Reply With Quote
How were the bondholders crushed?
Companies are reorganized in bankruptcy or bought out all the time and still continue to be ongoing en ies. See Fiat now owning Chrysler. The airlines are also good examples. I'm not saying it was wrong, but how it was done IMHO was wrong. Crushing the bondholders and then basically giving the new company to the unions was political and not the best business decision IMHO.
How were the bondholders crushed?
Google is your friend. I'm not getting back into this one.
Why won't you support your own claim?
lol the Wild Cobra "asked and answered" gambit
Not worth the trouble eliciting a full response, eh?
Because I am not going to wast 20 minutes of my life typing out a detailed response to someone that can find the same info already freely available on the internet. If you want to really educate yourself instead of play games then google is your friend. Just compare how a normal bankruptcy works to the way the GM bankruptcy was handled by the government.
Like I said, Ive stayed out of this thread for good reason but I have now injected myself into it and have been asked a question...
I can understand your disagreement with the way it was done, thats fine. I just flat out disagree with you without an example for an alternative that would have the same intended results.
How the bailout was handled can be disputed. The results, however, cannot be. GM spun off a lot of its "bad parts" into something called American Motors (iirc). Basically every GM asset that wasnt worth was put into this dummy company that is now a holder of billions of dollars of obsolete equipment, property and debt. It is still being parsed, sorted, stored, scrapped and sold as we speak.
Fun example: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/business/15auto.html
EDITED: I was wrong, its called Motors Liquidation Company.
, VY, I'll even throw you a crumb...
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/06/...rysler-bankru/
http://am.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/01/b...gm-bankruptcy/
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 02-22-2012 at 04:15 PM.
Kinda like the original AMC?
I guess you missed the part where I said I used my friend google, and wasn't able to find anything about bondholders being crushed. Which leads me to my next point: you're full of .
It's cool if you don't want to take 20 minutes out of your busy schedule typing a response - or the 15 seconds it'd take to post a link or something. I'm content with thinking you're full of on this one if you are.
Thanks, that's what I was looking for.
As for the article itself - aside from not being about the GM bankruptcy per se, it's wrong.
I read a local story at the Flint plant.
There was a rail that ran into and out of the plant that has been abandoned. If you dont know anything about Flint, MI, here is your first piece of advice. Dont go.
Anyway, thieves are stealing anything they can carry out of the plant. They have been doing it for months. MLC hired a security company to patrol the lot and were shot at. The security company quit and no one would take the job.
GM hires the sheriff's department to patrol it. They are shot at, too.
Basically, the thieves would use the abandoned rail cars to haul away their ! They would tow the rail car into the plant (on the tracks of course), fill it to the brim with mostly scrap metal, and then tow it out! The whole gang of thieves are armed and will kill anyone who tries to stop them.
The notion that bondholders get the best deal in bankruptcy because they are senior creditors is incorrect. And the notion that prioritizing one unsecured stakeholder over another violates the bankruptcy code disregards the mandate that bankruptcy courts are courts of equity--the rules were meant to be bent.
the rules were meant to be bent.
when it's politically expedient to pander to a political base?
One last thing: that article discusses the stake bondholders would have in the post-bankruptcy en y. The point of bankruptcy is to liquidate the debtor's liabilities and have a new, clean, en y emerge. Point being - who cares if bondholder's don't have a big stake in the new en y? Was their payout inequitable?
You're in over your head, aren't you?
when it's politically expedient to pander to a political base?
Seriously...
It's hard to believe how ignorant you are.
Bondholders are secured creditors and in a normal bankruptcy they have different classes of creditors and the court basically prioritizes them in order from top to bottom of who gets paid first.
Pffft
I'm wasting my time talking to an ignorant ass.
What collateral do bondholders put up?
lol school teacher transcript
be that as it may, name calling and running away from points you didn't even bother to rebut makes you look like the ignorant ass.
In order of their priority...
In a bankruptcy, assets and proceeds are distributed to satisfy claims in order of the claims' priority. Investors who take the least amount of risk are paid first. As a result, creditors and bondholders who lend a company money will be paid before its stockholders, who have purchased an ownership stake. Creditors are paid after legal and administrative costs have been covered.
Secured creditors, whose claims are protected by specific assets or collateral, such as real estate, are paid first.
Then unsecured creditors, which often include bank lenders, bondholders and suppliers, are next in line.
Stockholders, who have purchased a portion of the company, are paid last, if there is money available after the secured and unsecured creditors' claims have been paid.
http://www.investinginbonds.com/lear...10&subcatid=67
nm
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
