- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 81
Originally posted by: Thump553
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Thump553
Originally posted by: halik
I mean I'm making sacrifices in bankruptcy, shouldn't the banks do the same? Let me keep the car and just have me pay 30% of the value?
Yay populism!
What in the world are you talking about? There is no provision in any sort of bankruptcy (in the USA at least) that allows a secured creditor to be crammed down below the fair value of their collateral. Your post is basically unsubstantiated gibberish.
Exactly my point, the o/p is paraphrasing what Obama said about hedge funds and the Chrysler 29 cent on a dollar deal.
This thread is just an excercise of the socratic method
Your arguments have absolutely nothing to do with the Socratic Method. Questions under the Socratic Method do not contain false premises and wrong statements of facts, at least not at the school I went to.
You totally misunderstand what President Obama was saying also. Basically, he was saying that under bankruptcy law (a very precise code of laws, similar to the internal revenue code) the holdout creditors will not get more than 29 cents on the dollar-that whatever assets are legally pledged to them won't be worth any more than that. Plus they are going to have to wait months on the bankruptcy to recover those assets, unless the bankruptcy judge lifts the automatic stay for them (hell will freeze over first). Then they have to sell those assets, which I understand to be outdated auto plants-good luck with that.
Your thread fails. You just don't understand either commercial law or bankruptcy law, and are instead subsituting a subjective sense of "fairness" (ie, a lender should never lose any part of its loan) instead.
That is obviously not the case, since
1) if the creditors didn't expect to get more than 29 cents on the dollar, they would've gone with the plan to begin with. The fact they turned it out implies the debt is worth more.
2) Chrysler went private in 2007, which means among other things that they revolved and issued a whole bunch of new debt, so the value of the collateral will be pretty close to the face value of the issue.
3) The fact that the administration is considering putting legacy benefits in front of the secured debt suggest futher than the bulk of the outstanding secured debt is well collateralized.
The fundamental flaw in your argument lies in the fact that it's in the creditors' best interest to recoup the most money from the investment. The fact that they passed on the 29 cent deals implies the debt is worth more than 29 cents on the dollar. If what you said above is true (they'll only get 29 cents on the dollar in ch11), we wouldn't be having this argument as there would be no "holdout" creditors.
