Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Do You Favor A Government Loan To The Detroit 3?
3958 messages, Last post on Oct 02, 2009 at 4:52 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (May 06, 2009 4:58 pm) But the ongoing burden of the production costs of UAW workers who are still there and receiving reduced but still high salaries and benefits. How will those labor production costs and benefits be compared with Honda Marysville or Toyota Georgetown? I would like to see the UAW costs gone which could have happened with a full bankruptcy.
|
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (May 06, 2009 4:58 pm) PBGC only guarantees a portion of the pension for the retirees. Not the health care that is to be covered by VEBA. Again we are not playing by any legal precedence. This administration is shooting from the hip. Damn the constitution. How Big Banks Want to Game the Mortgage Mess - ERIC BRENNER and HAMISH HUME - … But in the rush to do something, Congress is showing a regrettable willingness to adopt constitutionally suspect legislation that runs roughshod over the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation. … The problem is that servicers also get a free pass to game the system. … The only thing protecting against this blatant conflict of interest is the contractual right of investors in first mortgages to sue servicers. … - Wall Street Journal Just because the big bond holders are already sucking on the TARP teat does not mean the little guys have to follow suit. If your 401K was part of the $200,000,000 being randomly discounted to satisfy the UAW, I am sure you would be screaming as loud as these bondholders and rightly so. I just do not understand this air of complacency to throw our rights under the Obama bus. Today the Chrysler bondholders tomorrow your car agency or my pension plan. Nothing is sacred in this administration. |
|
|
Replying to: ruking1 (May 06, 2009 5:13 pm) It's Big3...though now it's Big2, since one of them is in Bankruptcy right now. Who sent them there?  When it comes out it looks like it's going to be an Italian car company, which will be very interesting from several angles. One, we don't get enough Italian cars here. Two, can you imagine the UAW messing with Italians? They'll get an offer they can't refuse. Three, if you call Italian cars lousy, you might end up with an offer you can't refuse.  GM actually was showing glimmers of starting to figure out how to make cars. Have to see what happens when (notice I don't say "if") they end up in Ch11
|
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (May 06, 2009 5:17 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: bpizzuti (May 06, 2009 5:29 pm) 
|
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (May 06, 2009 4:49 pm) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aof- ficial&hs=2YB&q=chrysler+bond+holders+5th+amendment&btnG=Search
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (May 06, 2009 5:25 pm) They're not taking stock in (in this case) Chrysler. They're not stupid, come on. VEBA would be getting stock in the new Fiatsler or whatever they'll be calling it. "Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation" The bondholders are being offered a lot more than their bonds are realistically worth...which is zero. f your 401K was part of the $200,000,000 being randomly discounted to satisfy the UAW, I am sure you would be screaming as loud as these bondholders and rightly so. It was (just found out recently, one of my bond funds, ouch) and I'm not screaming. It's an investment decision, and all investments involve some sort of risk of losing the principal. You want no risk, stick your money in an FDIC-insured savings account. Otherwise, you have to be willing to accept the chance that the value of your investment will go down. Maybe even down to zero. The whole idea is so that taxpayer bailout funds don't go to cover losses in bond investments. That's why the stipulation regarding debt seniority. The whole point of the bailout funds is to rescue the company, not rescue bondholders from bad investment choices. |
|
|
Replying to: ruking1 (May 06, 2009 5:32 pm) Cue Godfather music Ruking, my friend....you have saida some things.....soma things that greatly disturba me....sucha things maka da family angry...
|
|
|
Replying to: bpizzuti (May 06, 2009 5:41 pm) And those that don't want to pay for it...fah get ta bout it !!! So is that really FIAT's plan? Take over a failing oem and then.... get more bail out money when the absolutely obvious happens down the road? |
|
|
Replying to: bpizzuti (May 06, 2009 5:36 pm) It is the fiduciary responsibility of the lender to do all in his power to protect the investment of those that put money in his care. If it means suing to protect those rights. That is what court is for. The bondholders have first rights by law. Just because the big banks got a huge chunk of cash they are less likely to worry about your bond fund in a portfolio. This is just more of the same old Wall Street corruption with the administration pulling the strings. I understand risk. We should still play by the laws of the land. Not some conjured up scheme to protect a few UAW voters. GM and Chrysler going away may be the best thing to happen in this country. It would prove no company or person is too big to fail.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Do You Favor A Government Loan To The Detroit 3?
