t agree with the ethical or moral results of that investment, then money may not be the most important factor in a decision to disinvest.

“If and when there are profits, the Governor will abide by his agreement and donate any profits to charity.”

This statement, to me, just reaffirms that Rauner’s credo is profits first then we’ll think about it.

Comment by Anon221 Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 1:55 pm
Benfolds5, that Tribune story was found to be untrue. It’s deceit was discussed here.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 2:02 pm
Benfold throws up more straw men than a 70s barn dance. The law prohibits the contracts, period, not just the ones that make money.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 2:03 pm
==Care to put a wager on that proposition? ==

It’s obviously highly possible that someone’s going to switch their vote from Rauner ‘14 to Pritzker ‘18. In fact, current polling indicates a great many people are currently planning to do so (things can change). But I think it’s fair to say that the number of people who will abandon Rauner *because of his wealth* aren’t going to end up with Pritzker.

Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 2:14 pm
This news was widely shared across women’s networks on FB yesterday, including by Women’s March Chicago, several Indivisible outlets and many more from there. I shared it with my own group and must’ve seen it 10 other times.

And the issue is INTENT.

Comment by Politix Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 2:40 pm
Anon221, please specify how a private equity limited partner can “get out” of a portfolio company investment worhout breaching his/her fiduciary duties to the other partners of the fund. I’m all ears.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 4:23 pm
Financial buffers give plausible deniability

Comment by Rabid Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 4:43 pm
Arthur Anderson- my point is Rauner chose to go down this road. He must believe these are good investments to be involved in. I’m sure there are ways to “get out”, and he may get sued or lose money in the process. You can have my ears if you want as a coup, if the argument is that important to you. I’m not going to buy Rauner as clueless or incapable in this instance. At some point it’s up to the individual what he or she wants to support in according to our own moral and ethical codes.

Comment by Anon221 Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 5:07 pm
LLC dba LP dba Inc. LLC dba…

Comment by Anon Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 7:46 pm
- please specify how a private equity limited partner can “get out” of a portfolio company investment worhout breaching his/her fiduciary duties to the other partners of the fund. I’m all ears. -

Yeah, Rauner would probably get put in a cage for that breach, like the kids. And I doubt he can afford a lawsuit.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 9:38 pm
Keep your ears, 221. Mine are fine.

You probably make the most important point here, but morality and ethics are also components of fiduciary responsibility. My point has been that this is a difficult asset class in which to invest, for a wealthy person, a foundation or a pension fund, without portfolio company selection issues coming up over time and any person or entity must recognize the options are few or none before signing on the dotted line.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 9:40 pm

Add a comment

Sorry, comments are closed at this time.

Previous Post: Could the Janus decision be applied to private sector unions?
Next Post: It’s just a bill

Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Does the Rauner ICE hit fall flat?

Comments

Add a comment

Last 10 posts: