Are banks greedy and selfish when they repo your car?

[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!

 

[BoberFett]

Got a senator in your pocket?

 

[QuantumPion]

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?

How would you feel if the job you worked for told you that their sales weren't doing so well so they were going to not pay you 70% of your wages for the month. Not a pay cut, but retroactively take back money you already worked for.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

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?

How would you feel if the job you worked for told you that their sales weren't doing so well so they were going to not pay you 70% of your wages for the month. Not a pay cut, but retroactively take back money you already worked for.

There is already a legal framework to deal with retirement benefits in bankruptcy, it's backed by the govt. More importantly this is THE SAME FRAMEWORK that was in place when you took the position, which means you always had the risk that if the company goes to bankruptcy, your benefits may be reduced.

This framework is analogous to contract law that dictates what happens to secured debt in bankruptcy.

 

[Moonbeam]

They are now selling some cars with a device installed that makes the car inoperable if you are late with a payment.

 

[OCGuy]

Are you retarded?


Jesus...

Edit: Oops, this is P&N, not OT, guess I should give a real answer.




They already take a loss on the vehicle when YOU dont hold up your end of the transaction. YOU are the one being greedy by not meeting your financial obligations.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

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?

How would you feel if the job you worked for told you that their sales weren't doing so well so they were going to not pay you 70% of your wages for the month. Not a pay cut, but retroactively take back money you already worked for.

There is already a legal framework to deal with retirement benefits in bankruptcy, it's backed by the govt. More importantly this is THE SAME FRAMEWORK that was in place when you took the position, which means you always had the risk that if the company goes to bankruptcy, your benefits may be reduced.

This framework is analogous to contract law that dictates what happens to secured debt in bankruptcy.

You remind me of an episode of Seinfeld where Kramer is trying to get Jerry to mail a broken stereo that is out of warantee through the post office, and then claim it as damaged in transit to get a refund. Jerry rightfully states that it is akin to stealing, but Kramer insists that the post office can just "write it off". Jerry then mocks Kramer for his lack of understanding.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Are you retarded?


Jesus...

Edit: Oops, this is P&N, not OT, guess I should give a real answer.




They already take a loss on the vehicle when YOU dont hold up your end of the transaction. YOU are the one being greedy by not meeting your financial obligations.

You need new batteries for your sarcasm meter...

But to continue in the same spirit as above, you mean to tell me that if I lend you money against collateral, it's greedy and selfish to take the collateral when you stop paying me back?

 

[Mursilis]

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!

As the housing 'crisis' has taught us, your right to have nice things is utterly unrelated to your ability to pay for those things.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

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!

As the housing 'crisis' has taught us, your right to have nice things is utterly unrelated to your ability to pay for those things.

Sigged

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: halik

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

i have to wonder whether the hedges were primed

 

[boomerang]

Hey, there's a new sheriff in town. Things are going to be done HIS way. He's the sheriff, so he gets to make the rules.

Business = bad

Workers = good

The people are behind him. For a few, the transition will be painful, for the many a relief. In the end, when the needs of the many are fulfilled by the few, glory will be upon us all.

 

[soccerballtux]

Personal Responsibility.

 

[JEDIYoda]

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!

so tell us how they repo`d your car??
This ought to be entertaining...hehehe

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Are you retarded?


Jesus...

Edit: Oops, this is P&N, not OT, guess I should give a real answer.




They already take a loss on the vehicle when YOU dont hold up your end of the transaction. YOU are the one being greedy by not meeting your financial obligations.

I thought this was your typical answer...isn`t it?

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

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!

so tell us how they repo`d your car??
This ought to be entertaining...hehehe

No one has repod anything of mine, the original post is basically what obama said the other day.

 

[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.

 

[heyheybooboo]

^ ^ ^ ^ ^
This.

The OP is simply a miscellaneous rambling and false analogy.

 

[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

 

[LTC8K6]

Secured creditors are supposed to get first crack under CH11 rules. The Obama admin is trying to push them to the back of the line in favor of unsecured creditors.

Hopefully they won't get away with it, but I would not be surprised if they do.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

 

[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

 

[heyheybooboo]

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

I think Chase consented to their stake - don't know how much pressure was applied.

What may be the most sad fact about this is when the loan is ultimately paid back Mopar will most likely be foreign-owned (but Nardelli The Company Killer will be gone ...).