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 live in Michigan and I know a lot of people who lost money on GM stock, myself included. I don't, however, know a single one of them who is resentful like you are about the UAW receiving stock in lieu of the money owed to the VEBA heath care trust.
I dont care that you dont know a single individual who doesnt understand the bankruptcy process. That sounds like your problem, not mine. btw, I didnt lose money on the GM stock, despite the fact that I was insuring tens of millions of shares of it. Sounds like I know what was taking place better than most, in fact I was on the phone with Karl Icahn several times a week during the bankruptcy process. I know EXACTLY what was taking place..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayland Woman
That stock represents only a faction of the original debt owed, by the way.
Meaningless as well. Their stock should have represented ZERO.. Again, thats the bankruptcy process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayland Woman
They're just glad the company was saved and it went through the shortest bankruptcy on record which is something the Republicans would not have been willing to do.
Um, the shortness of the bankruptcy period was because they were giving people things they didnt have to give them. Ohh, and your bs about Republicans not being willing to do it, thats bull crap, it was Bushs TARP money that gave the government the preferential treatment for warrants and stocks that allowed Obama to buy his way into the company and give the unions assets they werent entitled to. If I had MY way, they would have filed bankruptcy as well, just a year earlier.. but as you noted, bankruptcy does NOT mean going out of business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayland Woman
And without government help, it wouldn't have happened with a normal bankruptcy. The entire auto industry in the U.S.A. would have been destroyed including the foriegn owned companies.
Thats bull crap.. The only thing the government allowed the company to do was to put in a CEO that was willing to give the unions preferential treatment while tying the company up with additional debt they wouldnt have had otherwise..
You dont seem to understand what happened very well, despite your claims that you do..
Normally, the company would have filed bankrutpcy, shed the union contracts, came out of bankruptcy stronger, being able to re-issue new common stock, with ALL of the money going to GM to use for expansion and to secure the stability of the company.
What did happen, was the company received a loan, went bankrupt, ketp the union contracts, came out of bankruptcy owning only 82.5% of the company, and rather than GM being able to use all of the money from a stock sale to secure the stability of the company, this money is now going to the government...
While GM comes out better then they were in either scenario, they would have been MUCH BETTER OFF under the NORMAL bankruptcy process..
The only thing I want to know is why you want GM to be less financially stable under this plan, then the normal process? What did you gain from it? Who do you know in the union?
pghquest: You ought to read the book, 'Overhaul: An Insider's Account of the Obama Administration's Emergency Resuce of the the Auto Industry.' Maybe then you'd have a better idea of why a normal bankruptcy wouldn't have worked, what really went on behind the scenes, and why many of the things you've said in the above post is just plain wrong and/or naive.
pghquest: You ought to read the book, 'Overhaul: An Insider's Account of the Obama Administration's Emergency Resuce of the the Auto Industry.' Maybe then you'd have a better idea of why a normal bankruptcy wouldn't have worked, what really went on behind the scenes, and why many of the things you've said in the above post is just plain wrong and/or naive.
That would be Steven Rattner, who owned started a hedge fund in 2006, and lost 25% of his investors capital in 2008? The very same Rattner friends remove their money from his hedge fund so they can manage their own capital because they held no confidence in him? The very same Rattner who moved on to advise the president on how to deal with debt of the auto industry, ignoring the conflict of interest that the investors that held debt in his company, also happened to hold the debt of Chrysler? Would this also be the same Rattner that raised money for the Obama administration by the millions, who then again, despite his conflict of interest in owning a very large amount of debt in Chrysler, somehow became the "car czar", when then suddenly 6 month later resigned, after it was discovered that he was paying millions to get state pension funds, which forced his own company to seperate from him due to state and federal investigations? What a coincidence that must have been to now find out that he has written a book to toute the wonderful accomplishments of his, I mean Obama.. Shocking I tell you.. I bet his book is so full of honesty and openness that I'll have to read it right after I read the Obama memoirs, I'm sure the'll be just as honest about the issue as well..
No, that would be this Steven Rattner: Steven Rattner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and it must be nice to be clairvoyant enough to be able to review a book you've never read. That parlor trick must serve you very well playing the stock market.
By the way, it's pretty silly to criticize the man for "suddenly six month later resigning" his 'car czar' job. He was hired to guide and oversee the auto industry to and through the bankruptcy. His job was finished/over/complete/done at the six month point.
Last edited by Wayland Woman; 05-22-2011 at 06:59 PM..
it was bailing out a failed company...which is the wrong thing to do........you dont save a failure.. you support sucess
lehman brother failed..they closed
but goldmand, gm, and chrysler.."oh, too big to fail"
sorry charley..they were failed companies..they should have gone to bankrupsey WITHOUT a bailout from the taxpayers...
gee...gm shuts down pontiac and hummer and saturn..and you act like it great..but OMG shutdown gm..that's bad
they could have easily broken up into the smaller companies that they USED TO BE:...you do understand that chevy, buick, REOlds,pontiac, cadi..all were SINGULAR companies at on time
and what would have been the big problem if they did fail..they would jon the ranks of nash, studebegar, edsel, desoto, amc, hudsun, etc
bush was wrong and obamy was wrong..you dont bailout a FAILED COMPANY..let them close, be broken up..some upstart wil step in...but to bailout/prop-up a failed company for what..to say we saved a company that wil go bankrupt again...hjow many times does this government(ie the taxpayer) have to bailout chrysler..this is like the third time
a failure is a failure...
btw..the only reason 'gm' is turning anything close to a profit....fuzzy accounting,,and GOVERNMENT LEASES of the vehicles
When Big Business rakes in huge profits, they don't share the windfall with the U.S. taxpayer. In good times and bad, BB benefits from massive tax breaks. BBs serve as a way to consolldate wealth in the hands of the very upper elite, and nowadays--with the collusion of our government--keep their workers from even being able to live comfortably and retire with even minimal financial security.
At a minimum, Big Business (and CEO Robber-Barons) should be bearing their "fair share" of the enormous tax burden. And also at a minimum, if taxpayers are forced to bail out Big Business, then said businesses should be paying the taxpayer a significant amount every year for being their financial insurance provider. If another Big Business provided this insurance service, then you can be sure they would charge a very high annual fee. It's typical that taxpayers have to pay through the nose for everything they get, but don't get compensated at all for the use of their money by business interests.
it was bailing out a failed company...which is the wrong thing to do........you dont save a failure.. you support sucess
lehman brother failed..they closed
but goldmand, gm, and chrysler.."oh, too big to fail"
sorry charley..they were failed companies..they should have gone to bankrupsey WITHOUT a bailout from the taxpayers...
gee...gm shuts down pontiac and hummer and saturn..and you act like it great..but OMG shutdown gm..that's bad
they could have easily broken up into the smaller companies that they USED TO BE:...you do understand that chevy, buick, REOlds,pontiac, cadi..all were SINGULAR companies at on time
and what would have been the big problem if they did fail..they would jon the ranks of nash, studebegar, edsel, desoto, amc, hudsun, etc
bush was wrong and obamy was wrong..you dont bailout a FAILED COMPANY..let them close, be broken up..some upstart wil step in...but to bailout/prop-up a failed company for what..to say we saved a company that wil go bankrupt again...hjow many times does this government(ie the taxpayer) have to bailout chrysler..this is like the third time
a failure is a failure...
btw..the only reason 'gm' is turning anything close to a profit....fuzzy accounting,,and GOVERNMENT LEASES of the vehicles
You're repeating yourself....word for word. This is a copy and paste of your post #64 in this thread. Nothing new to say?
No, that would be this Steven Rattner: Steven Rattner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and it must be nice to be clairvoyant enough to be able to review a book you've never read. That parlor trick must serve you very well playing the stock market.
By the way, it's pretty silly to criticize the man for "suddenly six month later resigning" his 'car czar' job. He was hired to guide and oversee auto industry to and through the bankruptcy. His job was finished/over/complete/done at the six month point.
You're wrong on that. The 39% of GM stock was the starting point for negotiations but the UAW ended up with the bankruptcy court only giving them 17.5% of common stock. (I don't follow Chrysler but I believe you're way off on that as well.)
EXACTLY! The union was owed less than bondholders, who only got 10% of the stock. A dollar owed to the UAW VEBA was given eight times the weight of a dollar owed to bondholders--even though under the law, the bondholder claim should have ranked equally with the UAW VEBA claim. The VEBA got way more than it should have, from dirty politics.
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.
