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?
3964 messages, Last post on Dec 30, 2009 at 2:57 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: bpizzuti (May 06, 2009 6:29 pm) 
|
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (May 06, 2009 5:49 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 6:25 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 6:32 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 6:41 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 6:36 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (May 06, 2009 6:25 pm) You're mixing up two different situations. The shareholders of the current GM and Chrysler are last in line they get nothing. The shareholders of the new GM or Chrysler will have ownership of a much more vibrant, leaner and presumably agressive and profitable company. At some time in the future when this is proven and the markets restabilize somebody is going to want to buy these money machines. Then the UAW VEBA and the Feds sell off their ownership stakes and exit with cash in hand. When they talk about everybody taking a haircut this is one of the cuts that the UAW has to take. It has to take some risk in making the new entities strong, vibrant and profitable. 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. This paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. It's childishness. You have 4 sentences that say nothing and the last the dumbest. What the hell are you talking about? What I wrote in relation to the PBGC is that one of the major benefits of saving GM and Chrysler is that the retirees are not dumped on the PBGC. That's it. What has that got to do with healthcare, legality and of all thing constitutionality. Logic please not emotionalism. You've must have Faux News, Rush and Savage mainlined into your arm everyday. Please don't tell me you get any of your views from any of those sources. They're all clowns and entertainers. |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (May 06, 2009 6:25 pm) Here's another false idea held by those not doing any research. The small group of hedgefunds are NOT investors that pensions are allowed to invest 401k or pensions in. In fact GM and Chrysler bonds being rated 'junk' are prohibitted from being part of any pension portfolio. What these hedgefunds do is invest small amounts of money for the uber-wealthy that want to gamble and don't have the time to go to Las Vegas. They take positions with a small part of the clients' portfolios in certain ultra-risky situations in order to hope to gain a shortterm windfall....then they get out. Just like playing craps. THIS is the group you feel sorry for? Get real. Research.... |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (May 06, 2009 6:33 pm) When the judge WSJ article rules then we'll have a valid legal opinion that carries some weight. Until then you, me and all the rest of your sources are only exercising our right of free speech and filling the air with gas. |
|
|
One broke company buying another? Bankers and investors cause 5 million Americans to lose jobs buying and selling derivatives. Now there is a plan to save some of the D3 jobs that are still left and they don't want to play. The UAW has always thought they owned and controlled GM. Now they will have 39% of it. They finally will be getting pay tied to performance. That surely makes them angry. America is the land of safety nets. Now bondholders have to be named who didn't agree to deal. Wonder if they were The Foreign owned banks that sucked up $35 Billion in TARP money? |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Do You Favor A Government Loan To The Detroit 3?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
