Reply With Quote
I get it. It's not theft if the govt does it. That's why the Peoples State of Ireland has been a dreamy country.
No . No one files a plan to be robbed with the SEC.
I get it. It's not theft if the govt does it. That's why the Peoples State of Ireland has been a dreamy country.
We've been over this. There was consent. Sorry you missed that. You should probably go back a few pages.
They don't have to now, the govt can do it all by themselves. They're big boys you know.
It's not theft if there is consent. Now if you want to fight for minority bondholder's rights as you see them, feel free to do so.
You weren't convincing, Sorry.
iggy talks ireland lol
Consent was given by the bondholders.
You should really catch up on this.
Take it up with the Wall Street Journal.
What is your counter argument to their article?
lol Ireland
The minority bond owners which was like 40 percent got ed, and this sets a bad precedent for bond holders becuase of the banks.
The govt basically did individual bond holders by forcing them into this bull with the banks and the unions.
Don't worry, you think it's a great plan, maybe the govt can use the same stellar plan to bail them out once more.
I said you were free to about that.
I never said it was a great plan, just that the hyperbole from the more ignorant posters such as yourself was misleading.
Maybe you can tell me what the bondholders were going to get from a regular bankruptcy so we can compare it to what they got. No one has been able to do that so far.
Thanks in advance.
Perhaps, if GM was headed towards liquidation. But everyone knew that wasn't going to happen.
Then why bring up assets that you say were never going to be liquidated?
I believe at liquidation of many assets was going to be at least attempted regardless since GM was going to be a smaller company in any case. If you can tell me why not, I'd be happy to hear your reasoning.
They would have gotten a better deal in the longterm because they could restructure all contracts at their disposal instead of the govt forcing them to accept the bad buisiness model.
Just because the govt can get away with it doesn't make it hyperbole. It is what it is.
So you'd rather the bondholders get atleast something but be stuck with a ty buisiness model than have a better longterm buisiness model with the ability to decide and feel free.
Numbers, please.
Bankruptcy is there as a protection and for a good reason.
Why? NM, it's not even an honest question. You wouldn't even have the tools to judge them anyway.
For comparison.
Thanks.
If you can't provide any, just say so.
remember when bankruptcy used to be a dirty word?
That's no big deal because nobody can accurately predict such things. But what they have right now is , and a company. Regardless the oppurtunity to have a better company and better contract is a right which those bondholders deserve.
You just claimed you could.
Why are you backtracking now?
Don't lie, I didn't specify numbers.
Why do feel the need to be dishonest?
You said it would be better than anything they have now.
A number can be attributed to what they have now. You claim your way is better. You claimed your way would have a greater value than what they have now or could potentially have after an IPO. Then you quickly ran away from that saying you couldn't accurately predict anything.
I don't think you feel the need to be dishonest; it's just the way you are.Why do feel the need to be dishonest?
I said that they could restructure their labor contracts and other contracts for longterm success.
All this deal did was reward the banks with TARP and gave the unions shares.
Insert nanny nanny poo poo putdown here.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions