Are banks greedy and selfish when they repo your car?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

halik

Lifer
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 Then they have to sell those assets, which I understand to be outdated auto plants-good luck with that.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.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
81
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Thump553
-snip-
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.

It just might be that they disagree with that estimate.

I'm hearing some pretty big names thrown around as these so-called creditors who won't put the 'national interest' above their own.

I think it possible they might know what they're doing and ahve more expeience in this than a 'community adviser'.

OTOH, they may get 'strong armed' like the BoA guy in the Merril Lynch deal.

Fern

By 'community adviser' do you mean Obama? Do you think Obama is the one doing the estimating for the government? If so, that's absolutely ridiculous.

He's responsible for it.

It's his decision.

I'm sure he has people doing estimates for him, just as I'm sure the creditors have made their case as to why the amount is not 29 cents on the dollar.

Obama decided on which amount is right and stuck with the 29 cents. I believe it was his call.

BTW: I also seriously doubt the big name players I heard involved actually cranked out their estimates either. But likewise, they ultimately made the decision.

Fern

First and foremost, it's the bondholder's decision whether to take 29 cents offer from the gov't or just take possession of the assets in bankruptcy. Obviously their valuations shows that the assets are worth far more, which is why they turned down the offer.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,163
136
A little off topic, but i.e. banks, you got to read Mike Moore's take on banks.

Elie Wiesel called him a "God." His investors called him a "genius." But, proving correct that old adage from the country and western song, you never really know what goes on behind closed doors.

Bernie Madoff, for at least 20 years, ran a Ponzi scheme on thousands of clients, among them the people you and I would consider the best and brightest. Business leaders, celebrities, charities, even some of his own relatives and his defense attorney were taken for a ride (this has to be the first time a lawyer was hosed by the client).

We're clearly in one of those historic, game changing years: up is down, red is blue and black is President. Aside from Obama himself, no person will provide a more iconic face of this end-of-capitalism-as-we-know-it year than Bernard Lawrence Madoff.

Which is too bad. Yes, he stole $65 billion from some already quite wealthy people. I know that's upsetting to them because rich guys like Bernie are not supposed to be stealing from their own kind. Crime, thievery, looting ? that's what happens on the other side of town. The rules of the money game on Park Avenue and Wall Street are comprised of things like charging the public 29% credit card interest, tricking people into taking out a second mortgage they can't afford, and concocting a student loan system that has graduates in hock for the next 20 years. Now that's smart business! And it's legal. That's where Bernie went wrong ? his scheming, his trickery was an outrage both because it was illegal and because he preyed on his side of the tracks.

Had Mr. Madoff just followed the example of his fellow top one-percenters, there were many ways he could have legally multiplied his wealth many times over. Here's how it's done. First, threaten your workers that you'll move their jobs offshore if they don't agree to reduce their pay and benefits. Then move those jobs offshore. Then place that income on the shores of the Cayman Islands and pay no taxes. Don't put the money back into your company. Put it into your pocket and the pockets of your shareholders. There! Done! Legal!

But Bernie wanted to play X-games Capitalism, run by the mantra that's at the core of all capitalistic endeavors: Enough Is Never Enough. You have the right to make as much as you can, and if people are too stupid to read the fine print of their health insurance policy or their GM "100,000-mile warranty," well, tough luck, losers. Buyers beware!

It would be too easy ? and the wrong lesson learned ? to put Bernie on TIME's list all by himself. If Ponzi schemes are such a bad thing, then why have we allowed all of our top banks to deal in credit default swaps and other make-believe rackets? Why did we allow those same banks to create the scam of a sub-prime mortgage? And instead of putting the people responsible in the cell block in Lower Manhattan, where Bernie now resides, why did we give them huge sums of our hard-earned tax dollars to bail them out of their self-inflicted troubles? Bernard Madoff is nothing more than the scab on the wound. He's also a most-needed and convenient distraction. Where's the photo on this list of the ex-chairmen of AIG, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup? Where's the mug shot of Phil Gramm, the senator who wrote the bill to strip the system of its regulations, or of the President who signed that bill? And how 'bout those who ran the fake numbers at the ratings agencies, the lobbyists who succeeded in making sleazy accounting a lawful practice, or the stock market itself ? an institution that's treated like the Holy Sepulchre instead of the casino that it is (and, like all other casinos, the house eventually wins).

And what of Madoff's clients themselves? What did they think was going on to guarantee them incredible returns on their investments every single year ? when no one else on planet Earth was getting anything like that? Some have admitted they did have an inkling "something was up," but no one really wanted to ask what it was that was making their money grow on trees. They were afraid they might find out it had nothing to do with gardening. Many of Madoff's victims have told investigators that, over the years, they have made much more than the original investment they gave Bernie. If I buy a stolen car from the guy down the street, the police will take that car from me regardless of whether I knew it was stolen. If I knew it was stolen, then I go to jail for receiving stolen property. Will these "victims" give back their gains that were fraudulently obtained? Will the head of Goldman Sachs reveal what he was doing at the meetings with the Fed chairman and the Treasury secretary before the bailout? Will Bank of America please tell us what they've spent $45 billion of our TARP money on?

That's probably going too far. Better that we just put Bernie on this list.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
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!

Now let's redo the analogy like a non-retard.

Is a bank greedy and selfish if it repos your smashed up hulking wreck of a car and sells it for $500 when you offered to settle the note for $1,000?

No, greedy would be taking the higher number. The repo isn't greedy, it's stupid.
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
The top run the banks and collect the debt the bottom pays interest on the debt.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
You should have gotten car insurance that pays when you are laid off. You are responsible for your own financial affairs.

Maybe you should learn to buy cheaper used cars and buy a smaller house.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Thump553
-snip-
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.

It just might be that they disagree with that estimate.

I'm hearing some pretty big names thrown around as these so-called creditors who won't put the 'national interest' above their own.

I think it possible they might know what they're doing and ahve more expeience in this than a 'community adviser'.

OTOH, they may get 'strong armed' like the BoA guy in the Merril Lynch deal.

Fern

By 'community adviser' do you mean Obama? Do you think Obama is the one doing the estimating for the government? If so, that's absolutely ridiculous.

He's responsible for it.

It's his decision.

I'm sure he has people doing estimates for him, just as I'm sure the creditors have made their case as to why the amount is not 29 cents on the dollar.

Obama decided on which amount is right and stuck with the 29 cents. I believe it was his call.

BTW: I also seriously doubt the big name players I heard involved actually cranked out their estimates either. But likewise, they ultimately made the decision.

Fern

First and foremost, it's the bondholder's decision whether to take 29 cents offer from the gov't or just take possession of the assets in bankruptcy. Obviously their valuations shows that the assets are worth far more, which is why they turned down the offer.

Or, they hope to profit from the bankruptcy another way. They have credit default swaps that will payout. They are insolvent and if they accepted the 29 cents on a dollar they would be filling chapter 7 in a week.

The vast majority of the bond holders accepted the 29 cents on the dollar deal because it is the best they are going to get.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
81
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
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!

Now let's redo the analogy like a non-retard.

Is a bank greedy and selfish if it repos your smashed up hulking wreck of a car and sells it for $500 when you offered to settle the note for $1,000?

No, greedy would be taking the higher number. The repo isn't greedy, it's stupid.

Well let's see:

1) the debt was revolved in 2007 when chrysler went private, which means the value of the collateral was equal to the face value 2 years ago... how can the assets lose 71% in 2 years??

2) debt funds are in the business of making money, why wouldn't they take 29 cents on the dollar if the collateral is worth less??
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
81
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Thump553
-snip-
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.

It just might be that they disagree with that estimate.

I'm hearing some pretty big names thrown around as these so-called creditors who won't put the 'national interest' above their own.

I think it possible they might know what they're doing and ahve more expeience in this than a 'community adviser'.

OTOH, they may get 'strong armed' like the BoA guy in the Merril Lynch deal.

Fern

By 'community adviser' do you mean Obama? Do you think Obama is the one doing the estimating for the government? If so, that's absolutely ridiculous.

He's responsible for it.

It's his decision.

I'm sure he has people doing estimates for him, just as I'm sure the creditors have made their case as to why the amount is not 29 cents on the dollar.

Obama decided on which amount is right and stuck with the 29 cents. I believe it was his call.

BTW: I also seriously doubt the big name players I heard involved actually cranked out their estimates either. But likewise, they ultimately made the decision.

Fern

First and foremost, it's the bondholder's decision whether to take 29 cents offer from the gov't or just take possession of the assets in bankruptcy. Obviously their valuations shows that the assets are worth far more, which is why they turned down the offer.

Or, they hope to profit from the bankruptcy another way. They have credit default swaps that will payout. They are insolvent and if they accepted the 29 cents on a dollar they would be filling chapter 7 in a week.

The vast majority of the UNSECURED bond holders accepted the 29 cents on the dollar deal because it is the best they are going to get.

Fixed, there is a very very big difference between secured and unsecured debt holders. Unsecured debt holders took 29 cents, because that indeed is the best they can get. On the other hand, secured debt holders have rights to the assets that were equal the face value 2 years ago... definitely more than 29 cents.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,774
48,455
136
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
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!

Now let's redo the analogy like a non-retard.

Is a bank greedy and selfish if it repos your smashed up hulking wreck of a car and sells it for $500 when you offered to settle the note for $1,000?

No, greedy would be taking the higher number. The repo isn't greedy, it's stupid.

Well let's see:

1) the debt was revolved in 2007 when chrysler went private, which means the value of the collateral was equal to the face value 2 years ago... how can the assets lose 71% in 2 years??

2) debt funds are in the business of making money, why wouldn't they take 29 cents on the dollar if the collateral is worth less??

Because the products they produce have nosedived in sales over that time period with no sign of recovery on the horizon. Excess capacity abounds, today the plants are simply not worth nearly what they were two years ago.

 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
81
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
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!

Now let's redo the analogy like a non-retard.

Is a bank greedy and selfish if it repos your smashed up hulking wreck of a car and sells it for $500 when you offered to settle the note for $1,000?

No, greedy would be taking the higher number. The repo isn't greedy, it's stupid.

Well let's see:

1) the debt was revolved in 2007 when chrysler went private, which means the value of the collateral was equal to the face value 2 years ago... how can the assets lose 71% in 2 years??

2) debt funds are in the business of making money, why wouldn't they take 29 cents on the dollar if the collateral is worth less??

Because the products they produce have nosedived in sales over that time period with no sign of recovery on the horizon. Excess capacity abounds, today the plants are simply not worth nearly what they were two years ago.

First of all, the big 3 have been in trouble for the past 3-4 years - look up when was the last time any of them posted profit. This is not something new - my mom works for a Ford subsidiary (ACH holdings) and they've been trying to sell these plants for good part of this decade.

But more importantly, commercial real estate doesn't drop in value by 70% in two years. I worked at at commercial RE brokerage for the past 2 years and that's simply not the case. And it's more than just assembly plants, Chrysler owns office space and industrial properties (warehousing etc.) and neither one of those types have seen 70% devaluation in the past 2 years.


There's no conspiracy here - debt funds know what they're doing and it's obvious that they value the collateral higher than what Obama offered. It's not greed or stupidity, it's economics.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,774
48,455
136
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
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!

Now let's redo the analogy like a non-retard.

Is a bank greedy and selfish if it repos your smashed up hulking wreck of a car and sells it for $500 when you offered to settle the note for $1,000?

No, greedy would be taking the higher number. The repo isn't greedy, it's stupid.

Well let's see:

1) the debt was revolved in 2007 when chrysler went private, which means the value of the collateral was equal to the face value 2 years ago... how can the assets lose 71% in 2 years??

2) debt funds are in the business of making money, why wouldn't they take 29 cents on the dollar if the collateral is worth less??

Because the products they produce have nosedived in sales over that time period with no sign of recovery on the horizon. Excess capacity abounds, today the plants are simply not worth nearly what they were two years ago.

First of all, the big 3 have been in trouble for the past 3-4 years - look up when was the last time any of them posted profit. This is not something new - my mom works for a Ford subsidiary (ACH holdings) and they've been trying to sell these plants for good part of this decade.

But more importantly, commercial real estate doesn't drop in value by 70% in two years. I worked at at commercial RE brokerage for the past 2 years and that's simply not the case. And it's more than just assembly plants, Chrysler owns office space and industrial properties (warehousing etc.) and neither one of those types have seen 70% devaluation in the past 2 years.


There's no conspiracy here - debt funds know what they're doing and it's obvious that they value the collateral higher than what Obama offered. It's not greed or stupidity, it's economics.

So you're arguing that the industry isn't really in any more distress than usual so their assets are still worth that much? Ok...

The market is already saturated with excess rust belt industrial capacity and office space bringing few takers. Not to mention a good number of the industrial sites probably come with significant legacy environmental issues.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
81
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
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!

Now let's redo the analogy like a non-retard.

Is a bank greedy and selfish if it repos your smashed up hulking wreck of a car and sells it for $500 when you offered to settle the note for $1,000?

No, greedy would be taking the higher number. The repo isn't greedy, it's stupid.

Well let's see:

1) the debt was revolved in 2007 when chrysler went private, which means the value of the collateral was equal to the face value 2 years ago... how can the assets lose 71% in 2 years??

2) debt funds are in the business of making money, why wouldn't they take 29 cents on the dollar if the collateral is worth less??

Because the products they produce have nosedived in sales over that time period with no sign of recovery on the horizon. Excess capacity abounds, today the plants are simply not worth nearly what they were two years ago.

First of all, the big 3 have been in trouble for the past 3-4 years - look up when was the last time any of them posted profit. This is not something new - my mom works for a Ford subsidiary (ACH holdings) and they've been trying to sell these plants for good part of this decade.

But more importantly, commercial real estate doesn't drop in value by 70% in two years. I worked at at commercial RE brokerage for the past 2 years and that's simply not the case. And it's more than just assembly plants, Chrysler owns office space and industrial properties (warehousing etc.) and neither one of those types have seen 70% devaluation in the past 2 years.


There's no conspiracy here - debt funds know what they're doing and it's obvious that they value the collateral higher than what Obama offered. It's not greed or stupidity, it's economics.

So you're arguing that the industry isn't really in any more distress than usual so their assets are still worth that much? Ok...

The market is already saturated with excess rust belt industrial capacity and office space bringing few takers. Not to mention a good number of the industrial sites probably come with significant legacy environmental issues.

No im arguing that commercial real estate prices haven't declined 70% since mid 2007; that's not an argument, it's a fact. Otherwise virtually all REITs in north america would be in ch7.

As a matter of fact, I can't think of any property type that's dropped 70% since 2007... that sort of valuation only happens when there's fire/floor or some other total loss. I've seen warehouses with burn holes in roofs and such that were going for that much, but that's about it.


office
industrial

You're looking at 10-20% devaluation at best.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,774
48,455
136
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
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!

Now let's redo the analogy like a non-retard.

Is a bank greedy and selfish if it repos your smashed up hulking wreck of a car and sells it for $500 when you offered to settle the note for $1,000?

No, greedy would be taking the higher number. The repo isn't greedy, it's stupid.

Well let's see:

1) the debt was revolved in 2007 when chrysler went private, which means the value of the collateral was equal to the face value 2 years ago... how can the assets lose 71% in 2 years??

2) debt funds are in the business of making money, why wouldn't they take 29 cents on the dollar if the collateral is worth less??

Because the products they produce have nosedived in sales over that time period with no sign of recovery on the horizon. Excess capacity abounds, today the plants are simply not worth nearly what they were two years ago.

First of all, the big 3 have been in trouble for the past 3-4 years - look up when was the last time any of them posted profit. This is not something new - my mom works for a Ford subsidiary (ACH holdings) and they've been trying to sell these plants for good part of this decade.

But more importantly, commercial real estate doesn't drop in value by 70% in two years. I worked at at commercial RE brokerage for the past 2 years and that's simply not the case. And it's more than just assembly plants, Chrysler owns office space and industrial properties (warehousing etc.) and neither one of those types have seen 70% devaluation in the past 2 years.


There's no conspiracy here - debt funds know what they're doing and it's obvious that they value the collateral higher than what Obama offered. It's not greed or stupidity, it's economics.

So you're arguing that the industry isn't really in any more distress than usual so their assets are still worth that much? Ok...

The market is already saturated with excess rust belt industrial capacity and office space bringing few takers. Not to mention a good number of the industrial sites probably come with significant legacy environmental issues.

No im arguing that commercial real estate prices haven't declined 70% since mid 2007; that's not an argument, it's a fact. Otherwise virtually all REITs in north america would be in ch7.

As a matter of fact, I can't think of any property type that's dropped 70% since 2007... that sort of valuation only happens when there's fire/floor or some other total loss. I've seen warehouses with burn holes in roofs and such that were going for that much, but that's about it.

We're not concerned with the entire commercial RE market in the whole country. We are concerned with these particular assets in their particular locations equipped to produce autos. Detroit (for example) has a vast tracts of industrial RE that the city would probably give you if you paid the tax liens.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,774
48,455
136
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
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!

Now let's redo the analogy like a non-retard.

Is a bank greedy and selfish if it repos your smashed up hulking wreck of a car and sells it for $500 when you offered to settle the note for $1,000?

No, greedy would be taking the higher number. The repo isn't greedy, it's stupid.

Well let's see:

1) the debt was revolved in 2007 when chrysler went private, which means the value of the collateral was equal to the face value 2 years ago... how can the assets lose 71% in 2 years??

2) debt funds are in the business of making money, why wouldn't they take 29 cents on the dollar if the collateral is worth less??

Because the products they produce have nosedived in sales over that time period with no sign of recovery on the horizon. Excess capacity abounds, today the plants are simply not worth nearly what they were two years ago.

First of all, the big 3 have been in trouble for the past 3-4 years - look up when was the last time any of them posted profit. This is not something new - my mom works for a Ford subsidiary (ACH holdings) and they've been trying to sell these plants for good part of this decade.

But more importantly, commercial real estate doesn't drop in value by 70% in two years. I worked at at commercial RE brokerage for the past 2 years and that's simply not the case. And it's more than just assembly plants, Chrysler owns office space and industrial properties (warehousing etc.) and neither one of those types have seen 70% devaluation in the past 2 years.


There's no conspiracy here - debt funds know what they're doing and it's obvious that they value the collateral higher than what Obama offered. It's not greed or stupidity, it's economics.

So you're arguing that the industry isn't really in any more distress than usual so their assets are still worth that much? Ok...

The market is already saturated with excess rust belt industrial capacity and office space bringing few takers. Not to mention a good number of the industrial sites probably come with significant legacy environmental issues.

No im arguing that commercial real estate prices haven't declined 70% since mid 2007; that's not an argument, it's a fact. Otherwise virtually all REITs in north america would be in ch7.

As a matter of fact, I can't think of any property type that's dropped 70% since 2007... that sort of valuation only happens when there's fire/floor or some other total loss. I've seen warehouses with burn holes in roofs and such that were going for that much, but that's about it.


office
industrial

You're looking at 10-20% devaluation at best.

If you think the bonds are worth 80 or 90 cents on the dollar based off the supposed value of the collateral I want some of what you're smoking.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: halik


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.

And why isn't the retirement benefits considered secured debt? The workers put up their collateral (hours worked) for benefits to be rendered at a later time.

In this scenario, since they are unable to "repo" their collateral, they should be considered as the prime debtor.

No im arguing that commercial real estate prices haven't declined 70% since mid 2007; that's not an argument, it's a fact. Otherwise virtually all REITs in north america would be in ch7.

Have you seen what Detroit real estate prices are like lately?

Some industrial spaces are going for $.71 (yes that's cents) per sq ft.

The average appears to be less than $4.50/sq ft in Detroit metro. You might want to double check you math about how much depreciation there has been there.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
81
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
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!

Now let's redo the analogy like a non-retard.

Is a bank greedy and selfish if it repos your smashed up hulking wreck of a car and sells it for $500 when you offered to settle the note for $1,000?

No, greedy would be taking the higher number. The repo isn't greedy, it's stupid.

Well let's see:

1) the debt was revolved in 2007 when chrysler went private, which means the value of the collateral was equal to the face value 2 years ago... how can the assets lose 71% in 2 years??

2) debt funds are in the business of making money, why wouldn't they take 29 cents on the dollar if the collateral is worth less??

Because the products they produce have nosedived in sales over that time period with no sign of recovery on the horizon. Excess capacity abounds, today the plants are simply not worth nearly what they were two years ago.

First of all, the big 3 have been in trouble for the past 3-4 years - look up when was the last time any of them posted profit. This is not something new - my mom works for a Ford subsidiary (ACH holdings) and they've been trying to sell these plants for good part of this decade.

But more importantly, commercial real estate doesn't drop in value by 70% in two years. I worked at at commercial RE brokerage for the past 2 years and that's simply not the case. And it's more than just assembly plants, Chrysler owns office space and industrial properties (warehousing etc.) and neither one of those types have seen 70% devaluation in the past 2 years.


There's no conspiracy here - debt funds know what they're doing and it's obvious that they value the collateral higher than what Obama offered. It's not greed or stupidity, it's economics.

So you're arguing that the industry isn't really in any more distress than usual so their assets are still worth that much? Ok...

The market is already saturated with excess rust belt industrial capacity and office space bringing few takers. Not to mention a good number of the industrial sites probably come with significant legacy environmental issues.

No im arguing that commercial real estate prices haven't declined 70% since mid 2007; that's not an argument, it's a fact. Otherwise virtually all REITs in north america would be in ch7.

As a matter of fact, I can't think of any property type that's dropped 70% since 2007... that sort of valuation only happens when there's fire/floor or some other total loss. I've seen warehouses with burn holes in roofs and such that were going for that much, but that's about it.

We're not concerned with the entire commercial RE market in the whole country. We are concerned with these particular assets in their particular locations equipped to produce autos. Detroit (for example) has a vast tracts of industrial RE that the city would probably give you if you paid the tax liens.

I've got access to some Real Capital Analytics though work.
Here's $/sqft prices in detroit. Note that office space is up since mid-2007 and industrial is down some 30-35%. Still nowhere near 71% decline, which is why the creditors prefer the collateral.

office

industrial

One of my buddies works for a debt side hedge fund, I'll see if I can have him shoot me a graph of what Chrysler CDS were trading for the past couple months. That should put an end to all this conspiracy nonsense.
 

iGas

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2009
6,240
1
0

Banks should be hell accountable, and you should suck it up as well.

Driving is not a rights. Try walking, bicycling, public transportation.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
81
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: halik


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.

And why isn't the retirement benefits considered secured debt? The workers put up their collateral (hours worked) for benefits to be rendered at a later time.

In this scenario, since they are unable to "repo" their collateral, they should be considered as the prime debtor.

No im arguing that commercial real estate prices haven't declined 70% since mid 2007; that's not an argument, it's a fact. Otherwise virtually all REITs in north america would be in ch7.

Have you seen what Detroit real estate prices are like lately?

Some industrial spaces are going for $.71 (yes that's cents) per sq ft.

The average appears to be less than $4.50/sq ft in Detroit metro. You might want to double check you math about how much depreciation there has been there.

Check the post above - I can't really speak into why retirement benefits aren't given preference over secured debt. I would only imagine it would increase the cost of capital via debt to the point where it wouldn't be viable.

Also I can find you property for that price in pretty much any city - usually that means the place has fire damage or something similar like that. Most of the time they pull the structure by the time you can make an offer.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,774
48,455
136
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: K1052
We're not concerned with the entire commercial RE market in the whole country. We are concerned with these particular assets in their particular locations equipped to produce autos. Detroit (for example) has a vast tracts of industrial RE that the city would probably give you if you paid the tax liens.

I've got access to some Real Capital Analytics though work.
Here's $/sqft prices in detroit. Note that office space is up since mid-2007 and industrial is down some 30-35%. Still nowhere near 71% decline, which is why the creditors prefer the collateral.

office

industrial

One of my buddies works for a debt side hedge fund, I'll see if I can have him shoot me a graph of what Chrysler CDS were trading for the past couple months. That should put an end to all this conspiracy nonsense.

You yourself admitted personal knowledge that Ford, despite trying, has been unable to unload most of their plants. That's a clear concession that these assets are worth even less than the going average rates for their property category. So now we're going to dump a bunch more nearly identical assets into the same stagnant part of the market and pretend their values won't be affected?

Without knowing more specifics about the CDS transactions (who bought what, when, and for how much) it's going to be impossible to really get a handle on that situation until later. It definitely makes for a hell of a motivation though given the odds the bankruptcy court won't come back with a more favorable figure for the holdouts.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
81
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: K1052
We're not concerned with the entire commercial RE market in the whole country. We are concerned with these particular assets in their particular locations equipped to produce autos. Detroit (for example) has a vast tracts of industrial RE that the city would probably give you if you paid the tax liens.

I've got access to some Real Capital Analytics though work.
Here's $/sqft prices in detroit. Note that office space is up since mid-2007 and industrial is down some 30-35%. Still nowhere near 71% decline, which is why the creditors prefer the collateral.

office

industrial

One of my buddies works for a debt side hedge fund, I'll see if I can have him shoot me a graph of what Chrysler CDS were trading for the past couple months. That should put an end to all this conspiracy nonsense.

You yourself admitted personal knowledge that Ford, despite trying, has been unable to unload most of their plants. That's a clear concession that these assets are worth even less than the going average rates for their property category. So now we're going to dump a bunch more nearly identical assets into the same stagnant part of the market and pretend their values won't be affected?



Without knowing more specifics about the CDS transactions (who bought what, when, and for how much) it's going to be impossible to really get a handle on that situation until later. It definitely makes for a hell of a motivation though given the odds the bankruptcy court won't come back with a more favorable figure for the holdouts.

Yeah,
what I said implies that the market value of the plants was known in 2007 (ACH did manage to sell a bunch of the 23 properties and handed one back to ford - johnson controls, meridian automotive were some of the purchasers) based on comps (ie precedent transaction).

In any case, both cerberus and debt side funds KNOW how to value collateral, they make living investing in secured debt.

When those bonds were revolved in 2007, the value of collateral was for all practical purposes equal the face value of the issue. Cerberus's incentive to do that is to minimize the interest they have to pay (the more collateral, the less interest needed), debt side funds' incentive is so they don't get burned in bankruptcy (aka make sure the collateral is worth what cerberus says its work...part of due diligence).
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,774
48,455
136
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: K1052
We're not concerned with the entire commercial RE market in the whole country. We are concerned with these particular assets in their particular locations equipped to produce autos. Detroit (for example) has a vast tracts of industrial RE that the city would probably give you if you paid the tax liens.

I've got access to some Real Capital Analytics though work.
Here's $/sqft prices in detroit. Note that office space is up since mid-2007 and industrial is down some 30-35%. Still nowhere near 71% decline, which is why the creditors prefer the collateral.

office

industrial

One of my buddies works for a debt side hedge fund, I'll see if I can have him shoot me a graph of what Chrysler CDS were trading for the past couple months. That should put an end to all this conspiracy nonsense.

You yourself admitted personal knowledge that Ford, despite trying, has been unable to unload most of their plants. That's a clear concession that these assets are worth even less than the going average rates for their property category. So now we're going to dump a bunch more nearly identical assets into the same stagnant part of the market and pretend their values won't be affected?



Without knowing more specifics about the CDS transactions (who bought what, when, and for how much) it's going to be impossible to really get a handle on that situation until later. It definitely makes for a hell of a motivation though given the odds the bankruptcy court won't come back with a more favorable figure for the holdouts.

Yeah,
what I said implies that the market value of the plants was known in 2007 (ACH did manage to sell two or three and handed one back to ford) based on comps (ie precedent transaction).

In any case, both cerberus and debt side funds KNOW how to value collateral, they make living investing in secured debt.

When those bonds were revolved in 2007, the value of collateral was for all practical purposes equal the face value of the issue. Cerberus's incentive to do that is to minimize the interest they have to pay (the more collateral, the less interest needed), debt side funds' incentive is so they don't get burned in bankruptcy (aka make sure the collateral is worth what cerberus says its work...part of due diligence).

So it's totally impossible that the assets were overvalued at the peak of the lending orgy?
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
81
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: K1052
We're not concerned with the entire commercial RE market in the whole country. We are concerned with these particular assets in their particular locations equipped to produce autos. Detroit (for example) has a vast tracts of industrial RE that the city would probably give you if you paid the tax liens.

I've got access to some Real Capital Analytics though work.
Here's $/sqft prices in detroit. Note that office space is up since mid-2007 and industrial is down some 30-35%. Still nowhere near 71% decline, which is why the creditors prefer the collateral.

office

industrial

One of my buddies works for a debt side hedge fund, I'll see if I can have him shoot me a graph of what Chrysler CDS were trading for the past couple months. That should put an end to all this conspiracy nonsense.

You yourself admitted personal knowledge that Ford, despite trying, has been unable to unload most of their plants. That's a clear concession that these assets are worth even less than the going average rates for their property category. So now we're going to dump a bunch more nearly identical assets into the same stagnant part of the market and pretend their values won't be affected?



Without knowing more specifics about the CDS transactions (who bought what, when, and for how much) it's going to be impossible to really get a handle on that situation until later. It definitely makes for a hell of a motivation though given the odds the bankruptcy court won't come back with a more favorable figure for the holdouts.

Yeah,
what I said implies that the market value of the plants was known in 2007 (ACH did manage to sell two or three and handed one back to ford) based on comps (ie precedent transaction).

In any case, both cerberus and debt side funds KNOW how to value collateral, they make living investing in secured debt.

When those bonds were revolved in 2007, the value of collateral was for all practical purposes equal the face value of the issue. Cerberus's incentive to do that is to minimize the interest they have to pay (the more collateral, the less interest needed), debt side funds' incentive is so they don't get burned in bankruptcy (aka make sure the collateral is worth what cerberus says its work...part of due diligence).

So it's totally impossible that the assets were overvalued at the peak of the lending orgy?

You've got the charts couple posts up, I don't see any crazy run up like in case-shiller indices.

Commercial real estate generally trends with the business cycle - good economy = lower unemployment = need for more office space = higher sq/ft prices. The "lending orgy" is far more relevant to residential properties, where everyone and their mom could get a 600K loan... it doesn't really make much sense to double your warehouse capacity (if you're utilizing only 50% of the current) just because chase bank will lend to you.

Are you really still arguing with me (someone with finance and commercial RE background) just because Obama said hedge funds are bad?
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,774
48,455
136
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: K1052
We're not concerned with the entire commercial RE market in the whole country. We are concerned with these particular assets in their particular locations equipped to produce autos. Detroit (for example) has a vast tracts of industrial RE that the city would probably give you if you paid the tax liens.

I've got access to some Real Capital Analytics though work.
Here's $/sqft prices in detroit. Note that office space is up since mid-2007 and industrial is down some 30-35%. Still nowhere near 71% decline, which is why the creditors prefer the collateral.

office

industrial

One of my buddies works for a debt side hedge fund, I'll see if I can have him shoot me a graph of what Chrysler CDS were trading for the past couple months. That should put an end to all this conspiracy nonsense.

You yourself admitted personal knowledge that Ford, despite trying, has been unable to unload most of their plants. That's a clear concession that these assets are worth even less than the going average rates for their property category. So now we're going to dump a bunch more nearly identical assets into the same stagnant part of the market and pretend their values won't be affected?



Without knowing more specifics about the CDS transactions (who bought what, when, and for how much) it's going to be impossible to really get a handle on that situation until later. It definitely makes for a hell of a motivation though given the odds the bankruptcy court won't come back with a more favorable figure for the holdouts.

Yeah,
what I said implies that the market value of the plants was known in 2007 (ACH did manage to sell two or three and handed one back to ford) based on comps (ie precedent transaction).

In any case, both cerberus and debt side funds KNOW how to value collateral, they make living investing in secured debt.

When those bonds were revolved in 2007, the value of collateral was for all practical purposes equal the face value of the issue. Cerberus's incentive to do that is to minimize the interest they have to pay (the more collateral, the less interest needed), debt side funds' incentive is so they don't get burned in bankruptcy (aka make sure the collateral is worth what cerberus says its work...part of due diligence).

So it's totally impossible that the assets were overvalued at the peak of the lending orgy?

You've got the charts couple posts up, I don't see any crazy run up like in case-shiller indices.

Commercial real estate generally trends with the business cycle - good economy = lower unemployment = need for more office space = higher sq/ft prices. The "lending orgy" is far more relevant to residential properties, where everyone and their mom could get a 600K loan... it doesn't really make much sense to double your warehouse capacity (if you're utilizing only 50% of the current) just because chase bank will lend to you.

Are you really still arguing with me (someone with finance and commercial RE background) just because Obama said hedge funds are bad?

High valuations were in Cerberus' interest at the time and there were willing lenders so they loaded Chrysler up on debt not knowing the party would be over soon.

No, I actually have little love for either our previous or current president. I just don't' agree that 1) the 33 cent offer was totally unreasonable in the given circumstances 2) the motivations of the holdout funds are as simple as you represent 3) that killing Chrysler at this point and all the collateral damage is worth a few more potential cents on the dollar being paid to a group of minority creditors when there's a workable alternative on the table.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,839
2,625
136
Originally posted by: halik
Are you really still arguing with me (someone with finance and commercial RE background) just because Obama said hedge funds are bad?

When did Obama say hedge funds are bad?