White House threats...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Creditors are deadbeats? Exactly what egregious sin have they committed, other than agreeing to float Chrysler a loan when Chrysler asked them for one?

---

Nobody forced them to make loans to a badly managed company with a shaky balance sheet and a bad business model. Chrysler was a poor risk.

Quote:

---

The creditors aren't asking to be made whole. They're asking to be treated fairly and they're not. Fiat gets 20% of the company without having to shell out one dollar of their own money. The UAW makes some concessions, but nothing near the 70% haircut the creditors are supposed to take, and they end up owning 55% of the company. The creditors put $7 billion of their own money in, yet despite having all the bankruptcy laws say that they come first they're supposed to just take 29 cents on the dollar and go away?

---

Better than nothing. If the creditors agreed to the deal that's on them.

Quote:

---

How about instead of trying to circumvent the bankruptcy laws Obama just butt out and let bankruptcy take it's course? Or if he feels compelled to do something, how about looking for a solution that actually stands a chance of working? Chrysler lost $8 billion dollars last year. I'm pretty sure the annual interest payments Chrysler owes the creditors on their $6.9B worth of bonds don't add up to anything close to $8B.

---

Are you sure it wasn't Chrysler that wanted to avoid bankruptcy? They got in bed with the USG. It's a little late to be complaining about the rough sex.

Was there a better way to do it? Probably. As I recall, GM and Chrysler threw imminent default in Obama's lap and begged him for the bailout.

Bottom line: the creditors and investors put their trust in a lemon. They should have seen this coming and insisted on receivership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Nobody forced them to make loans to a badly managed company with a shaky balance sheet and a bad business model. Chrysler was a poor risk.

Better than nothing. If the creditors agreed to the deal that's on them.

Are you sure it wasn't Chrysler that wanted to avoid bankruptcy? They got in bed with the USG. It's a little late to be complaining about the rough sex.

Was there a better way to do it? Probably. As I recall, GM and Chrysler threw imminent default in Obama's lap and begged him for the bailout.

Bottom line: the creditors and investors put their trust in a lemon. They should have seen this coming and insisted on receivership.

---

You're an idiot.

Obama Consumer Products:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...1/OCP_logo.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

You're an idiot.

---

All out of ammo? Too bad. You were just shooting blanks anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

You object to attaching strings to government money?

How generous of you, LockBeard.

---

Strings like Even though you can pay us back the money we loaned you, why don't you go ahead and hang on to it....no really...hang on to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TJ

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

All out of ammo? Too bad. You were just shooting blanks anyway.

---

No, I was just amused at your total misunderstanding of the situation.

What about the UAW? Why do they deserve to benefit? Why does their $2 billion dollar investment translate to a 55% share when the lenders $7 Billion get's them 10%? Where does that compute in your world?

If this goes through, the generally held -- no, legal -- prescription of secured lenders getting in line in front of unsecured lenders, at a bankruptcy will be out the window and then -- good fucking luck getting that next business loan.

That's why you're an idiot...not because I'm out of ammunition.

Quote:

---

If this goes through, the generally held -- no, legal -- prescription of secured lenders getting in line in front of unsecured lenders, at a bankruptcy will be out the window and then -- good fucking luck getting that next business loan.

---

You're describing a counterfactual situation. Chrysler elected bailout, not bankruptcy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Nobody forced them to make loans to a badly managed company with a shaky balance sheet and a bad business model. Chrysler was a poor risk.

---

They made those deals believing that the bankruptcy laws of the United States would be enforced. Bankruptcy laws which clearly give the secured creditors first dibs to the company's assets. Had they known that Obama would come along and try to circumvent those laws I suspect most wouldn't have invested.

Quote:

---

Better than nothing. If the creditors agreed to the deal that's on them.

---

Never would have figured you for one to tell people to just shut up and accept what the government gives you, irregardless of whether or not the law says you're entitled to more.

Quote:

---

Are you sure it wasn't Chrysler that wanted to avoid bankruptcy? They got in bed with the USG. It's a little late to be complaining about the rough sex.

---

I'm sure everyone wanted to avoid bankruptcy, but everyone knew it was inevitable. Obama, Chrysler and the UAW just got together and decided they would make the creditors the scapegoat. Obama, Chrysler leadership and UAW leadership could all then go back to their constituents and say "it's all their fault".

Quote:

---

Was there a better way to do it? Probably. As I recall, GM and Chrysler threw their default in Obama's lap and begged him for the bailout.

---

It started with Bush, who was more than willing to float them enough cash to tide them over until it would all be Obama's problem. No doubt, Obama didn't ask for this, but here we are. And now that we are here Obama seems less interested in finding a solution that will actually result in Chrysler and GM regaining profitability and more interested in whatever results in making him popular with voters.

Quote:

---

Bottom line: the creditors and investors put their trust in a lemon. They should have seen this coming and insisted on receivership.

---

Got to separate creditors from investors. Creditors deserve protection, investors deserve to go down with the ship. I'm glad you mentioned investors, because lest we forget Chrysler is owned by a hedge fund, and I sure don't see them having to pony up any cash here. They just get to toss the keys on the counter and say "not our problem anymore". Why is Obama making the American taxpayers bail out a hedge fund?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

You're describing a counterfactual situation. Chrysler elected bailout, not bankruptcy.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

---

Well, bailout didn't work and now it's bankruptcy...and, Obama is trying to change the laws to benefit political cronies.

A) It's wrong and, quite probably, unconstitutional; and,

B) It's fucking up the lending model for the future. Who's going to lend any business money if the government can circumvent established law and just redefine how a failing company's assets are distributed?

What really pisses me off about a corporation being "to big to fail," is that we will then, in the future, end up with something like OPC...

Detroit into Delta City anyone?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...1/OCP_logo.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

They made those deals believing that the bankruptcy laws of the United States would be enforced. Bankruptcy laws which clearly give the secured creditors first dibs to the company's assets. Had they known that Obama would come along and try to circumvent those laws I suspect most wouldn't have invested.

---

Bankrupcy was never declared. It was an option. It was a big mistake to pass on it.

Quote:

---

Never would have figured you for one to tell people to just shut up and accept what the government gives you, irregardless of whether or not the law says you're entitled to more.

---

That isn't quite what I said. Government help comes with strings, and the 800 lb gorilla sits on the other side of the table. That doesn't make the deal fair, but Chrysler made their own bed, and the creditors took the deal.

Quote:

---

I'm sure everyone wanted to avoid bankruptcy, but everyone knew it was inevitable. Obama, Chrysler and the UAW just got together and decided they would make the creditors the scapegoat. Obama, Chrysler leadership and UAW leadership could all then go back to their constituents and say "it's all their fault".

---

I have a hard time seeing how anybody comes out of this looking good. It's law of the jungle type stuff. The creditors got a raw deal, but it's at least arguable their own prudence was lacking.

Quote:

---

It started with Bush, who was more than willing to float them enough cash to tide them over until it would all be Obama's problem. No doubt, Obama didn't ask for this, but here we are. And now that we are here Obama seems less interested in finding a solution that will actually result in Chrysler and GM regaining profitability and more interested in whatever results in making him popular with voters.

---

I have no idea what would have returned a company with unsupportable legacy costs to profitability. Do you? Fuck the pensioners maybe? There would have been equity and breech of contract problems with that too.

Quote:

---

Got to separate creditors from investors. Creditors deserve protection, investors deserve to go down with the ship.

---

The creditors are obliged to protect themselves. They didn't insist on receivership while it was still an option. That would have done it. They missed the opportunity. Too bad for them.

Quote:

---

I'm glad you mentioned investors, because lest we forget Chrysler is owned by a hedge fund, and I sure don't see them having to pony up any cash here. They just get to toss the keys on the counter and say "not our problem anymore". Why is Obama making the American taxpayers bail out a hedge fund?

---

Good question. Maybe he needs their help with the doomed public-private scheme to resuscitate moribund MBS's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

I'd like for the bankruptcy laws to be applied as written.

---

The only thing stopping that from happening with Chrysler is....









....Chrysler.

Lauria allegations of threats corroborated

posted at 1:37 pm on May 5, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend | Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Business Insider reports that more than one Chrysler senior creditor has corroborated Thomas Lauria’s allegation that the Obama administration threatened them with public attacks if they didn’t surrender their contractual rights. One of their sources says that the Obama team comprises some of the worst “ends justify the means” people he’s ever encountered (via HA reader Geoff A):

Creditors to Chrysler describe negotiations with the company and the Obama administration as “a farce,” saying the administration was bent on forcing their hands using hardball tactics and threats.
Conversations with administration officials left them expecting that they would be politically targeted, two participants in the negotiations said. …
The sources, who represent creditors to Chrysler, say were taken aback by the hardball tactics that the Obama administration employed to cajole them into acquiescing to plans to restructure Chrysler. One person said described the administration as the most shocking “end justifies the means” group they have ever encountered. Another characterized Obama was “the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet- and I knew Kissinger.” Both were voters for Obama in the last election.
One participant in negotiations said that the administration’s tactic was to present what one described as a “madman theory of the presidency” in which the President is someone to be feared because he was willing to do anything to get his way. The person said this threat was taken very seriously by his firm.

Well, that’s certainly reassuring. The man at the helm during one of the biggest economic crises in decades is a madman who will act in an unpredictable and irrational manner if he doesn’t get his way. It sounds like they paint Obama as either a lunatic or a petulant child.
As Glenn Reynolds says, the country is in the very best of hands.
The story now has more than one source, and mounting testimony — albeit understandably anonymous testimony, at least at this point — that the White House tried threatening senior creditors instead of doing their job in enforcing the law. Not only do they not realize that their responsibilities do not include building business plans for private enterprises, but also don’t include assuming the role of Michael Corleone and acting like organized-crime thugs. Actually, the way the White House made Obama sound, maybe Sonny Corleone is a better analogy … or perhaps Fredo.


Now,I'm gonna go get a burger at a yuppie joint with my VP to get the media off of this.

Meyerson's take in the WaPo.

Quote:

---

If the hedge funds are standing on principle, it's the principle that holders of secured debt should always have first claim to a bankrupt company's assets. But if they thought the administration would honor their claims above those of the public and other Chrysler stakeholders, they didn't do their due diligence about the Treasury officials who are in charge of restructuring the auto industry. In particular, they missed a 2006 speech delivered to a group of investors by Ron Bloom, the onetime investment banker who left Wall Street for the Steelworkers union, which he represented in scores of steel company restructurings, and whom President Obama tapped, along with Steve Rattner, to head up the administration's auto task force.



The banks and bondholders that lend companies money, Bloom said, constantly track the value of the bonds they hold, which enables "those who like the risk-reward ratio to take it and those who don't to liquidate their position and move on." Compare that, Bloom went on, to the position of retirees who deferred wage claims so that they could have a pension and medical benefits in retirement. If the company can't honor those claims, the retiree, unlike the bondholder, can't "take the company's promise, convert it to its present value and sell it to someone who would like to own it."



The Treasury's plan for Chrysler, and its proposed plan for General Motors, gives those retirees stock in the company -- the only way to keep afloat their otherwise unredeemable investment in Chrysler (that is, their medical benefits). It gives the public a stake in the company in return for its loans. It scraps the old management and board of directors, and downsizes the company to a point where the government believes it can become profitable again. It requires that 40 percent of Chrysler's production be performed in the United States -- a perfectly sensible, if groundbreaking, condition from a government that is committed to preserving and boosting domestic manufacturing.



In other words, the Treasury's approach to the auto industry is equitable, responsible to taxpayers and economically sensible. It is also, in almost every particular, the diametric opposite of its approach to the banks. In return for its major loans to floundering auto companies too big and strategic to be allowed to go under, the Treasury opted for a structured bankruptcy, converting its loans to shares, ousting top executives, shrinking the companies

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole's a-hole

In other words, the Treasury's approach to the auto industry is equitable, responsible to taxpayers...

---

Let's stop right there.

Chrysler won't repay bailout money

Quote:

---

An administration official confirms that a $4 billion bridge loan and $3.2 billion in bankruptcy financing won't be paid back by Chrysler following bankruptcy.

---

The rest of the article is just as much a big pile of crap. Here...

Quote:

---

Here's a shock. When hedge funds, pension funds, mutual funds, and individuals, including very sweet grandmothers, lend their money they expect to get it back. However, they know, or should know, they take the risk of not being paid back. But if such a bad event happens it usually does not result in a complete loss. A firm in bankruptcy still has assets. It's not always a pretty process. Bankruptcy court is about figuring out how to most fairly divvy up the remaining assets based on who is owed what and whose contracts come first. The process already has built-in partial protections for employees and pensions, and can set lenders' contracts aside in order to help the company survive, all of which are the rules of the game lenders know before they lend. But, without this recovery process nobody would lend to risky borrowers. Essentially, lenders accept less than shareholders (means bonds return less than stocks) in good times only because they get more than shareholders in bad times.

The above is how it works in America, or how it's supposed to work. The President and his team sought to avoid having Chrysler go through this process, proposing their own plan for re-organizing the company and partially paying off Chrysler's creditors. Some bond holders thought this plan unfair. Specifically, they thought it unfairly favored the United Auto Workers, and unfairly paid bondholders less than they would get in bankruptcy court. So, they said no to the plan and decided, as is their right, to take their chances in the bankruptcy process. But, as his quotes above show, the President thought they were being unpatriotic or worse.

Let's be clear, it is the job and obligation of all investment managers, including hedge fund managers, to get their clients the most return they can. They are allowed to be charitable with their own money, and many are spectacularly so, but if they give away their clients' money to share in the "sacrifice", they are stealing. ...

The President's attempted diktat takes money from bondholders and gives it to a labor union that delivers money and votes for him. ... Shaking down lenders for the benefit of political donors is recycled corruption and abuse of power. ...

Last but not least, the President screaming that the hedge funds are looking for an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout is the big lie writ large. Find me a hedge fund that has been bailed out. Find me a hedge fund, even a failed one, that has asked for one. In fact, it was only because hedge funds have not taken government funds that they could stand up to this bullying. The TARP recipients had no choice but to go along. The hedge funds were singled out only because they are unpopular, not because they behaved any differently from any other ethical manager of other people's money. The President's comments here are backwards and libelous.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barry O'Bama

Lauria allegations of threats corroborated

posted at 1:37 pm on May 5, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend | Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Business Insider reports that more than one Chrysler senior creditor has corroborated Thomas Lauria’s allegation that the Obama administration threatened them with public attacks if they didn’t surrender their contractual rights. One of their sources says that the Obama team comprises some of the worst “ends justify the means” people he’s ever encountered (via HA reader Geoff A):

Creditors to Chrysler describe negotiations with the company and the Obama administration as “a farce,” saying the administration was bent on forcing their hands using hardball tactics and threats.
Conversations with administration officials left them expecting that they would be politically targeted, two participants in the negotiations said. …
The sources, who represent creditors to Chrysler, say were taken aback by the hardball tactics that the Obama administration employed to cajole them into acquiescing to plans to restructure Chrysler. One person said described the administration as the most shocking “end justifies the means” group they have ever encountered. Another characterized Obama was “the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet- and I knew Kissinger.” Both were voters for Obama in the last election.
One participant in negotiations said that the administration’s tactic was to present what one described as a “madman theory of the presidency” in which the President is someone to be feared because he was willing to do anything to get his way. The person said this threat was taken very seriously by his firm.

Well, that’s certainly reassuring. The man at the helm during one of the biggest economic crises in decades is a madman who will act in an unpredictable and irrational manner if he doesn’t get his way. It sounds like they paint Obama as either a lunatic or a petulant child.
As Glenn Reynolds says, the country is in the very best of hands.
The story now has more than one source, and mounting testimony — albeit understandably anonymous testimony, at least at this point — that the White House tried threatening senior creditors instead of doing their job in enforcing the law. Not only do they not realize that their responsibilities do not include building business plans for private enterprises, but also don’t include assuming the role of Michael Corleone and acting like organized-crime thugs. Actually, the way the White House made Obama sound, maybe Sonny Corleone is a better analogy … or perhaps Fredo.


Now,I'm gonna go get a burger at a yuppie joint with my VP to get the media off of this.

---

I fail to see how this was some kind of mafia when these creditors did not agree and did not accept the government plan (Which BTW, they're entirely entitled to do). A mafia type of setting is when they don't want to do something and they're forced to do it. Here, they basically did what they wanted.

I posted the Meyerson article for contrast, not because I agree with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

I posted the Meyerson article for contrast, not because I agree with it.

---

Fair enough. His argument has been disposed of. Got anymore "contrast?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Fair enough. His argument has been disposed of. Got anymore "contrast?"

---

In the usual way. Like a hot dog down a hallway. You didn't refute anything. You just sat on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

In the usual way. Like a hot dog down a hallway. You didn't refute anything. You just sat on it.

---

I'm sorry, I thought I posted an opposing point of view?

But, if not, here.

Bankruptcy law is established. President Obama is trying to circumvent an established rule of law by intimidating lenders into taking a crap sandwich of a deal. The article you posted tries to justify the crap sandwich without addressing the underlying issue of the law being cast aside by the administration in favor of political cronies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Bankruptcy law is established. President Obama is trying to circumvent an established rule of law by intimidating lenders into taking a crap sandwich of a deal. The article you posted tries to justify the crap sandwich without addressing the underlying issue of the law being cast aside by the administration in favor of political cronies.

---

Did Obama succeed? Otherwise your point is moot.

Chrysler took the deal and the creditors ate the crap sandwich willingly. They missed their chance at a fair deal by waiting too long for liquidation. Too bad.

No shit.

Chrysler asked for the money to avoid bankruptcy.

What part of that do you not understand?

Yoni - I told you it was a exercise in futility to try to convince these libs. Obama can circumvent the constitution, rewrite laws and do just about whatever he damn well pleases and these koolaid drinkers will find a way to defend him and justify his actions.

They're a lost cause!

Please explain your vague charges.