Reply With Quote
Sorry you got so confused.
You must have been taking another test.
I would buy it at $0.70 per share.
Sorry you got so confused.
You must have been taking another test.
Easily. Their bankruptcy filing listed over $80 billion in assets.
So you don't agree it was better?
I made no claims about myself, except that given the choice I would prefer having $85 of $100 than $0 or $100.
Why did the bondholders take the deal, if in the case of bankruptcy GM could've covered them easily?
And all those assets were desirable and easily sold?
Too ing easy. To all a good weekend, and to Chump a good cycle.
I agree, it was too easy to say having $85 is better than $0.
The problem I have is that the government should do the study free of any conflicts of interest. After all they are the one's spending our money.
We should probably check to see if they in fact have done this.
And that's not a conflict of interest?
I understand that the OMB is nominally non-partisan, but no party out of power really believes that. The appearance of a conflict can't really be avoided.
If they have I would love to see it. As someone that stays more informed than most I never saw any studies.
I agree with you. Have a private consulting firm do the analysis then. Better yet have both sides choose a consulting firm and see how close they come. The differences between the two would be exposed and you and I would be left to determine for ourselves whose analysis is more realistic.
They took the deal because they thought that was the best deal they'd be able to get. The only logical reason I can think of why a group of people standing at the front of the line for a bankruptcy hearing involving a company with assets 3 times the size of what they were owed would voluntarily step to the back and take pennies on the dollar would be because they were being pressured by the government in some manner or fashion.
Perhaps there was no chance the assets could have been sold at anywhere near their perceived value, if sold at all. Given the state of those assets set for liquidation, that's a fair assumption. But that isn't the old bondholder/new owners' problem anymore.
You assume the study is compromised but offer no proof. And LOL @ anything the government does being free of conflict of interest.
I gave you a think tank undergoing such a study and yet the only thing you can say is that they're located in Ann Arbor and then have a conflict of interest. Perhaps you can provide us with specifics on how that CoI affected the study and where it skewed the figures.
False dichotomy.
GM doesn't have to go out of buisiness together. IT's not like their assets were going to get burnt.
IF GM would have filed for bankruptcy, then who ever the new owners and inverstors were could have restructured the labor contract and set those same people back to work.
GM still had huge assets and infrastructure, you just had to let the corporation restructure thru bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy would have put the power back to the company instead of the govt and the unions.
" i won't believe any study that doesn't reflect my approved position"
The people who would have opposed the bankruptcy would have been the unions. They were the ones that would lose leverage. Even after the restructure, their contract is to heavy and we're just going to have to bail them out one more time.
Okay, somebody help me out here. I know that bondholders stand in front of stockholders in the case of bankruptcy, normally. There might be a reasonable argument that GM's bankruptcy was not normal since it was so huge, but nonetheless, what would normally come before bondholders?
I mean, the Union ended up being the largest shareholder after the U.S. taxpayer, but since the shares were worthless, that seemed to give up the sleeves out of the vest. The Unions had massive underfunded health care provisions that they gave up on entirely. My understanding at the time this all went down was that GM's obligation to the unions' health care costs was considered a liability, although not a debt. Moreover, the company's requirement for future payouts for retired union members was so enormous that the company would never have been able to become economically viable again unless they declared bankruptcy, wiping out that debt in the process.
We are talking billions and billions of dollars in unfunded liabilities.
It was my undestanding that the union's retirement costs for folks who had retired at pay levels in the past when things were good was so high that the company could NEVER become solvent again without a bankruptcy to wipeout those debts, and the ability to start over without them. Thus, the Union accepted shares in the hope that the company would exist in the future to re-hire them, and that the eventual (and future) sale of the shares they had received would be the only way they would have of recouping some of the lost benefits to retirees.
So, while bondholders are in front of equity holders, they are not necessarily in front of other liabilities, are they? So, even though the Union ends up having lots of equity, that may or may not be worth anything, and the bondholders were still in front of existing equity holders, who got zilch, because that is the risk that equity holders take. Isn't that the position the Union is in now? Total risk?
Is it not a good thing to make unions ( read socialists) capitalists?
that think tank study takes into account all three filing bankruptcy. Ford didn't need a bailout. They were doing fine. That study is not pertinent to this situation because we are only talking about letting one Giant fail instead of three like the article and the think tank state.
So that scenario doesn't say much.
Also it's silly not to think that Toyota, or any other foreign car maker wouldn't have bought the assets of GM.
That's what happens when theft occurs.
No, that's what happens when all the bad assets are no longer part of the company you now own.
theft lol
because they were taking away from you without consent, theft.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
