David M. Rubenstein
Co-Founder and Co-CEO
The Carlyle Group
District of Columbia
Class Year: 2007 {Horatio Alger Assoc. class? I DNK…}

---

David Rubenstein, an only child, was born in 1949 in Baltimore, Maryland. His father was a file clerk with the U. S. Postal Service. When Rubenstein was six, his mother began working in a dress shop. The family lived in a row house in the northwest section of Baltimore, a predominantly Jewish neighborhood. “When I was young, Baltimore was a religiously segregated city,” says Rubenstein. “The Jews were in the northwest part of town and it was very much a ghetto situation. I was 13 before I realized everyone in the world was not Jewish. Up to that point, everyone I knew was Jewish.”From an early age, Rubenstein worked hard in school. He held summer jobs that included working as a camp counselor, selling magazine subscriptions door to door, and working in the post office. He had a sense that if he worked hard, he would get ahead in life.

Academically, his diligence began to pay off when he skipped a grade in middle school. He entered high school at the age of 14 and graduated when he was only 16. He felt a need to prove himself with older students and so his drive to work hard continued. He wanted to go to college and knew the only way to make that happen would be to earn a scholarship.

As a boy, Rubenstein was inspired by John F. Kennedy. He developed a keen interest in government and politics and knew that was what he would pursue when he was older. His parents gave him their loving support in whatever he wanted to study. “We were a very close family and I wanted to make them proud,” he says. “My mother sort of wanted me to be a dentist. She thought that was the height of professional achievement.”

Another influence on young Rubenstein was a boy’s club in Baltimore called the Lancers. Organized by a local judge, the Lancers brought together young men from all over the city for athletic competition, lectures from prominent leaders, and lessons on citizenship. “I think the Lancers inspired me to think outside of the provincial world in which I was living,” says Rubenstein.

Further growth took place when he entered high school. He attended City College, the third oldest high school in the United States and the sixth largest. Students came from all segments of the city and Rubenstein began to see the world as a much more complex place with myriad opportunities for those who were willing to work hard. “There were 1,500 students in my class,” he says, “which was a lot of competition, but I was a serious student and did well academically.”

(I suggest read the rest…)

He got early into the Carter White House (a heady experience at his age for sure), then Carter was out, and so was he. But what I like, between 1981 and 1987, he realized he wasn’t cut out for being a primarily a lawyer. That’s good self-knowledge, especially for someone who’s primary life plan had become to BE a lawyer, in government…

In 1981, Rubenstein became a partner of a large Washington law firm, Shaw, Pittman Potts & Trowbridge. Within six years, he became a partner[[**I’m sure he worked, and I’m sure the Carter Connection didn’t hurt in getting him the job to start with]], but he soon realized he did not have a passion for law and began to look for other opportunities.

[[You have to know what you are, and are not, passionate about. Especially anyone that driven!]]

In 1987, Rubenstein and three other partners raised $5 million to start a private investment firm that does venture capital and buyouts. From the beginning, they focused on government-oriented companies, believing their Washington base would enable them to better understand those companies.

{{yeah, that’s PART of the story; more below. A few elements missing — but there you have it. Four men raised $5 million to start a private investment firm specializing in certain things.. I remember (below) from other articles, he was known for his “Rollodex,” which made him valuable to one of those partners. ….}}

Today, 20 years later, The Carlyle Group has grown into one of the world’s largest private equity firms and has been a recognized leader in institutionalizing and globalizing the private equity industry. The firm manages more than $55 billion. Operating from 26 offices worldwide, it controls companies with more than $70 billion in annual revenues, employing more than 300,000 individuals.

MORE RECENTLY:

FEBRUARY, 2013…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-26/carlyle-s-rubenstein-sees-much-more-buyout-money-this-year-1-.html

Rubenstein, 63, was deputy assistant for domestic policy to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981, before co-founding Carlyle in 1987 with Conway and Daniel D’Aniello. Carlyle, with $170 billion under management, is the second-biggest U.S. private-equity firm.

MARCH, 2013 (In the Financial Times): “Lunch with the FT: David Rubenstein”

“The co-founder of the Carlyle Group is worth an estimated $3bn. Over lobster bisque, he talks about his plans to give away the bulk of his fortune”
…
Rubenstein, 63, has all the trappings of a billionaire; house in Colorado, house on Nantucket, $65m Gulfstream private jet, account at the Four Seasons restaurant in New York, favoured watering hole of the city’s private equity tycoons. But in other ways he stands out from the crowd. His scientific approach to fundraising transformed industry thinking and, while Carlyle wasn’t the first private equity firm to go public, it was Rubenstein, eight years ago, who was the first to muse about the benefits of doing so. He was also quick to embrace publicly the 2010 Bill Gates-Warren Buffett “Giving Pledge” that called on the US’s wealthiest to give away the bulk of their fortunes – “although I am a small fish compared to them”, he hastens to point out.

,br />
Rubenstein remains one of the most articulate defenders of private equity around. “People used to think that private equity was basically just a compensation scheme but it is much more about making companies more efficient,” he says rapidly, adding: “I talk much more quickly than you can ever write.” He pauses briefly as I scribble furiously. “It is about aligning management and owners and bringing value to shareholders. Our focus on making companies more valuable has benefited the whole US economy.”
. . .
Since 1987, Carlyle’s private equity funds have invested $87bn in equity and have earned 30 per cent a year over that period. Rubenstein has, he admits, always been a workaholic…

[<a href=”“>It’s a very good article. Why not read it? It’s an interview with the person who kickstarted the 2nd largest private equity firm in the United States. Perhaps something might be learned, in addition to all the rumor and intrigue…

One of the largest ones [Private Equity firms] around (I learned recently) came into existence because of a gol-danged tax loophole, in the late 1980s, surrounding cash settlement to Eskimos (i.e., Native Americans) in exchange for “expropriating” their lands — i.e., running them out of the place and taking over. A short but sweet explanation is found HERE:

Medium Length: The Great Eskimo Tax Scam (but do read it for the concepts)

The Very Short Version (Democratic Underground.com/July 7 2004) which is why I just put it up here.

GNN: What is the Carlyle Group and how did it start?

Briody: The Carlyle Group gets its name from the Carlyle Hotel in New York City. The founders believed that the name Carlyle portrayed some kind of blue blood, silk stocking air of an old-school kind of investment house and so the Carlyle Group was born from the Carlyle Hotel in New York.

The Carlyle Group actually started through a tax loophole – something called the Great Eskimo Tax Scam, {{more under “Medium Length” link, above}} that’s what the company calls it today. The Tax Scam was essentially that Eskimo owned companies in Alaska were allowed to sell their losses to profitable companies in exchange for cash. The profitable companies would buy these losses then write them off their taxes and give a fraction of those losses to the Eskimo-owned companies who obviously needed cash. So a guy named Stephen Norris was a tax accountant essentially at Marriott Corporation, looking to exploit this tax loophole for Marriott and in so doing, he needed to find someone who could hook him up with Eskimos – Native Americans in Alaska, and he was able to find a guy by the name of David Rubinstein who was an aide in the Carter administration and who was renowned for his bulky rolodex.

If you needed to find someone or know someone, David Rubinstein was the guy to go to. So Stephen Norris and David Rubinstein hooked up and worked a deal for Marriott and Stephen Norris realized that this was a serious money making opportunity and that he was going to go into working this tax loophole full time, which he did, along with David Rubinstein, and they probably put close to a billion dollars through this tax loophole and took a 1% cut on all the transactions and were able to make a nice little cottage industry out of this tax loophole. The two of them used to meet often at the Carlyle Hotel here in New York and when they decided to incorporate, Norris wanted the company to have a sort of silk stocking air to it. He wanted to have a very blue blood feel to their private equity firm and since they met at the Carlyle Hotel a lot, he decided that should be the new name of the company and then the Carlyle Group was born…

TIMELINE of The Carlyle Group (READ!), from “The Iron Triangle” (book on it by D. Grady), per Michael Moore… (George Bush, Frank Carlucci (CIA), Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and a Saudi prince or two….) This shows a private group whose first millions was made exploiting (legally, but still exploiting) a tax loophole!

They brokered the sell-off of $10 million of loss as $7 million, and took fees in the process. Profiting from the writeoff of losses: get it? The writeoff was a political move, as the Governor of Alaska was faced with these companies who were losing money big-time (in a sense they were set up) as oil and timber went downhill.

Caryle — or at least D. Rubenstein, Now, per PEU (A blog on “Private Equity Underwiter” January 2012:

1/24/2012 (there’s a photo).

WaPo followed Fareed Zakaria’s GPS in fawning over Carlyle Group co-founder David Rubenstein.  The piece highlighted Rubenstein’s upbringing, with his father a postal worker.  Mr. Rubenstein cited education as the key to his economic fortune.***  Surely, other students graduated from Duke and got a law degree at the University of Chicago.  How many are multi-billionaires?  It it’s not 100%, Rubenstein’s theory is in need of modification.***

Mr. Rubenstein’s initial killing came from selling Alaskan Native American tax losses. This venture became known as the Great Eskimo Tax Scam.

“Look, I know capitalism has its problems; it’s not always fair,” Rubenstein said. “I helped to start a company with virtually no money, and now I have more than I ever anticipated.”

Carlyle exploited, even help create structures advantageous to private equity.  One of those is tax structures, domestic and offshore.  The Carlyle Group’s IPO filing shows the firm to be a virtual nonprofit, much like a charitable hospital.  There’s nothing charitable about private equity underwriters (PEU’s).

That said, here’s to you Mr. Rubenstein, the nation turns its lonely eyes to you…

*** Rubenstein was absolutely a hard worker (no one questions that), smart, and he was well-positioned (working under Carter white house). Yes associations count — but he was an attorney and he understood at least what a tax writeoff and loophole was, and took advantage of them. LEGALLY… He also clearly knows what private equity is, and that fees are made when anyone does business.

Forbes Profile of David Rubenstein. CHECK IT OUT…

And, for another point of view, know that the LACERA (that’s the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association) had (at time of article) $95 million invested in Carlyle. Yes, when a government (or other) employee puts into a retirement fund (from their earnings, etc.) they are putting it into a platform with fund managers, who INVEST it somewhere for the purpose of making a ROI (Return on Investment). A GOOD return on Investment. So, LACERA was investing in Carlyle, who was majority shareholder in a company contracting with the Pentagon.

How Bush Got Bounced from Carlyle Board by Susan Mazur [[I have no idea who ‘Susan Mazur’ is…and this is undated… YOu have the link]]

[David Rubenstein, co-founder and Managing Director of The Carlyle Group, the “world’s largest private equity firm,” recently recounted his first meeting the current president and Bush’s days on the Carlyle board in a speech to the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association. LACERA has invested $95 million in Carlyle, now the 11th largest defense contractor in America as majority shareholder in United Defense. For ethical reasons, many in the association would like to see LACERA funds pulled and invested elsewhere.

In the speech Rubenstein also touched on company ethics – under intense scrutiny since 9/11 – including widely reported stories about Carlyle operating as a shadow government. He assured investors that “making money is nice” but Carlyle is “first and foremost” concerned with ethics.]

DAVID RUBENSTEIN – We have an enormous amount of our own personal capital – about 90% of our net worth is tied up in these funds. My partners and I and all the other professionals have committed $700 million to our various funds throughout the world so we’ve got a lot of money committed to this and it’s important to get it back. But it’s more important that we not do anything that impairs the reputation of ourselves or our investors. So making money is nice but we’re more worried about our reputation and concerned with ethics and that’s first and foremost.

Another reason I’m including all The Carlyle Group quotes on this page. Recently found on the Board of THIS organization:

Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute (CACI). See for yourself!

The Carlyle Group representative on CACI is “Elmer Doty.” He just joined Carlyle, or at least became head of its Aerospace and Defense Unit last April. He used to work in Vought Aircraft, and before that United Defense (majority shareholder, I heard, was Carlyle), which gets defense contracts from the Pentagon. The sudden concern about kids in foster care, orphans, and the poor comes from — his background in mechanical engineering and nuclear engineering, plus running large firms? Or does the international aspect of adoptions hold special attraction for some of the officials on the board, from the D.C. location??

The blog “PEU” (Private Equity Underwriters) sees Doty as helping Vought/Carlyle stiff Texas taxpayers for $35 million (cash loan obtained in 2004) in exchange for promised jobs. The jobs didn’t come and Gov. Perry paid them $1 million each for actually eliminating 35 positions??)

Point being, there’s always another side to the story. Stiff the taxpayers (make millions, or billions) create orphans, help said orphans get adopted — simply “does not compute.”

[{I should just setup a page — or post — on this one group…}}

The Big Guns
With Board members like these, who needs lobbyists?
Uncovering the Bush connection to US defence giant the Carlyle Group
by Tim Shorrock
New Internationalist magazine, July 2002

---

Unbeatable contactsCarlyle’s extraordinary investment strategy is what sets it apart. It focuses on industries, such as defence and telecommunications, where government spending, regulations and policies play critical roles in defining the market.

But unlike its competitors in the military-industrial complex or investment banking, Carlyle doesn’t lobby Congress or the White House to pet projects or push for legislation that would help its interests. It doesn’t need to. Instead, it has hired a stable of former statesmen and senior officials, including former President George Bush, former Secretary of State James Baker III and former British Prime Minister John Major, to exploit their experience in government and diplomacy to open doors and gather intelligence on investment opportunities. (para.) Through their unbeatable high-level connections, Carlyle has direct lines to government leaders in Asia, the Middle East and Europe . . .
. . .
‘We’ve never in the history of the republic had a former US president working for arms manufacturers,’ says Charles Lewis, the executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington- based research group that investigates the influence of money s. and politics. ‘What is most offensive to me is that we have a former president of the United States with a substantial pension from US taxpayers, and we cannot find out what he is doing for the eleventh largest defence contractor.’

,br />
Since 1987 Carlyle has invested $6.4 billion in 233 transactions, with a rate of return of 36 per cent on its completed investments. It invests on behalf of 435 pension funds, banks and investment funds,**** 40 per cent of which are based overseas. During a recent (and rare) public briefing on its investment strategies, one of Carlyle’s senior managers disclosed that the Group has $7 billion in cash ready invest. That’s not chump change: $7 billion is the minimum amount the world community should invest every year to fight AlDS and HIV, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said last year.

***People who are contributing to pension funds, and not overseeing what they are doing — the pensions funds are making a good return off their Carlyle investments, which in turn is making some of ITs returns off tax loopholes (to start with), leveraged buyouts and PRIVATE EQUITY. So we have public employees who work on behalf of this government at one end — and put into their own pension funds (ALL of us, virtually, contribute into that system), which is among the largest investment platform around — collectively speaking. It’s a vehicle we have signed over to government control in a “take it on faith” manner, while we go to work (FULL-TIME) at our jobs. However, the money — and the better rate of returns — are made in an entirely different manner by people who SET policy at the top level.

A person who has a good cash flow in this manner — or in the less common (traditional) manner (and there’s no question that Rubenstein is a hard worker — however, the connections to the retiring CIA and Defense Industry individual sure didn’t hurt….) have the savvy to continue doing more of it. You and I, if we are struggling with the aftereffects of war (like shell-shock, or 2nd/3rd generation children raised by veterans in shellshock, or orphaned by war, etc.) — are not in a similar position UNLESS we start acting, or at least organizing, more creatively, resourcefully and in a different manner.

And start thinking like businessmen and women, not just employees and students. Rubenstein’s parents didn’t graduate from college! They came from Russia, and tried to persuade him to become a dentist. Instead, he became a lawyer (University of Chicago) and went into government. How’d he know to do that?

BINARY, vs. SINGULAR, VIEW OF ANY SITUATION

Keeping in mind that the computer world (last I heard) is information organized, minutely, around binary (a yes/no, or 101010101100 etc.) situation — this also reflects, larger, finances. Too often we (credulously) believe that because a few kinds of language may be in common among a social grouping, those using the same language are indeed “on the same page” regarding the issues being talked about.

For example, both of you speak “domestic violence” but one of you is an ongoing victim — and another one is on the board of funded nonprofit with travel expenses (written off) who presents at conferences on the matter (also writeoffs) and/or is not a parent. Does not have a child at imminent risk, or currently being molested or in some way abused. Are you “dear friends” all on the same page? Corporately — no. You either work (or more likely, don’t, depending on stage of the custody battle; if so, do not work up to capacity). Moreover, when going to a rally or a conference with the same individual (or organization) — who frames the conversation,who dominates the platform, and who controls the audio/visual product of the conference? Who runs the websites that report on it? Etc.

So, what about the issues NOT being talked about?

What about things that, like the air, or the ground, or the day to day activities we do — that we don’t think about in other terms than how to do them? In other words, how’s the understanding (the vocabulary) going with regard to the big picture versus the small: the national versus the local (let alone international), and how AWARE are we of the most important influences on our entire lives, as defined by the country we live in?

One of the most important of these things is COMMERCE. And in the United States, it’s highly regulated. Lives are dominated by where they fit on the tax spectrum, and on whether what they live on, is adequate or not — and more than we like to admit relates to what work niche we are in IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE TAX CODE.

So, in a sale — there is a buyer and a seller, and a medium of exchange, plus something exchanged. When that medium is just plain old “money” (not that money, $$, is exactly a stable unit — it’s always in relationship to something else) — it comes from one place and goes to another when there is any exchange.

So, what about power — and what about accumulated assets? It’s not the static situation (other than repeated snapshots) one needs to look at, but the direction of flow.

In the area of “reforming” the courts or obtaining justice, etc. — people are wishing to talk about “My bad Judge” or in vague large terms about “noncustodial parents” or “women” or “fathers” or “children.”

The more relevant information is status of INCORPORATION and relationships between CORPORATIONS.

Generally Speaking:
For every (trans)action there is an equal and opposite (trans)reaction.
For every TYPE of corporation, there is an opposite TYPE of corporation:

Generally Speaking:
They are either taxed or not taxed.
They are either reporting, or not reporting, all their income (i.e., honest or dishonest).
Their ownership (investors) are either known or unknown, etc.

From U.S.C. TITLE 42 “The Public Health and Welfare” (just scan the Chapters and their names to get a scope and range of FUNDED activities):

• Chapter 7 — Social Security”
• 42 USC Chapter 7, Subchapter IV – GRANTS TO STATES FOR AID AND SERVICES TO NEEDY FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN AND FOR CHILD-WELFARE SERVICES

Commonly called “Title IV” or “Welfare.” In fact, it’s federal grants to states for — as it says, AID and SERVICES TO NEEDY FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN. Does it say “to needy individuals?”

Underneath that, it’s just, A,B,C,D,and finally E:

USCPrelim is a preliminary release and may be subject to further revision before it is released again as a final version.
Current through Pub. L. 112-238. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
{{Point in case — these are public laws. The CODE is the organization of those public laws by content..It’s the public laws, and not the code, that has the clout.]]

Part A—Block Grants to States for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (§§ 601–619) (“TANF”)
Part B—Child and Family Services (§§ 620–629m)
Part C—Work Incentive Program for Recipients of Aid Under State Plan Approved Under Part A (§§ 630_to_632–633_to_645)
Part D—Child Support and Establishment of Paternity (§§ 651–669b)
Part E—Federal Payments for Foster Care and Adoption Assistance (§§ 670–679c)
Part F—Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program (§ 681_to_687)
LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.

(LII is “Legal Information Institute”).

This is the playing field since ca. 1934 (and the federal income tax, as we know, from earlier). Inbetween 1933 and 1934 by Presidential decree as my mental “Cliffnotes” has it, there was a GOLD GRAB by the US Treasury, and after that a sudden increase in the price of gold AFTER US Citizens were informed that the dollar — and not gold — was legal tender in this country for payment of debt, etc., etc. In short, the CORPORATION was handling its bankruptcy (not the first), which often follows WAR.

Over and above that, the U.S.C. itself, CHAPTER 1 – RULES OF CONSTRUCTION: right up front, defines its own terms (Rules of Construction) down to defining such things as Person, Human being, Individual, Infant, or Child (in quite some detail) AND marriage, and Company or Association. Pretty interesting, it gets down to terms like homo sapiens, and consideration of how that breathing, or pulsating umbilical cord member of human species is expelled (i.e., birth) or extracted (i.e., abortion, Caesarian section), etc. from the mother. The word mother, and birth are not involved… Or, father…

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development….

It sets its own context. This has absolutely nothing to do with relationships, mother/father, brother, sister– at this point. ALSO please not it says “shall include” but not “and is limited to.”

If we are speaking one language, loudly, and these Acts of Congress, ruling, regulation, or interprettion(s) of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States [[that is the context} and we, are using the same words with different meanings, and they are not “hearing” us — it’s oprobably because the language is context-sensitive.

And in any interchange, it’s those Acts, and administrative bureaus and agencies (and their counsel) that are more likely to be aware of the language gap, and simply not mention it in the dialogue). If we are not informed or aware of what the other language mean, that’s our problem… and possibly our loss.

Backing up from section 8 (that was section 8, section 7 is marriage), perhaps I should’ve started with “1.” Here’s “1.”

AND WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THIS!

1 USC § 1 – Words denoting number, gender, and so forth

(excerpt)

the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

“officer” includes any person authorized by law to perform the duties of the office;

So, if that’s USC Title 1 Section 1, how come more of us are not better informed on what corporations, companies, associationes (etc.) and JOINT STOCK companies are? If they are all “persons” ??

That’s where the corporate registration seems to come in.

Moreover, Chapter 15 USC is “Commerce and Trade.” Ought we not to understand some things about it, other than to go to work and come back, collect a check, and hope that the job is there tomorrow, or next month? WHy not learn the language and the contexts? It affects ALL we do….

At least the concepts of Securities, Trusts, and that while there’s a SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) to regulate SOME types of (trade), there’s whole (and very large) categories that are NOT under this type of regulation — like the US Government itself.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-2A
(more bedtime reading….)

USCPrelim is a preliminary release and may be subject to further revision before it is released again as a final version.

Current through Pub. L. 112-238. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
SUBCHAPTER I—DOMESTIC SECURITIES (§§ 77a–77aa)
SUBCHAPTER II—FOREIGN SECURITIES (§§ 77bb–77mm)
SUBCHAPTER III—TRUST INDENTURES (§§ 77aaa–77bbbb)

As of June 26, 2013, I’m moving this to a separate page. (or, post, TB). It’s called “How I came to Value and Do Corporation Lookups” you can search the title.

I realize this is an abrupt end to post (that just got split), but hopefully it’s food for thought. Securities — Securities Exchange Commission, Social Security Act — all related.

Actually, if you go read the Wikipedia on “Ponzi Scheme,” it turns out that Ponzi, being very creative (if not a very good steward of his profits, or company) — had actually named his outfit, if I remember it right, the “Security Exchange Company” or something similar. It was pre-1933 and makes me wonder where SOMEONE may have gotten the idea from !

He took advantage of currency differences between one country and another. Our country also does this, with it’s acquired HUGE wealth — while ruling that we, as American (US Citizens) could only use dollars for “legal tender” for debts. Interesting to consider…