The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
I guess Obamessiah gets to rewrite business rules and contract law for his union buddies even though he isn't playing by the rule.

There is no question that if Chrysler is to be liquidated, the secured bondholders would get less than what they're being offered now. I think they're mostly pissed off that they should've been the first ones getting paid instead of the unions.

Before you blame spectulators, these are pension/construction funds. Ordinary people paid into the pension funds and the funds have every right to recover as much of their investment as they're legally entitled to. I guess Obama would rather spread the wealth of hard working Americans who paid into pension funds to lazy union workers/unions.

WTF, if they are getting more then they are entitled to what the fuck are you bitching about?

I really doubt that is the case, they have a fiduciary obligation to their trustees to get the most cash they can. If the 27c on the dollar was fair, they would've accepted it.

uhh, 99% of them did accept it. Guess you lost that point.

Circular argument is circular. Scroll up half of page up bud; the fact that some people accept a third party deal doesn't strip the remaining people of what they're entitled to.

Every time you try and rehash that the creditors must be some kind of genius because they are rejecting the deal. I will continue to point out that 99% have accepted the deal and there the fact that 1% have rejected the deal is not evidence that the deal is unfair.

You cannot change the principal or any other debt terms w/o unanimous consent of the bond holders, which is why your argument makes no sense. Unanimous > 99%

Again you said that the deal wasn't fair as evidenced by the fact that 1% of the bond holders rejected it. I say you full of shit because 99% accepted it.

You are just picking and choosing your responses here.


It has nothing to do with fair, it has to do with legal. It is not legal unless 100% accept. I don't give a shit if only 1 out of a million hasn't accepted the deal, if legally all 1 million people have to accept, than all fucking one million people have to accept. The law is the law. You can't just change it on a whim because it benefits you.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Again you said that the deal wasn't fair as evidenced by the fact that 1% of the bond holders rejected it. I say you full of shit because 99% accepted it.

..wat?

I give up though,
apparently my Master's in Finance and Wall street work experience are no match for your immunity to logic and the least bit idea of what secured debt means in terms of bankruptcy.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447



Repeat after me:

You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. There is not a new chrysler until the legal proceedings have occurred in the correct legal order. Primary holders have been skipped over when they have a legal claim to assets. Just because Obama is skipping them, doesn't make it legal.


Just about everyone in this thread has pointed out how misinformed you are. Both Dem's and Rep's. I don't think this is a partisan thing, I think it is a legal thing. And I think you are one of the very few that thinks what Obama is doing is in any way legal.

It is a nice theory, but you have no evidence. Show me one group of people that are willing to pay more the 27 cents on the dollar for the assets then you can say that the speculators have been skipped over. Until you can you just wrong.

Just because you found other rush fans to support you doesn't make you right.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
I guess Obamessiah gets to rewrite business rules and contract law for his union buddies even though he isn't playing by the rule.

There is no question that if Chrysler is to be liquidated, the secured bondholders would get less than what they're being offered now. I think they're mostly pissed off that they should've been the first ones getting paid instead of the unions.

Before you blame spectulators, these are pension/construction funds. Ordinary people paid into the pension funds and the funds have every right to recover as much of their investment as they're legally entitled to. I guess Obama would rather spread the wealth of hard working Americans who paid into pension funds to lazy union workers/unions.

WTF, if they are getting more then they are entitled to what the fuck are you bitching about?

I really doubt that is the case, they have a fiduciary obligation to their trustees to get the most cash they can. If the 27c on the dollar was fair, they would've accepted it.

Try reading that massive block of quotes and see who is talking about fair.

 

[halik]

Yeah couple posts higher we have this:

6.6 out of the 6.9bil of bond holders were TARP banks, which means the gov't had significant negotiating power over them. I'm sure Bawney Fwank would unleash a shitstorm if they actively tried to resist the cramdown.

On your second point, people lent that money assuming that EVEN IF CHRYSLER GOES UNDER, THEY'LL GET THE COLLATERAL. Even as a shitty company, if you have assets that are worth $X, I'm willing to lend you money up to $X if you agree that if you stop paying I get those assets. If you look at your value at risk, at most you lose the expected yield, bulk of the principal (read: more than 27c/dollar) is safe.

But regardless of fair or unfair, until you have *unanimous consent* you cannot change the terms of the issue. Which is why 99% is just not enough.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Again you said that the deal wasn't fair as evidenced by the fact that 1% of the bond holders rejected it. I say you full of shit because 99% accepted it.

..wat?

I give up though,
apparently my Master's in Finance and Wall street work experience are no match for your immunity to logic and the least bit idea of what secured debt means in terms of bankruptcy.

What you are calling secured debt really is a combination of secured debt and unsecured debt because the value of the COLLATERAL is less then the loan amount.

If the speculators can find someone willing to pay more for the COLLATERAL then more people to them, but god fucking luck.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: smack Down

WTF, if they are getting more then they are entitled to what the fuck are you bitching about?

Let me break it down for you: Chrysler is being restructured. Secured bondholders should be the 1st in line to get the proceeds. Obama says no, pressures financial entities that accepted TARP funds to take the shaft and made a deal that favors his union buddies. That is contrary to what's been done for a LONG time. ISome bondholders who didn't take TARP funds feel that it's unfair and want to sue to recover more. I don't see a problem with that.

If you were an investor would you still buy bonds of companies with union workers? I certainly wouldn't, not unless I'll get coupons that reflect the risk of the possibility to have my rights as a secured bondholder stripped by the Obamessiah.

It'll be interesting to see how the SCOTUS rules on this.

yeap. though SCOTUS has made some bad decisions in the past. i really don't expect them to make the right one.

IF They allow this to go through its going to change how business is done (and not for the better).

why are you guys argueing with smackdown? really. read some of his threads you should know better.

Personal I hope the speculators win and have to sell the assets for 5 cents on the dollar and tax payers don't have to give them one damn dime.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Again you said that the deal wasn't fair as evidenced by the fact that 1% of the bond holders rejected it. I say you full of shit because 99% accepted it.

..wat?

I give up though,
apparently my Master's in Finance and Wall street work experience are no match for your immunity to logic and the least bit idea of what secured debt means in terms of bankruptcy.

What you are calling secured debt really is a combination of secured debt and unsecured debt because the value of the COLLATERAL is less then the loan amount.

If the speculators can find someone willing to pay more for the COLLATERAL then more people to them, but god fucking luck.

Whether you think the assets in collateral are worth more or less than 27c is irrelevant, it's their call.

Plus chrysler went private couple years ago, which means the debt was revolved and the new issue by Chrysler, llc was recollateralized.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Again you said that the deal wasn't fair as evidenced by the fact that 1% of the bond holders rejected it. I say you full of shit because 99% accepted it.

..wat?

I give up though,
apparently my Master's in Finance and Wall street work experience are no match for your immunity to logic and the least bit idea of what secured debt means in terms of bankruptcy.

What you are calling secured debt really is a combination of secured debt and unsecured debt because the value of the COLLATERAL is less then the loan amount.

If the speculators can find someone willing to pay more for the COLLATERAL then more people to them, but god fucking luck.

Whether you think the assets in collateral are worth more or less than 27c is irrelevant, it's their call.
Plus chrysler went private couple years ago, which means the debt was revolved and the new issue by Chrysler, llc was recapitalized.

It was there call right up until they enter bankruptcy. Now it is up to a judge to decided how best to dispose of the assets. No one has suggested any plan but to sell them to Fiat so guess what that is what the judge decided was in the best interest of the creditors.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Again you said that the deal wasn't fair as evidenced by the fact that 1% of the bond holders rejected it. I say you full of shit because 99% accepted it.

..wat?

I give up though,
apparently my Master's in Finance and Wall street work experience are no match for your immunity to logic and the least bit idea of what secured debt means in terms of bankruptcy.

What you are calling secured debt really is a combination of secured debt and unsecured debt because the value of the COLLATERAL is less then the loan amount.

If the speculators can find someone willing to pay more for the COLLATERAL then more people to them, but god fucking luck.

Whether you think the assets in collateral are worth more or less than 27c is irrelevant, it's their call.
Plus chrysler went private couple years ago, which means the debt was revolved and the new issue by Chrysler, llc was recapitalized.

It was there call right up until they enter bankruptcy. Now it is up to a judge to decided how best to dispose of the assets. No one has suggested any plan but to sell them to Fiat so guess what that is what the judge decided was in the best interest of the creditors.

Sorta,
i think the issue here is still that they can't cram down the rest of the issue (the other 99%) without the unanimous consent. Chrysler gets to pitch idea about restructuring and creditors vote on it. Disposition of assets (actual restructuring) will only happen once this business is settled.

I don't get why they're trying to screw them, when it's so little money. Just go to arbitration and buy them out. They don't have enough pull to actually change the outcome of restructuring (2/3 vote by $ 1/2 by number for each creditor class), but without them aboard you can't change the terms on the bonds.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Again you said that the deal wasn't fair as evidenced by the fact that 1% of the bond holders rejected it. I say you full of shit because 99% accepted it.

..wat?

I give up though,
apparently my Master's in Finance and Wall street work experience are no match for your immunity to logic and the least bit idea of what secured debt means in terms of bankruptcy.

What you are calling secured debt really is a combination of secured debt and unsecured debt because the value of the COLLATERAL is less then the loan amount.

If the speculators can find someone willing to pay more for the COLLATERAL then more people to them, but god fucking luck.

Whether you think the assets in collateral are worth more or less than 27c is irrelevant, it's their call.
Plus chrysler went private couple years ago, which means the debt was revolved and the new issue by Chrysler, llc was recapitalized.

It was there call right up until they enter bankruptcy. Now it is up to a judge to decided how best to dispose of the assets. No one has suggested any plan but to sell them to Fiat so guess what that is what the judge decided was in the best interest of the creditors.

Sorta,
i think the issue here is still that they can't cram down the rest of the issue (the other 99%) without the unanimous consent. Chrysler gets to pitch idea about restructuring and creditors vote on it. Disposition of assets (actual restructuring) will only happen once this business is settled.

I don't get why they're trying to screw them, when it's so little money. Just go to arbitration and buy them out. They don't have enough pull to actually change the outcome of restructuring (2/3 vote by $ 1/2 by number for each creditor class), but without them aboard you can't change the terms on the bonds.

I think I see why you are confused. There is no restructuring, just liquidation.

 

[lupi]

Comrades, why argue about what we are telling you is good for you.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: smack Down

I think I see why you are confused. There is no restructuring, just liquidation.

So if you go into bankruptcy, and your home is foreclosed by the bank, who has the right to sell the house? Who determines its value?

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: smack Down

I think I see why you are confused. There is no restructuring, just liquidation.

So if you go into bankruptcy, and your home is foreclosed by the bank, who has the right to sell the house? Who determines its value?

Obama... he knows all ;-P bow to the leader ... hehehe

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: smack Down

I think I see why you are confused. There is no restructuring, just liquidation.

So if you go into bankruptcy, and your home is foreclosed by the bank, who has the right to sell the house? Who determines its value?

The government sells the house at auction. If the bank doesn't like the price they are free to enter a higher bid.

 

[Caecus Veritas]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: smack Down

I think I see why you are confused. There is no restructuring, just liquidation.

So if you go into bankruptcy, and your home is foreclosed by the bank, who has the right to sell the house? Who determines its value?

The government sells the house at auction. If the bank doesn't like the price they are free to enter a higher bid.

uhh... foreclosure proceedings are done by the private sector. and it's the BANK that's selling.. not the government. if you list something on ebay for sale and don't like the bids, do you bid on your own to get a higher price??? or if you lend some money to your friend and hold his car as collateral - and he defaults on your loan, are you saying the government is gonna step in to sell so that you could bid on your own collateral?

obviously, you have no grasp of even the simplest financial workings, nevermind something as complex as a corporate bankruptcy.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Again you said that the deal wasn't fair as evidenced by the fact that 1% of the bond holders rejected it. I say you full of shit because 99% accepted it.

..wat?

I give up though,
apparently my Master's in Finance and Wall street work experience are no match for your immunity to logic and the least bit idea of what secured debt means in terms of bankruptcy.

What you are calling secured debt really is a combination of secured debt and unsecured debt because the value of the COLLATERAL is less then the loan amount.

If the speculators can find someone willing to pay more for the COLLATERAL then more people to them, but god fucking luck.

Whether you think the assets in collateral are worth more or less than 27c is irrelevant, it's their call.
Plus chrysler went private couple years ago, which means the debt was revolved and the new issue by Chrysler, llc was recapitalized.

It was there call right up until they enter bankruptcy. Now it is up to a judge to decided how best to dispose of the assets. No one has suggested any plan but to sell them to Fiat so guess what that is what the judge decided was in the best interest of the creditors.

Sorta,
i think the issue here is still that they can't cram down the rest of the issue (the other 99%) without the unanimous consent. Chrysler gets to pitch idea about restructuring and creditors vote on it. Disposition of assets (actual restructuring) will only happen once this business is settled.

I don't get why they're trying to screw them, when it's so little money. Just go to arbitration and buy them out. They don't have enough pull to actually change the outcome of restructuring (2/3 vote by $ 1/2 by number for each creditor class), but without them aboard you can't change the terms on the bonds.

I think I see why you are confused. There is no restructuring, just liquidation.

Uh, completely and totally wrong, just like almost everything you have said.

They are in Chapter 11, so no, THEY ARE restructuring. Forming a new company with partial assests = Chapter 11 = restructuring.

Two you seem to be under the impression the US Government owns Chrysler. They do not. There is no "New Chrysler" until all legal proceedings are finished.

Obama has threatened most of the secured creditors with 1. negative press 2. because they had TARP funds.

This is a rule of law issue. What is happening goes AGAINST the rule of law as it is current written. And no just because the President does it/wants it doesnt make it legal.

Also tt isnt bailing out secured creditors. Its ABOUT FOLLOWING THE LAW. In Chapter 7 secured creditors WOULD likely get more than twenty something cents on the dollar. I dont see why they wont just pay them off, theyve already pissed away billions, and are likely to piss away even tens of billions more.

In all reality without the secured creditors, Chryler would have been liquidated before the advent of TARP.

Chrysler should be allowed to fail. As, there is not long term sustainability for the company even merged with Fiat. Fiat has already said it would STILL look into liquidating Chrysler down the line.

People need to stop drinking the Obama cool-aid. The governments intervention in Chrysler is a clusterfuck of epic proportions. There WILL NEVER be a retun on "investment" as Obama likes to keep using, when it comes to Chrysler. The GM intervention marginally less so.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: smack Down

I think I see why you are confused. There is no restructuring, just liquidation.

So if you go into bankruptcy, and your home is foreclosed by the bank, who has the right to sell the house? Who determines its value?

The government sells the house at auction. If the bank doesn't like the price they are free to enter a higher bid.

wow. wrong.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Again you said that the deal wasn't fair as evidenced by the fact that 1% of the bond holders rejected it. I say you full of shit because 99% accepted it.

..wat?

I give up though,
apparently my Master's in Finance and Wall street work experience are no match for your immunity to logic and the least bit idea of what secured debt means in terms of bankruptcy.

What you are calling secured debt really is a combination of secured debt and unsecured debt because the value of the COLLATERAL is less then the loan amount.

If the speculators can find someone willing to pay more for the COLLATERAL then more people to them, but god fucking luck.

Whether you think the assets in collateral are worth more or less than 27c is irrelevant, it's their call.
Plus chrysler went private couple years ago, which means the debt was revolved and the new issue by Chrysler, llc was recapitalized.

It was there call right up until they enter bankruptcy. Now it is up to a judge to decided how best to dispose of the assets. No one has suggested any plan but to sell them to Fiat so guess what that is what the judge decided was in the best interest of the creditors.

Sorta,
i think the issue here is still that they can't cram down the rest of the issue (the other 99%) without the unanimous consent. Chrysler gets to pitch idea about restructuring and creditors vote on it. Disposition of assets (actual restructuring) will only happen once this business is settled.

I don't get why they're trying to screw them, when it's so little money. Just go to arbitration and buy them out. They don't have enough pull to actually change the outcome of restructuring (2/3 vote by $ 1/2 by number for each creditor class), but without them aboard you can't change the terms on the bonds.

I think I see why you are confused. There is no restructuring, just liquidation.

Uh, completely and totally wrong, just like almost everything you have said.

They are in Chapter 11, so no, THEY ARE restructuring. Forming a new company with partial assests = Chapter 11 = restructuring.

Two you seem to be under the impression the US Government owns Chrysler. They do not. There is no "New Chrysler" until all legal proceedings are finished.

Obama has threatened most of the secured creditors with 1. negative press 2. because they had TARP funds.

This is a rule of law issue. What is happening goes AGAINST the rule of law as it is current written. And no just because the President does it/wants it doesnt make it legal.

Also tt isnt bailing out secured creditors. Its ABOUT FOLLOWING THE LAW. In Chapter 7 secured creditors WOULD likely get more than twenty something cents on the dollar. I dont see why they wont just pay them off, theyve already pissed away billions, and are likely to piss away even tens of billions more.

In all reality without the secured creditors, Chryler would have been liquidated before the advent of TARP.

Chrysler should be allowed to fail. As, there is not long term sustainability for the company even merged with Fiat. Fiat has already said it would STILL look into liquidating Chrysler down the line.

People need to stop drinking the Obama cool-aid. The governments intervention in Chrysler is a clusterfuck of epic proportions. There WILL NEVER be a retun on "investment" as Obama likes to keep using, when it comes to Chrysler. The GM intervention marginally less so.

and the sad part is that the government is getting away with it. should be a interesting next few months.

as of now "secured" debt is no more.

 

[Patranus]

So how much does the market tank tomorrow?

BTW: The needs of the US tax payer and the rule of law outweigh the needs of the UAW

 

[daniel49]

Him and spock are so much alike.
Text

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: smack Down

I think I see why you are confused. There is no restructuring, just liquidation.

So if you go into bankruptcy, and your home is foreclosed by the bank, who has the right to sell the house? Who determines its value?

The government sells the house at auction. If the bank doesn't like the price they are free to enter a higher bid.

wow. wrong.

He's riding the lollercoaster...

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: waggy

as of now "secured" debt is no more.

Not getting away with it per se, I'm sure the pension funds will still sue. The Supreme Court decision was strictly regarding the stay (aka blocking the sale), they made no decision about the legality of what is happening.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: smack Down

I think I see why you are confused. There is no restructuring, just liquidation.

So if you go into bankruptcy, and your home is foreclosed by the bank, who has the right to sell the house? Who determines its value?

The government sells the house at auction. If the bank doesn't like the price they are free to enter a higher bid.

wow. wrong.

He's riding the lollercoaster...

Wow you guys are a bunch of idiots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...re#Foreclosure_auction

When the entity (in the US, typically a county sheriff or designee) auctions a foreclosed property...

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: waggy

as of now "secured" debt is no more.

Not getting away with it per se, I'm sure the pension funds will still sue. The Supreme Court decision was strictly regarding the stay (aka blocking the sale), they made no decision about the legality of what is happening.

Sue who and for what?
The old Chrysler for not getting enough money for the assets? Good luck with that.
The new Chrysler for not paying enough? lol that would be a first.
The government?