Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i dont make suppositions with news in the auto industry, i actually do my homework.
Next time you are doing your home work, look up the words supposition and conjecture.
Then compare those definitions against your phrases:
"chances are..."
"you would be surprised..."
"many businesses stay open..."
"both would quite likely have..."
Quote:
i knew they wouldnt because of their history, and because i saw what mulally was doing to get the company through the hard times.
I don't know who these folks were predicting the demise of Ford, but they weren't any analyst that I read.
As for your opinion that Ford's prospects were virtually guarantied because of Mulally, I might have been impressed if you had pointed the stark difference between Ford's financial health and that of GM. At the end of 2008, Ford had begun slashing its cost and held $24 billion in cash on hand, against a debt of $25.8 billion. Meanwhile GM's debt exceeded its assets not cash on hand but total assets by $58 billion!
Mulally deserves all the credit coming his way, but argue that he was the factor and not the starkly different financial positions that Ford was vs GM, then I don't know what is left to be said.
According to a Barron's article, the General Motors filing for a stock offering together with other analysis provides a glimpse of how the bailout really worked.
GM owed $27 billion to bondholders and $20 billion to the UAW benefits trust when it filed for bankruptcy. According to long-established law, these claims should have ranked equally. The shortage of about $17 billion should have been spread across the UAW's claims and the bondholders claims on a pro-rata basis.
In reality, the UAW will probably end up with ALL of its $20 billion back, while bondholders will end up with less than $10 billion. Who knew that in Obama's America, investors (including widows and retirees and other little guys) would end up paying $7 billion in tribute to the UAW?
Just ask the bond holders for Chrysler how unfair 0bama can be, they got crewed. Its all to pay off the unions, they broke these companies, and now they win. sort of like a squatter gets to own your house after destroying your property value.
we dont hate blue collar workers, what ever gave you that idea? we hate the unions because most of them are corrupt in their leadership.
But I hate unions because they are job-killers. Their stated aim is to gain compensation above what the job is worth. When they succeed, jobs are destroyed, prices for goods and services goes up, and total demand goes down. A small group of workers benefits at the expense of all other workers. Pro-union politicians are the champs at getting people to vote against their own self-interst.
Nearly all work is noble. Thank goodness for the people who make things, and fix things, and provide the services that make our lives better. I never hold union membership against any individual: they don't have a choice in the matter.
If the steps hadn't been taken, no one would have received anything except for the 3,000,000 people who would have received pink slips.
The bondholders are the owners of the company and because of their ownership share in the fortunes of the company whether profits or losses. The company owed the money to the UAW trust because they signed the promissory note, therefore the stockholders are liable for the debt.
No different than losing money from your 401k or having stock in any other company that tanks.
Kudos to our President for his profound leadership in securing the jobs of 3,000,000 Americans, and shame on the obstructionist politicians who tried to get in the way. We'll try to get rid of a few more obstacles in November.
EXACTLY! Even the "Economist" is praising President Obama for not letting GM go under!
How about Obama's cozy relationship with the banks and big insurance corporations, will you boycott these "favored" enterprises? I don't think so.
Obama doesn't have a cozy relationship with banks and big insurance companies. You must not have been listening when he regularly uses them for whipping boys while I've never heard him try to reign in the labor unions. My point though is that good american made cars are built at nonunion plants of Honda and Toyota, so there is no reason to support the Detroit unions.
Next time you are doing your home work, look up the words supposition and conjecture.
Then compare those definitions against your phrases:
"chances are..."
"you would be surprised..."
"many businesses stay open..."
"both would quite likely have..."
as i said i have studied the industry for many years, along with working for a business that went into chapter 7 liquidation, and we stayed open while in receivership while the court and the bank found a suitable buyer for the company.
Quote:
I don't know who these folks were predicting the demise of Ford, but they weren't any analyst that I read.
most of the ones i read were industry insiders, financial people, and others. most were quite worried that ford was making a big mistake when they leveraged everything, including all their trademarks, to secure financing.
Quote:
As for your opinion that Ford's prospects were virtually guarantied because of Mulally, I might have been impressed if you had pointed the stark difference between Ford's financial health and that of GM. At the end of 2008, Ford had begun slashing its cost and held $24 billion in cash on hand, against a debt of $25.8 billion. Meanwhile GM's debt exceeded its assets not cash on hand but total assets by $58 billion!
Mulally deserves all the credit coming his way, but argue that he was the factor and not the starkly different financial positions that Ford was vs GM, then I don't know what is left to be said.
the reason that ford was in a better position is because mulally saw what was going on, and worked to put for in that position 18 months before the meltdown hit. and yes ford had $24 billion cash on hand, BUT, that was all borrowed money at the time, and ford was still burning through cash during 2008.the difference was not the cash on hand, but the products in the pipeline that saved ford.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
