Dave_In_Norfolk Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203753704577255111983285798.html The U.S. auto industry, led by Chrysler Group LLC, steamed ahead last month at the fastest pace in four years, suggesting the U.S. economy is continuing to gain momentum. February sales of new cars and light trucks rose an annual 15.1 million pace, the fastest rate since the same month in 2008 and surpassing even the most optimistic expectations. Obama magic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 http://online.wsj.co...1983285798.html Obama magic! I know. My wife owns a few cadillacs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 http://online.wsj.co...1983285798.html Obama magic! Would this not have happened through reorganization? You do realize that bankruptcy does not mean out of business right?? Many companies come out of bankruptcy leaner and stronger. But no, Obama had to do it his way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203753704577255111983285798.html Obama magic! Yeah, the Chrysler investors are making out like bandits... ...oh, wait. No they're not. They got !@#$ed over by the White House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted March 2, 2012 Author Share Posted March 2, 2012 Yeah, the Chrysler investors are making out like bandits... ...oh, wait. No they're not. They got !@#$ed over by the White House. Too bad for them. Send them a free bag of chit as a consolation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Would this not have happened through reorganization? You do realize that bankruptcy does not mean out of business right?? Yes, but bankruptcy would immediately negate the union contracts. And let's face it, having union contracts negated is no way to win Michigan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Yes, but bankruptcy would immediately negate the union contracts. And let's face it, having union contracts negated is no way to win Michigan. Sums it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Yeah, the Chrysler investors are making out like bandits... ...oh, wait. No they're not. They got !@#$ed over by the White House. They ran their company into the ground. Why shouldn't they get !@#$ed over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 They ran their company into the ground. Why shouldn't they get !@#$ed over? The investors ran the company into the ground ? ? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 They ran their company into the ground. Why shouldn't they get !@#$ed over? This reminds me of when you said you were happy that my Uncle Eugene had died. Why do you have to be such a jerk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 They ran their company into the ground. Why shouldn't they get !@#$ed over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 They ran their company into the ground. Why shouldn't they get !@#$ed over? Bondholders got less than unions. Bondholders don't make decisions for the company. Union workers work and fight for such things as wages and benefits. It could be argued that union wages, benefits and work rules helped to cause their problems. So when you have that down pat you'll get your next lesson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 They ran their company into the ground. Why shouldn't they get !@#$ed over? Please explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Bondholders got less than unions. Bondholders don't make decisions for the company. Union workers work and fight for such things as wages and benefits. It could be argued that union wages, benefits and work rules helped to cause their problems. So when you have that down pat you'll get your next lesson. But if the bondholders sleep in late, they don't make decisions by 9am that make a profit by close of business... Er...or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Please explain. He's filling in for DIN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Too bad for them. Send them a free bag of chit as a consolation I actually respect that coming from you. From anyone else, it's ass-puckeringly stupid. For you, it's a step up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) They ran their company into the ground. Why shouldn't they get !@#$ed over? Ummm, could you be any more ignorant? It wasn't the bondholders that drove the "company into the ground" diphit! It was management I'm going to give you a little advice, if you don't know what you are talking about, then just shut the !@#$ up! Edited March 2, 2012 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Ummm, could you be any more ignorant? It wasn't the bondholders that drove the "company into the ground" diphit! It was management I'm going to give you a little advice, if you don't know what you are talking about, then just shut the !@#$ up! Like it matters? Who really cares what anybody thinks. You either fall on one side or the other... I don't care who gets screwed as long as its not the hourly worker for once. Big boo hoo. Suck it up. It doesn't really matter what you think... Or what I think. IMO, the righteous prevailed obvioulsy to your dislike. So what, he (Obama) pandered to his base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I know. My wife owns a few cadillacs. Your wife is old enough to get a driver's license? *ducks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Your wife is old enough to get a driver's license? *ducks OUCH! Old meazza jokes are hard to die! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 So what, he (Obama) pandered to his base. Calling what Obama did with GM "pandering to his base" is like calling Solyndra just "a well-informed investment that just didn't work out." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Calling what Obama did with GM "pandering to his base" is like calling Solyndra just "a well-informed investment that just didn't work out." I'd quote Magox here... But that is copyright infringement. Who cares what you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Let me reword what I said a little bit. In fact let me move the goal posts. In the end they put their money into a company that was being mismanaged and run into the ground. In the end, they decide where they put their money and are responsible for the results. If I invest in a company and it gets run into the ground I generally wouldn't even have a bag of chits for consolation. Their decision. They have to live with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Let me reword what I said a little bit. In fact let me move the goal posts. In the end they put their money into a company that was being mismanaged and run into the ground. In the end, they decide where they put their money and are responsible for the results. If I invest in a company and it gets run into the ground I generally wouldn't even have a bag of chits for consolation. Their decision. They have to live with it. They would of gotten a better deal than what they received through managed bankruptcy. I remember this, I was following it very closely, what Obama did was bully them Chicago style. They basically told them what that they had to comply or feel the full wrath of the bully pulpit. But since the average (*^*&%^$^#doesn't know the good that bond investors do (Which is invest in schools, roads, businesses, allows companies to expand etc) they were just gonna lump them in with the rest of Wall Street. ANd the only thing more unpopular than government was wallstreet. Only a partisan putz or noninformed person believes that GM and Chrysler couldn't of restructured through a managed bankruptcy. But all the Obama koolaid drinkers believe "OBAMA SAVED GM!" Meanwhile, people like myself who knows more than people like you about these things knows the true score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I'd quote Magox here... But that is copyright infringement. Who cares what you think. I'll tell you who doesn't care about what I think: people stupid enough to think using taxpayer dollars to bail out a union is simply "pandering to the base." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted March 2, 2012 Author Share Posted March 2, 2012 I actually respect that coming from you. From anyone else, it's ass-puckeringly stupid. For you, it's a step up. You respect everything that I post. But if saving all those jobs means a few people lose out, then oh well. I suspect Romney was taking your view, though. His first priority was probably not saving jobs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 They would of gotten a better deal then what they received through managed bankruptcy. I remember this, I was following it very closely, what Obama did was bully them Chicago style. They basically told them what that they had to comply or feel the full wrath of the bully pulpit. But since the average (*^*&%^$^#doesn't know the good that bond investors do (Which is invest in schools, roads, businesses, allows companies to expand etc) they were just gonna lump them in with the rest of Wall Street. ANd the only thing more unpopular than government was wallstreet. Only a partisan putz or noninformed person believes that GM and Chrysler couldn't of restructured through a managed bankruptcy. But all the Obama koolaid drinkers believe "OBAMA SAVED GM!" Meanwhile, people like myself who knows more than people like you about these things knows the true score. They may have gotten a better deal in a managed bankruptcy but the fact still remains: They invested in a company that was mismanaged and run into the ground if any of us did that we would have SOL. Same rule applies to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted March 2, 2012 Author Share Posted March 2, 2012 They would of gotten a better deal then what they received through managed bankruptcy. I remember this, I was following it very closely, what Obama did was bully them Chicago style. They basically told them what that they had to comply or feel the full wrath of the bully pulpit. But since the average (*^*&%^$^#doesn't know the good that bond investors do (Which is invest in schools, roads, businesses, allows companies to expand etc) they were just gonna lump them in with the rest of Wall Street. ANd the only thing more unpopular than government was wallstreet. Only a partisan putz or noninformed person believes that GM and Chrysler couldn't of restructured through a managed bankruptcy. But all the Obama koolaid drinkers believe "OBAMA SAVED GM!" Meanwhile, people like myself who knows more than people like you about these things knows the true score. You actually think you are not partisan? Wow. Anyway: F ree-marketeers that we are, The Economist agreed with Mr Romney at the time. But we later apologised for that position. "Had the government not stepped in, GM might have restructured under normal bankruptcy procedures, without putting public money at risk", we said. But "given the panic that gripped private purse-strings...it is more likely that GM would have been liquidated, sending a cascade of destruction through the supply chain on which its rivals, too, depended." Even Ford, which avoided bankruptcy, feared the industry would collapse if GM went down. At the time that seemed like a real possibility. The credit markets were bone-dry, making the privately financed bankruptcy that Mr Romney favoured improbable. He conveniently ignores this bit of history in claiming to have been right all along. http://www.economist...industry?page=5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 They may have gotten a better deal in a managed bankruptcy but the fact still remains: They invested in a company that was mismanaged and run into the ground if any of us did that we would have SOL. Same rule applies to them. The entire point of investing in bonds is the protection of being subordinate only to bank debt if there is ever a bankruptcy . Equity holders on the other hand are subordinate to everything and usually get wiped out in a bankruptcy so effectively they are SOL. Another important point. Usually bond investors come from mutual funds/etc and have clients that are effectively income centered i.e. pension funds, people close to retirement so effectively you are !@#$ing over not just some big bad bully on wall street but a lot of people who probably depend on that income for basic income. At the end of the day, anyone attached to the company is SOL so why do workers get a sweet deal (overpaid uncompromising workers at that) but other contract holders are the ones who are SOL? Your wife is old enough to get a driver's license? *ducks Yes she's doing quite fine if you ask me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 They may have gotten a better deal in a managed bankruptcy but the fact still remains: They invested in a company that was mismanaged and run into the ground if any of us did that we would have SOL. Same rule applies to them. And the fact still remains that they had the seniority of their interest arbitrarily voided by executive fiat. They didn't just lose an investment, they had their interest in the company taken from them with no legal basis for the action or due process. Why is that so hard for people to understand? No one's even arguing that the bailout wasn't necessary (like anyone who wasn't a partisan halfwit thought putting the ENTIRE auto industry on the unemployment rolls was a good idea). It's the how...the White House literally took assets from one party and gave it to another, without due process. How can anyone possibly support that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 And the fact still remains that they had the seniority of their interest arbitrarily voided by executive fiat. They didn't just lose an investment, they had their interest in the company taken from them with no legal basis for the action or due process. Why is that so hard for people to understand? No one's even arguing that the bailout wasn't necessary (like anyone who wasn't a partisan halfwit thought putting the ENTIRE auto industry on the unemployment rolls was a good idea). It's the how...the White House literally took assets from one party and gave it to another, without due process. How can anyone possibly support that? Because it sounds good as Magox pointed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Because it sounds good as Magox pointed out. Silly Boy, the bondholders mismanaged the company. They deserved the King deciding their fate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Yes, but bankruptcy would immediately negate the union contracts. And let's face it, having union contracts negated is no way to win Michigan. Technically, the contracts aren't immediately negated in bankruptcy, but they are subject to termination if management wants to cancel them. Still, no one in their right mind thought that the unions would be dumped or that GM or Chrysler would shut down. No one in their right mind also thought that a President would eviscerate decades of bankruptcy laws by fiat either. But the simpletons still believe that he "saved" Detroit. Funny how Ford had a great quarter and is building decent cars, yet it wasn't bailed out by Obama. Imagine that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Technically, the contracts aren't immediately negated in bankruptcy, but they are subject to termination if management wants to cancel them. Still, no one in their right mind thought that the unions would be dumped or that GM or Chrysler would shut down. No one in their right mind also thought that a President would eviscerate decades of bankruptcy laws by fiat either. But the simpletons still believe that he "saved" Detroit. Funny how Ford had a great quarter and is building decent cars, yet it wasn't bailed out by Obama. Imagine that. Well, Ford wasn't run by stupid bondholders, that's why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 But the simpletons still believe that he "saved" Detroit. Funny how Ford had a great quarter and is building decent cars, yet it wasn't bailed out by Obama. Imagine that. Silly, they were "touched" by "Obama magic" by extension. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Well, Ford wasn't run by stupid bondholders, that's why. No, they were run by smart bondholders, that woke up early and made good decisions every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 You respect everything that I post. But if saving all those jobs means a few people lose out, then oh well. I suspect Romney was taking your view, though. His first priority was probably not saving jobs How were all those jobs saved? What would have happened to those jobs hand we not bailed out GM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 60 Billion bailout with only about 6.5 billion being a actual loan they have to pay back. Damn right they should be doing better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 GM was carrying a $43 billion debt burden, with nearly $3 billion per year in interest costs. If bondholders swapped stakes for common stock (equity) which pays no interest, GM's debt and interest burden would be substantially reduced. However, bondholders of both Chrysler and GM rejected the debt swap offers, complaining of unequal treatment compared to the UAW, citing that their outstanding debt was more than double that of the UAW's health care trust. The UAW had been offered 50% and 40% stakes in the new Chrysler and GM, respectively, while the bondholders would have received 33 cents on the U.S. dollar for Chrysler and 10% of the new GM (an analyst stated that the GM offer would be projected to recover 24 cents on the dollar). With the approval of the Treasury, the offer for bondholders was later amended to include warrants for a further 15% stake. Bondholders complained of US government interference that bypassed the higher precedence of debtholder claims to favour the UAW, due to the UAW's political contributions to President Barack Obama. One lawyer for the Chrysler bondholders stated that auto task force head Steve Rattner had ignored negotiation requests from the bondholders committee, while Rattner also threatened to destroy one of the bondholder's reputation for holding out. One GM bondholder described this as the socialist state intervention typical of Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, saying "This is the kind of stuff you'd expect from a banana republic. Not from the United States." Obama publicly accused Chrysler bondholders of being speculators, after they rejected the last offer which caused Chrysler to file for bankruptcy, with some of them receiving death threats after a bankruptcy judge refused to protect their anonymity. The hedge funds stated that their clients included pension funds and university endowments. Around $7 billion USD of GM bonds are held by "Mom and Pop-type investors", with one lawyer describing it as autoworker retirees versus retirees. Not surprisingly, any recapitalization (typically through bankruptcy) would all but wipe out the value of existing common stock shares, which had already declined significantly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 But that's okay...laws only apply to people we like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts