Sign In Join 



Can Chrysler Turn It Around in Bankruptcy?

464 messages,  Last post on Oct 02, 2009 at 2:05 PM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires

What is this discussion about? Chrysler


Messages Page 40 of 47
1
...
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
...
47
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#388 of 464
Re: BK [dtownfb] by steve_ HOST
Jun 09, 2009 (9:59 am)
Reply

Replying to: dtownfb (Jun 09, 2009 9:38 am)

It may depend on the fund too. Some funds offer their retirees a conservative plan, a middle of the road plan and an aggressive option. So there may be a calculated risk taken with some of the money to try to generate extra income.
 
I think the next round of suits you see will be against Moodys and the other rating services. Follow the money.
#389 of 464
Re: BK [steve_] by bpizzuti
Jun 09, 2009 (10:07 am)
Reply

Replying to: steve_ (Jun 09, 2009 9:59 am)

They were a bit late in downgrading GM and Chrysler, weren't they?
 
The unfortunate thing is that while we're all discussing bondholders, liquidation, debt seniority, and credit ratings, there's a whole bunch of people going out of work, and my teammate at work can't get any love on the Chrysler Care contract he paid for when he bought his car (ball joint went while he was doing 50...SKREEEEE!!!).
#390 of 464
Re: BK [bpizzuti] by kernick
Jun 09, 2009 (11:09 am)
Reply

Replying to: bpizzuti (Jun 09, 2009 10:07 am)

They were a bit late in downgrading GM and Chrysler, weren't they?
 
As I discovered a few months ago, the rating services such as Moody's are PAID by the company they are rating! Moody's is not paid by the government or charity. So there might be a conflict of interest there. Follow the money.
#391 of 464
Re: BK [kernick] by bpizzuti
Jun 09, 2009 (11:11 am)
Reply

Replying to: kernick (Jun 09, 2009 11:09 am)

As I discovered a few months ago, the rating services such as Moody's are PAID by the company they are rating! Moody's is not paid by the government or charity. So there might be a conflict of interest there.
 
Ummm...might, yeah. Kinda like auditors being paid by the firms they audit. Wasn't there some big news about that in recent years?
#392 of 464
Re: BK [berri] by kernick
Jun 09, 2009 (11:18 am)
Reply

Replying to: berri (Jun 09, 2009 8:42 am)

However, going for the current bondholders may likely really mean Chapter 7 liquidation rather than Chapter 11 reorganization (look at the balance sheets!) and a large hit to jobs and the US economy.
 
The temporary job losses is not a large enough hit to make that much difference. We have been losing 600,000/month for months and we may be recovering. The fact is, is that if Chrysler goes under, the demand for new autos will change little. people who would have bought a vehicle will still buy a vehicle of some other brand. There will still be the SAME number of autos sold. other manufacturers would gain and may add jobs or not layoff further. So I don't buy this major loss of jobs argument.
 
If Dell goes out of business next week, the economy does not end. HP and Gateway and such will benefit, and the same number of computers will be sold. Chrysler going out of business may be exactly what Ford and GM need to become profitable.
 
I do not want the government to change the rules of the game such that the race-car gets $500 everytime it passes "GO" and doesn't have to pay Boardwalk if it lands there.
#393 of 464
Re: BK [kernick] by steve_ HOST
Jun 09, 2009 (12:09 pm)
Reply

Replying to: kernick (Jun 09, 2009 11:18 am)

If Dell goes out of business next week, the economy does not end.
 
It sure would hammer consumer confidence if nothing else. When people think the economy is getting worse, they stop spending. And fewer cars (or laptops) will be sold.
 
There's more at risk to letting Chrysler and GM fold than simply job numbers.
#394 of 464
Re: BK [kernick] by berri
Jun 09, 2009 (12:42 pm)
Reply

Replying to: kernick (Jun 09, 2009 11:18 am)

But it hammers jobs concentrated in a regional area compounding its affect. Dell mostly assembles overseas so it doesn't really entail those many American jobs. The "greater good" concept has been in law long before this. I'm not condoning the precedent on secured debt, but it really doersn't affect those many people in the big picture of all this, and as others have pointed out, some debtholders didn't do very good due dillegence on their investments. They went for the rate instead of total return and risk.
#395 of 464
Re: BK [steve_] by explorerx4
Jun 09, 2009 (2:31 pm)
Reply

Replying to: steve_ (Jun 09, 2009 12:09 pm)

at some point, the economy is going to turn back up.
this is about cushioning the blow, and giving these companies a chance to survive, when it does.
#396 of 464
Strike One.. by bpizzuti
Jun 09, 2009 (4:31 pm)
Reply
..in Indiana Gamblers vs The United States of Chrysler. The Supreme Cort issued an opinion stating something like "Why are you bothering us with this?" and unblocked the Chrysler/Fiat deal
 
Viva La Alfa Romeo.
#397 of 464
Re: BK [explorerx4] by andres3
Jun 09, 2009 (4:44 pm)
Reply

Replying to: explorerx4 (Jun 09, 2009 2:31 pm)

Chrysler wasn't surviving during boom times, so why should the blow be cushioned during down times?
 
They were dying, not surviving during boom times. They just went from being a terminally ill patient with excellent medical care to having terminal stage 5 lung cancer with no medical care. The death was inevitable, it was only rushed by the economy.
 
Keeping them on life support waiting for the next BOOM time will only lead to a death during that boom time.

Messages Page 40 of 47
1
...
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
...
47
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement