Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05-11-2009, 08:25 PM   #21
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Bikerdude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zathras View Post
Actually, I believe they are included in the same ruling.
Again, get rid of that, I see no reason corporations (profit or non) should legally be able to 'lobby'. Call a spade a spade and just go back to good old bribery.
Hear! Hear!..I'll drink to that!
__________________

__________________
“I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I've said” Alan Greenspan
Bikerdude is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 05-11-2009, 09:52 PM   #22
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
I've got no problem with the bondholders taking a beating. 29 cents, zero cents, that's not the point. The highly objectionable part is the government using its power to put unsecured debt (UAW) ahead of secured debt (bondholders). They are using highly questionable means to do it.
1) Pressure on the banks that accepted TARP funds to go along with this usurpation of property rights. In an administration unbeholden to the UAW, the government would, if anything, be pushing these banks to NOT give up anything in these "negotiations." After all, in a logical world, the banks need to recover as much as possible from Chrysler so they can repay the government loans. But, that assumes the government wants them to repay the TARP loans. The government wants nothing of the sort--TARP facilitates the string-pulling we are seeing here, and the present administration thinks that's great.
2) Public vilification by the President of bondholders who are simply standing up for their rights. These bondholders should expect tax audits soon.

I don't understand why civil libertarians on the left aren't outraged by this. The government is not just another creditor throwing its influence around. It is a sovereign entity with the police power of the state and the ability to make/break corporations through regulatory actions. The government, we were told at the time , put money into these banks and manufacturers as a short-term fix to avoid a crisis, not as a means to control the activities of these companies. The POTUS's claims that he doesn't want to run banks or car companies are sounding a little hollow right now.

Note to bondholders: As we see now, it's much smarter to push for corporate bankruptcy rather than take government funds and lose your property rights and also bring the government down on you in a very personal way.
__________________

__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 01:06 AM   #23
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
Note to bondholders: As we see now, it's much smarter to push for corporate bankruptcy rather than take government funds and lose your property rights and also bring the government down on you in a very personal way.
Exactly the point. Many of us on the board predicted this outcome early on, but I can't remember anyone who foreshadowed the viciousness of method.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 01:23 AM   #24
gone traveling
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
Exactly the point. Many of us on the board predicted this outcome early on...
Say it ain't so, ha! All that posturing and prognosticating last fall? It was just a bunch of hot air.

Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
...but I can't remember anyone who foreshadowed the viciousness of method.
Hugo Chavez?
__________________
Westernskies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 08:24 AM   #25
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,666
What visciousness?
Did swat teams descend upon the hold outs?
Were the offices raided?
The government tried to broker a deal with the groups involved. The bond holders decided they were better off in court.
Pomp and circuses ensued and politicians on all sides made grandiose statements.
The whole issue has gone to court where it should have been in the first place.
So as it is now, the government is doing the right thing (it is in the correct branch of the gov.). Some in the government were not doing the right thing.
Hey!! Checks and balances worked!
__________________
"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
(Ancient Indian Proverb)"
Zathras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 09:38 AM   #26
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zathras View Post
What visciousness?
Did swat teams descend upon the hold outs?
Were the offices raided?
The exact nature and full extent of what the govt did or did not do may never be fully known. But from the fragmented reports from various places lead me to believe that a huge amount of "influence" was used. No.... no guns were drawn, but when a nation is on a rampage to "eat the rich bankers", then threatening to put you name out into the media, is just as deadly.

There is a much larger and more problematic issue for all of us here in this forum though. We all want to retire early. In general, this cannot happen without investments of one form or another. Ususally this involves at least some mix of stocks. The more the govt starts "pushing and pulling" the strings behind the scenes, the less relavent the numbers of that individual company matter. And the fewer "smart" investors will even touch it.

If the govt said that for the "public good" they needed to intervene at Apple because the price of an IPOD is too much, who in their right mind would invest in Apple any more. What happens at a company where individuals are no longer calling the shots, but the govt is? There is no way to predict or even offer an educated guess what the outcome will be.
__________________
armor99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 10:54 AM   #27
gone traveling
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,864
I hope the feds are prepared to financially back Chrysler (all the way to the scene of the inevitable crash...) because their sheer arrogance and the roughshod way they screwed treated the bondholders will ensure that private capital will be difficult if not impossible to come by under this administration.
__________________
Westernskies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 10:59 AM   #28
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westernskies View Post
I hope the feds are prepared to financially back Chrysler (all the way to the scene of the inevitable crash...) because their sheer arrogance and the roughshod way they screwed treated the bondholders will ensure that private capital will be difficult if not impossible to come by under this administration.
Also very interesting to contrast the treatment of the auto bondholders with bank bondholders, save a few like WM. Those guys must have been buying protection from the wrong gang.

Was this the change we wanted? Toke your buddies, screw all others? Including us, the hapless taxpayer?

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 02:34 PM   #29
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by armor99 View Post
...The exact nature and full extent of what the govt did or did not do may never be fully known. But from the fragmented reports from various places lead me to believe that a huge amount of "influence" was used. No.... no guns were drawn, but when a nation is on a rampage to "eat the rich bankers", then threatening to put you name out into the media, is just as deadly.
I missed that, where did the government do this? Or are you referring to the ruling by the judge?
And, is this information normally private?

Quote:
Originally Posted by armor99 View Post
There is a much larger and more problematic issue for all of us here in this forum though. We all want to retire early. In general, this cannot happen without investments of one form or another. Ususally this involves at least some mix of stocks. The more the govt starts "pushing and pulling" the strings behind the scenes, the less relavent the numbers of that individual company matter. And the fewer "smart" investors will even touch it.

If the govt said that for the "public good" they needed to intervene at Apple because the price of an IPOD is too much, who in their right mind would invest in Apple any more. What happens at a company where individuals are no longer calling the shots, but the govt is? There is no way to predict or even offer an educated guess what the outcome will be.
This is a very good point of discussion.
The issue I have with your Apple analogy is that the government was ASKED to step in. Heck, GM and Chrysler BEGGED them to step in.
Now, if the government took it upon itself to step in without being asked, yes, then I would agree that we have a problem.
Personally, I don't think the governement should have stepped in. But they did, made an offer which was refused, and now it is going to court as it should.

You can be worried about alternate histories and conspiracy theories if you like, but I will continue to invest based on reality. If our system of checks and balances starts to fall apart, I will be running for the hills with you. But this was an indication that our system works.
__________________
"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
(Ancient Indian Proverb)"
Zathras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 03:18 PM   #30
gone traveling
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zathras View Post
...But this was an indication that our system works.
...by subordinating the rights of secured creditors (bondholders) in favor of unsecured creditors (UAW)
__________________
Westernskies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 03:50 PM   #31
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,666
What rights of theirs have been subordinated?
__________________
"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
(Ancient Indian Proverb)"
Zathras is offline   Reply With Quote
almost 800 Chryslers told to shut down
Old 05-14-2009, 04:28 PM   #32
Full time employment: Posting here.
cardude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 599
almost 800 Chryslers told to shut down

I just read the list of Texas dealers who are being forced to shut down, and some of my old dealer buddies are on that list. Pretty sad. I saw where Chrysler is refusing to buy back new vehicle inventory and parts, and instead is making these rejected dealers negotiate with dealers still left standing to take the inventory. That's is going to be a nightmare for the rejected dealers as they have no strength to negotiate from, and most are already loaded with inventory so the ones left are not going to want to take any extra.

I can't believe these dealers are getting shafted so bad. At the very least they should be reimbursed for their inventory and parts. These dealers will be stuck with millions in inventory with no way to sell it since they are not dealers anymore, and they all owe money on this inventory and all the floorplan loans are personally guaranteed so this will spell financial death for these dealers. And for what? So an Itialian manufacturer can have a more "streamlined" network with nicer showrooms? Hell, the dealers paid all the expenses for this network and the manufacturer didn't pay squat. We paid all training, cost to carry inventory and parts, special tools costs, computer IT costs, cost to fund those stupid mailers, and we did our own advertising.

This is just wrong, wrong, wrong............

I got my inventory bought back since I terminated out of BK (barely made it), but I did get screwed on my parts return. Sent them the parts like it said in my dealer agreement and now they will not pay me...........

789 Chrysler Dealers to Close By June 9 - KickingTires
__________________
cardude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2009, 04:39 PM   #33
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 242
One of my relatives is one of the "good ones". They were told that it was mostly the single dealers (only, say, Jeep or Dodge), not the ones who sold all types, that would be cut, but I see a lot of dealers on that list that sold all kinds.
__________________
Sparky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2009, 04:46 PM   #34
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
73ss454's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: LaLa Land
Posts: 4,378
I'm a little bitter toward dealers as I was in the business for 35 years. My last gig lasted for 20 years and I got paid what I earned. If was a Ford dealer about 2 years ago. There were rumors around that the store was for sale but he denied it to our faces right to the end. He just wanted to keep everyone in place till the end came so it was nice and smooth for him. A friend of mine told me that he was renting our building and putting a Chrysler store where the Ford was now. My boss was selling the franchise to a L&M store and renting the building. Even after my boss was in contract with my friend he denied the store was for sale or that he was closing.

100 people lost their jobs and my boss was off into the sunset with his 80K a month in rent from Chrysler. I'm just hoping that Chrysler doesn't pay him and he gets screwed like he did to all the employees.
__________________

__________________
73ss454 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
American Idol Purron Other topics 335 07-19-2009 08:50 PM
The American Dream godoftrading Stock Picking and Market Strategy 3 07-24-2008 04:04 PM
American Idol Purron Other topics 25 01-17-2008 01:07 PM
Hi, from an American in Dubai billman Hi, I am... 5 10-06-2007 01:57 PM
American Funds dm FIRE and Money 20 05-02-2007 10:25 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:37 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.