(Pension and Hedge) Fund Managers Burned by Obama

[balrog666]

May 20 (Bloomberg) -- Hedge fund manager George Schultze says he may avoid lending to any more unionized companies after being burned by President Barack Obama in Chrysler LLC’s bankruptcy.

Obama put Chrysler under court protection on April 30 after lenders balked at a proposal giving them about 29 cents on the dollar for their $6.9 billion in debt. The investors said the president’s plan favored a union retiree medical fund whose claims ranked behind them for repayment. It was offered a 55 percent equity stake in the automaker.

Pacific Investment Management Co., Barclays Capital and Fridson Investment Advisors have joined Schultze Asset Management LLC in saying lenders may be unwilling to back unionized companies with underfunded pension and medical obligations, such as airlines and auto-industry suppliers, because Chrysler’s creditors failed to block Obama’s move. The reluctance may put additional pressure on borrowers seeking capital in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

“Lenders will have to figure out how to price this risk,” Schultze, 39, said in a telephone interview from his office in Purchase, New York. “The obvious one is: Don’t lend to a company with big legacy liabilities or demand a much higher rate of interest because you may be leapfrogged in a bankruptcy.”

Fund Managers Burned (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=asXxg9ZZRjv4&refer=home)
__________________________________________________ _

Also, this one:

NDIANAPOLIS (May 18, 2009) – Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock announced effective immediately that no portfolios under his control will make additional investments in secured corporate debt of businesses that are receiving infusions of federal funds. In addition, Treasurer Mourdock is communicating his message to Hoosier fiduciaries of public monies who might otherwise make investments in securities that can be devalued due to the unilateral action of the federal government.


"I serve as the Trustee of the Indiana State Police Pension Fund and am responsible for investing the Major Moves Construction Fund. Both of those funds suffered losses when the Obama administration overturned some two-hundred years of established law by redefining ‘secured creditors’ to mean something less,” explained Treasurer Mourdock. “In the past, to be ‘secured’ meant an investor was ‘first in line’ in the event of a bankruptcy and ‘non-secured’ creditors would receive value after secured-creditors were paid. In the Chrysler bankruptcy, however, secured creditors received $.29 on the dollar even as non-secured creditors received higher values and ended up with a 55% ownership of the new company, which is fundamentally wrong and a dangerous precedent to the capital markets.”

“Indiana's pensioners should not be punished as a result of investment managers making historically sound decisions. The managers did nothing wrong, but the portfolios have been victimized due to the actions of the federal government in the Chrysler bankruptcy. Losses have happened once, due to the action of the feds, and as fiduciaries, we must be certain Indiana pensioners and portfolios are not victimized again. Henceforth, we will not add to the portfolios ‘secured’ debt from companies such as General Motors, other manufacturing companies, or those insurance companies who have or will be receiving bailout funds. Given the recent actions of the federal government, the risk is too great for any prudent investor to accept,” clarified Treasurer Mourdock.

Conservatively, the Indiana State Police Pension Fund lost $147,400 and the Major Moves Construction Fund lost $896,000. Though not a fund managed by the State Treasurer's Office, the Indiana Teacher's Retirement Fund suffered, at a minimum, a loss of $4,600,000 due to the action of the federal government.


"As Treasurer and as Trustee of public funds, I will continue to review and consider all options that are available for the recovery of these monies,” stated Treasurer Mourdock. "My message to all who are investing on behalf of Indiana's retired public employees is the federal government will disregard Hoosiers interest as it pursues unprecedented policies that strike at the heart of the capital system. We must act to protect funds against the actions of the federal government."

Source: Office of the Indiana Treasurer insideindianabusiness.com (http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=35687#middle)

__________________________________________________ _

and this one:

Pension Funds Object to Chrysler Sale, Want Trustee (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a4y3YQlJLDlk&refer=home)

The Indiana State Teachers Retirement Fund, Indiana State Police Pension Trust and Indiana Major Move Construction filed court papers late yesterday and today asking U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Arthur Gonzalez in New York to block the sale, claiming the plan is illegal and tramples their rights.

The funds are also asking for appointment of a trustee to run Chrysler, saying the company has “ceded control over their business and their restructuring efforts to the United States Treasury Department,” which is using the bankruptcy to reward certain creditors that “the government deems politically important,” according to one of the filings.

“The Treasury Department has taken constructive possession of Chrysler and is requiring it to adopt a sale plan in bankruptcy that violates the most fundamental principles of creditor rights,” lawyers for the pension plans wrote.

[drkitten]

Of course. If you have no chance of making a successful legal argument in court, make an emotional one in the newspapers.

If the investors objected to the proposed settlement, they could have said so at the time, in court. In fact, they did say so, but then backed down when they were required to actually support their argument with affidavits.

[balrog666]

Except all creditors (of which there are thousands or perhaps tens of thousands) were not in court and they (quite properly) expected the committee to exercise due fiduciary responsibility in such proceedings.

So they were burned yet again.

And they will deal with that betrayal as well.

Just more unintended consequences that will shape the Obamaville financial system for those left exposed to it.

.

[ZouPrime]

Good luck pricing that risk. The situation and the measures are pretty exceptional.

[balrog666]

Good luck pricing that risk. The situation and the measures are pretty exceptional.



The situation isn't; the measures are. http://forum.darwincentral.org/images/smilies/hit.gif

[Puppycow]

They are free to take their ball and go play elsewhere. Boo hoo. They made a bad investment and Obama won't make them whole.

I mean, please. If they lent money to Chrysler, what were they thinking? And most of the hedge funds bought this debt for pennies on the dollar anyway.

[Puppycow]

Also, this one:

NDIANAPOLIS (May 18, 2009) – Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock announced effective immediately that no portfolios under his control will make additional investments in secured corporate debt of businesses that are receiving infusions of federal funds.

http://www.richardmourdock.com/
I see. This is a republican politician making a partisan political attack.
:roll:

[ZouPrime]

The situation isn't; the measures are. http://forum.darwincentral.org/images/smilies/hit.gif

The Chryslers of this world don't go bankrupt right in an economic crisis every day.

Or maybe I missed something and Obama changed the law with regards to every single bankruptcies?

[drkitten]

Or maybe I missed something and Obama changed the law with regards to every single bankruptcies?

Nope, and nope. As in, yes, you missed something. Regular, vanilla, bankruptcy law. Nothing has changed at all.

Chrysler entered bankruptcy court with a pre-packaged plan for a chapter 11 bankruptcy. Chapter 11 does not "discharge" the debt but modifies the terms of the debt under the supervision of the bankruptcy trustee. In this case, the company had already gotten enough of the debtholders to agree to the new terms of the debt (and the new operating conditions of the company) that its acceptance was very likely.

Just because you own $200 worth of Chrysler bonds doesn't mean that you, personally, are going to be able to hold out for better repayment terms than everyone else. Chrysler made a statement before the judge to the equivalent of "this repayment plan preserves the essential interest of the debtholders" and the debtholders who were represented -- who held something like 85% of the debt themselves -- agreed. There were a few holdouts represented who wanted a better deal, but they themselves withdrew their objections when the judge asked them to support them.

So, in response to balrog666, the committee did exercise due fiduciary responsibility. And you got outvoted by at least 85:15.

[fuelair]

May 20 (Bloomberg) -- Hedge fund manager George Schultze says he may avoid lending to any more unionized companies after being burned by President Barack Obama in Chrysler LLC’s bankruptcy.

Obama put Chrysler under court protection on April 30 after lenders balked at a proposal giving them about 29 cents on the dollar for their $6.9 billion in debt. The investors said the president’s plan favored a union retiree medical fund whose claims ranked behind them for repayment. It was offered a 55 percent equity stake in the automaker.

Pacific Investment Management Co., Barclays Capital and Fridson Investment Advisors have joined Schultze Asset Management LLC in saying lenders may be unwilling to back unionized companies with underfunded pension and medical obligations, such as airlines and auto-industry suppliers, because Chrysler’s creditors failed to block Obama’s move. The reluctance may put additional pressure on borrowers seeking capital in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

“Lenders will have to figure out how to price this risk,” Schultze, 39, said in a telephone interview from his office in Purchase, New York. “The obvious one is: Don’t lend to a company with big legacy liabilities or demand a much higher rate of interest because you may be leapfrogged in a bankruptcy.”

Fund Managers Burned (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=asXxg9ZZRjv4&refer=home)
__________________________________________________ _

Also, this one:

NDIANAPOLIS (May 18, 2009) – Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock announced effective immediately that no portfolios under his control will make additional investments in secured corporate debt of businesses that are receiving infusions of federal funds. In addition, Treasurer Mourdock is communicating his message to Hoosier fiduciaries of public monies who might otherwise make investments in securities that can be devalued due to the unilateral action of the federal government.


"I serve as the Trustee of the Indiana State Police Pension Fund and am responsible for investing the Major Moves Construction Fund. Both of those funds suffered losses when the Obama administration overturned some two-hundred years of established law by redefining ‘secured creditors’ to mean something less,” explained Treasurer Mourdock. “In the past, to be ‘secured’ meant an investor was ‘first in line’ in the event of a bankruptcy and ‘non-secured’ creditors would receive value after secured-creditors were paid. In the Chrysler bankruptcy, however, secured creditors received $.29 on the dollar even as non-secured creditors received higher values and ended up with a 55% ownership of the new company, which is fundamentally wrong and a dangerous precedent to the capital markets.”

“Indiana's pensioners should not be punished as a result of investment managers making historically sound decisions. The managers did nothing wrong, but the portfolios have been victimized due to the actions of the federal government in the Chrysler bankruptcy. Losses have happened once, due to the action of the feds, and as fiduciaries, we must be certain Indiana pensioners and portfolios are not victimized again. Henceforth, we will not add to the portfolios ‘secured’ debt from companies such as General Motors, other manufacturing companies, or those insurance companies who have or will be receiving bailout funds. Given the recent actions of the federal government, the risk is too great for any prudent investor to accept,” clarified Treasurer Mourdock.

Conservatively, the Indiana State Police Pension Fund lost $147,400 and the Major Moves Construction Fund lost $896,000. Though not a fund managed by the State Treasurer's Office, the Indiana Teacher's Retirement Fund suffered, at a minimum, a loss of $4,600,000 due to the action of the federal government.


"As Treasurer and as Trustee of public funds, I will continue to review and consider all options that are available for the recovery of these monies,” stated Treasurer Mourdock. "My message to all who are investing on behalf of Indiana's retired public employees is the federal government will disregard Hoosiers interest as it pursues unprecedented policies that strike at the heart of the capital system. We must act to protect funds against the actions of the federal government."

Source: Office of the Indiana Treasurer insideindianabusiness.com (http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=35687#middle)

__________________________________________________ _

and this one:

Pension Funds Object to Chrysler Sale, Want Trustee (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a4y3YQlJLDlk&refer=home)
I feel so much for him and his fellows!!!!*























*NOT!!:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

[Chaos]

Nope, and nope. As in, yes, you missed something. Regular, vanilla, bankruptcy law. Nothing has changed at all.

Chrysler entered bankruptcy court with a pre-packaged plan for a chapter 11 bankruptcy. Chapter 11 does not "discharge" the debt but modifies the terms of the debt under the supervision of the bankruptcy trustee. In this case, the company had already gotten enough of the debtholders to agree to the new terms of the debt (and the new operating conditions of the company) that its acceptance was very likely.

Just because you own $200 worth of Chrysler bonds doesn't mean that you, personally, are going to be able to hold out for better repayment terms than everyone else. Chrysler made a statement before the judge to the equivalent of "this repayment plan preserves the essential interest of the debtholders" and the debtholders who were represented -- who held something like 85% of the debt themselves -- agreed. There were a few holdouts represented who wanted a better deal, but they themselves withdrew their objections when the judge asked them to support them.

So, in response to balrog666, the committee did exercise due fiduciary responsibility. And you got outvoted by at least 85:15.

What exactly does "support their objections" mean? "Find a flaw (business-wise or legal) in the deal", or "come up with something better"?

[mhaze]

Nope, and nope. As in, yes, you missed something. Regular, vanilla, bankruptcy law. Nothing has changed at all.

Chrysler entered bankruptcy court with a pre-packaged plan for a chapter 11 bankruptcy. Chapter 11 does not "discharge" the debt but modifies the terms of the debt under the supervision of the bankruptcy trustee. In this case, the company had already gotten enough of the debtholders to agree to the new terms of the debt (and the new operating conditions of the company) that its acceptance was very likely.

Just because you own $200 worth of Chrysler bonds doesn't mean that you, personally, are going to be able to hold out for better repayment terms than everyone else. Chrysler made a statement before the judge to the equivalent of "this repayment plan preserves the essential interest of the debtholders" and the debtholders who were represented -- who held something like 85% of the debt themselves -- agreed. There were a few holdouts represented who wanted a better deal, but they themselves withdrew their objections when the judge asked them to support them.

So, in response to balrog666, the committee did exercise due fiduciary responsibility. And you got outvoted by at least 85:15.

Something did not ring true with this, and I admit to just going with my recollections of the law. However, in going back over the thread, I find that the pension fund manager did state the relevant part of the legal process at issue here:
"I serve as the Trustee of the Indiana State Police Pension Fund and am responsible for investing the Major Moves Construction Fund. Both of those funds suffered losses when the Obama administration overturned some two-hundred years of established law by redefining ‘secured creditors’ to mean something less,” explained Treasurer Mourdock. “In the past, to be ‘secured’ meant an investor was ‘first in line’ in the event of a bankruptcy and ‘non-secured’ creditors would receive value after secured-creditors were paid. In the Chrysler bankruptcy, however, secured creditors received $.29 on the dollar even as non-secured creditors received higher values and ended up with a 55% ownership of the new company, which is fundamentally wrong and a dangerous precedent to the capital markets.”
Now, Dr Kitten, you are not incorrect in stating that through some political manuvering preliminary to a bankrupcy case being presented, some number of creditors were induced/pressured or voluntarily agreed to a proposed settlement.

But this is not relevant to the statement by the pension fund manager, and your assertion that this is just "Typical bankrupcy proceedings" is not, apparently, valid.

And that's the point of the OP.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

What exactly does "support their objections" mean? "Find a flaw (business-wise or legal) in the deal", or "come up with something better"?

Both.

[Chaos]

Both.

Ah. Thanks.

[mhaze]

Except all creditors (of which there are thousands or perhaps tens of thousands) were not in court and they (quite properly) expected the committee to exercise due fiduciary responsibility in such proceedings.

So they were burned yet again.

And they will deal with that betrayal as well.

Just more unintended consequences that will shape the Obamaville financial system for those left exposed to it.

.By way of thinking out how this should have played out, this is what I get.



Secured creditors go into court, basically they own the company.
Secured creditors negotiate with UAW to get them to keep working, they make some sort of deal regarding the pensions (or perhaps don't)
Secured creditors ask the bankrupcy judge to approve the deal so the business can continue operations.

As it has played out with Banana Republic White House logic, though, UAW rights to the full value of their pension fund, whether through equity or cash, trump the Indiana pensioners' rights to their full value of their pension fund.

Wow...

[The Central Scrutinizer]

By way of thinking out how this should have played out, this is what I get.



Secured creditors go into court, basically they own the company.
Secured creditors negotiate with UAW to get them to keep working, they make some sort of deal regarding the pensions (or perhaps don't)
Secured creditors ask the bankrupcy judge to approve the deal so the business can continue operations.
As it has played out with Banana Republic White House logic, though, UAW rights to the full value of their pension fund, whether through equity or cash, trump the Indiana pensioners' rights to their full value of their pension fund.

Wow...

So if they had put the rights of the Indiana pensioners ahead of those of the UAW, would the Indiana pensioners have gone in and built the cars after the UAW left? Somehow, I doubt it.

[mhaze]

So if they had put the rights of the Indiana pensioners ahead of those of the UAW, would the Indiana pensioners have gone in and built the cars after the UAW left? Somehow, I doubt it.What is wrong in your logic is who is the "they".

[balrog666]

By way of thinking out how this should have played out, this is what I get.



Secured creditors go into court, basically they own the company.
Secured creditors negotiate with UAW to get them to keep working, they make some sort of deal regarding the pensions (or perhaps don't)
Secured creditors ask the bankrupcy judge to approve the deal so the business can continue operations.

As it has played out with Banana Republic White House logic, though, UAW rights to the full value of their pension fund, whether through equity or cash, trump the Indiana pensioners' rights to their full value of their pension fund.

Wow...


But ... if the majority of the secured creditors are enthralled to the Dhims/Obama administration through TARP funds and bailouts, especially after watching the firing of Wagoner and the threats against other CEO's, what should they do (in public) to protect their own shareholders (not to mentin their own ass)?

[NoZed Avenger]

So if they had put the rights of the Indiana pensioners ahead of those of the UAW, would the Indiana pensioners have gone in and built the cars after the UAW left? Somehow, I doubt it.

And who will buy these cars?

Isn't that kind of why the company is bankrupt in the first place? Building more unwanted, sucky cars is not such a great result that I feel the need to have my tax dollars put into that sinkhole.

[balrog666]

And who will buy these cars?

Isn't that kind of why the company is bankrupt in the first place? Building more unwanted, sucky cars is not such a great result that I feel the need to have my tax dollars put into that sinkhole.



The Federal government - who will use them for fishing reefs off of Somali ...

[Puppycow]

And who will buy these cars?

Isn't that kind of why the company is bankrupt in the first place? Building more unwanted, sucky cars is not such a great result that I feel the need to have my tax dollars put into that sinkhole.

Buying crappy domestic cars is a patriotic duty. Why do you hate America? :duck:

[monoman]

Pension & Hedges - the whole area is full of fags and could do with a government health warning.

[mhaze]

The Federal government - who will use them for fishing reefs off of Somali ...Actually, given the current trendiness of "Carbon Capture and Sequestration" and the fantastic loonieness of the concepts advocated by far left for this supposedly important Need, the cars could be manufactured, then dumped into the ocean.

Then someone could get carbon credits for all the carbon not put into the atmosphere by each of those cars over it's useful life.

See how easy it is?

[drkitten]

What exactly does "support their objections" mean? "Find a flaw (business-wise or legal) in the deal", or "come up with something better"?

In this case, it means merely "identify the people whose interests will be hurt by the proposed deal so that the court can determine if this deal is in fact not in their best interests."

They backed out at that point.

If they had actually been willing to stay and support their case, then either a legal or fiduciary flaw in the deal or a better offer would be reason enough for the bankruptcy judge to reject or modify the proposed deal.

For that matter, the judge can also reject the proposed deal on his own if he thinks it's out of line. But if you walk into the courtroom and say "Judge, I represent a large but undefined group of investors who will be seriously hurt by this deal in a way that my clients have forbidden me to describe in more detail," the judge is not likely to be pleased.

[drkitten]

By way of thinking out how this should have played out, this is what I get.



Secured creditors go into court, basically they own the company.
Secured creditors negotiate with UAW to get them to keep working, they make some sort of deal regarding the pensions (or perhaps don't)
Secured creditors ask the bankrupcy judge to approve the deal so the business can continue operations.




You missed some steps.

If Chrysler had walked in with a chapter seven bankruptcy plan, that's exactly what would have happened (except that the company would not have continued operations). It walked in with a chapter 11 plan.

So,...


Secured creditors go into court, basically they own the company.
Secured creditors state to the judge "We don't WANT to own the company" and accept chapter 11 instead of chapter 7.
Secured creditors state to the judge "[i]We think that this operational plan will preserve our long-term financial interests" and voluntarily subordinate their claims to the ones outlined in the plan.
Judge asked if anyone objects to the proposed settlement.
Lawyer for small unnamed group of secured creditors objects.
Judge asks lawyer to identify whom he represents to make sure he has standing to object.
Lawyer withdraws objection.
No one objects.
Judge approves settlement.
Lone nutcase holdout comes dashing into courtroom screaming "I object!"
Judge asks why he wasn't able to object in timely fashion.
Lone nutcase writes press release blaming Obama for abuse of bondholder rights.
Right-wing dittoheads who don't understand bankruptcy law eat it up.
Judge dismisses meritless and untimely objection

[drkitten]

Something did not ring true with this, and I admit to just going with my recollections of the law. However, in going back over the thread, I find that the pension fund manager did state the relevant part of the legal process at issue here:
"I serve as the Trustee of the Indiana State Police Pension Fund and am responsible for investing the Major Moves Construction Fund. Both of those funds suffered losses when the Obama administration overturned some two-hundred years of established law by redefining ‘secured creditors’ to mean something less,” explained Treasurer Mourdock. “In the past, to be ‘secured’ meant an investor was ‘first in line’ in the event of a bankruptcy and ‘non-secured’ creditors would receive value after secured-creditors were paid.


That statement is incorrect in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. If a plan is offered and accepted, the schedule of payment listed in the plan trumps any previous ordering of payment.


Now, Dr Kitten, you are not incorrect in stating that through some political manuvering preliminary to a bankrupcy case being presented, some number of creditors were induced/pressured or voluntarily agreed to a proposed settlement.

... and thereby consented to being moved down in line. Just as always happens in a chapter 11 filing.



But this is not relevant to the statement by the pension fund manager, and your assertion that this is just "Typical bankrupcy proceedings" is not, apparently, valid.

No. The fund manager is either lying or misinformed. Given the fact that he was unable/unwilling to file a timely objection to preserve his standing, I believe it's the former.


And that's the point of the OP.

And the OP is also either lying or misinformed.

[mhaze]

Ch11 certainly can be converted to Ch7, if and when the creditors deem it to their advantage. Your rather amusing extended list of 14 steps only shows your partisian viewport, incidentally. Did I miss some steps? Yes, proceedings in legal process are quite boring - why would I enumerate them? Did you enumerate them? No, you listed trivialities without addressing (now for the 4th time) the central issue.

Repeatedly, you've ignored cause and effect to make a point, "that everything was proper". In so doing you assert that once an agreement is reached, everything that follows is proper. I think if you go back and read (and understand) the discussion you will find that no one has refuted the valid contractual nature of such an agreement between parties who are not under duress, but what is disputed are the preceeding events and causative factors leading to that "agreement".

However, that point you seem to not wish to discuss.

Have fun with your strawman.

[drkitten]

Repeatedly, you've ignored cause and effect to make a point, "that everything was proper". In so doing you assert that once an agreement is reached, everything that follows is proper.

Well, I'm glad you finally accept that...


but what is disputed are the preceeding events and causative factors leading to that "agreement".

There's nothing to dispute. If agreement had not been reached, it would have come up in court. In fact, the people who disagreed were specifically invited to express their disagreement.

And they declined.

If you insist on seeing the invisible hand of the Rothschild's or something like that behind every agreement, that's your perogative. It's not like you have any credibility to lose.


However, that point you seem to not wish to discuss.

Oh, I shall be delighted to discuss it, as soon as you have an actual point to discuss. Since you have nothing to discuss -- well, this is an Educational forum, and therefore I'm glad that you have provided an object lesson in poor, politically-biased, anti-governmental thinking for the benefit of the rest of the readership.

[ProdigalGuru]

I have a difficult time feeling sorry for hedge fund managers......

[balrog666]

I have a difficult time feeling sorry for hedge fund managers......


And what about the people and pension funds who had their money managed by them?

[lomiller]

And what about the people and pension funds who had their money managed by them?

No one forced them to put their money into a fund that was investing in risky ventures. In all probability they simply didn’t understand the risk to begin with, but that’s an indictment of the hedge fund system and the investors themselves. If you invest in things you don’t understand you will get burned.

[ProdigalGuru]

A hedge fund is a minimum $1 million investment. That means they had to have that amount of money to play with. No, I do not feel bad for them at all. Perhaps if they had less money, they would respect it more.

[mhaze]

....Oh, I shall be delighted to discuss it, as soon as you have an actual point to discuss. Since you have nothing to discuss -- well, this is an Educational forum, and therefore I'm glad that you have provided an object lesson in poor, politically-biased, anti-governmental thinking for the benefit of the rest of the readership.Actually, quite the reverse. Care to go back through the thread and enumerate your attempts to reframe the argument? Spin doesn't change that.

But since you still don't get it, here it is. The arguments should have came up in court and still should. The executive branch of the US government should not be meddling in or making deals that are handed over to the judicial branch.

This is properly called "Obamanomics", and various attempts at psycho babble won't change that.

[drkitten]

But since you still don't get it, here it is. The arguments should have came up in court and still should. The executive branch of the US government should not be meddling in or making deals that are handed over to the judicial branch.

It should when it's an interested party (as it is, being a creditor).

[martu]

A hedge fund is a minimum $1 million investment. That means they had to have that amount of money to play with. No, I do not feel bad for them at all. Perhaps if they had less money, they would respect it more.

No the minimum investment varies most are less than USD1M, I'd guess probably closer to USD100k. These days USD100 probably.....

But anyway if you have a pension someone is looking after your money and there is a very good chance they put some of it in alternative investments including Hedge Funds.

[martu]

No one forced them to put their money into a fund that was investing in risky ventures. In all probability they simply didn’t understand the risk to begin with, but that’s an indictment of the hedge fund system and the investors themselves. If you invest in things you don’t understand you will get burned.

What is an indictment of the Hedge fund system?? Here we have a fund that made a bad call, it has nothing to do with Hedge funds in general.

I agree with your main point, be sure to know exactly where your money is going before you hand it over.

[lomiller]

What is an indictment of the Hedge fund system?? Here we have a fund that made a bad call, it has nothing to do with Hedge funds in general.

The indictment is they are pulling in large amounts of money from investors who don’t understand what they are doing with it and therefore cannot properly assess the risk involved.

[martu]

The indictment is they are pulling in large amounts of money from investors who don’t understand what they are doing with it and therefore cannot properly assess the risk involved.

If this is true surely the fault is with the investors not the Hedge Funds?

Disclaimer - I work for a Hedge Fund and I assure you our clients know exactly where their money is, the reports we have to produce on a regular and ad-hoc basis are the bane of my life.

[mhaze]

It should when it's an interested party (as it is, being a creditor).No, it should not. It is argument if it is an interested party. Recipients of TARP funds who are bondholders are interested parties. The executive branch is not, even if the TARP recipients were bullied into obeying the desire of the administration regarding how they vote in the bankrupcy case.

Whether it is an interested party and if so, what it has to say in that role is something that should be formally heard in court by the judicial branch.

This is pretty simple stuff and relates to clear overstepping of the boundaries of what should be executive branch activity. I'm genuinely surprised that this isn't obvious and the negative implications of such isn't obvious, and that anyone would strive to interpret it as a partisian issue. Thus arguing that this is "standard bankrupcy stuff" is utter nonsense.

Another issue, the UAW Pension fund, to which liabilities existed, is most likely NOT the same entity as the UAW. The creditor would thus be the UAW Pension fund, not the UAW. Yet we see UAW being given 55% of the ownership of the firm. An argument that "The union members are owed by Chrysler" is false, and an argument that "The UAW is owed by Chrysler" is false. These are not the same entities as the UAW Pension fund and there is likely no pass through of rights.

I haven't Googled this matter and haven't seen it discussed, but it sticks out like a sore thumb.

[lomiller]

If this is true surely the fault is with the investors not the Hedge Funds?

Disclaimer - I work for a Hedge Fund and I assure you our clients know exactly where their money is, the reports we have to produce on a regular and ad-hoc basis are the bane of my life.

How many of them fully understand the trading models? How many people who actually work for the hedge fund fully understand the trading models?

Yes, the investors have some responsibility for investing in things they don’t understand, this doesn’t change the fact that hedge funds are marketing themselves to people who will not understand what is being done with their money and will not be able to assess the risk they are incurring.

[drkitten]

No, it should not. It is argument if it is an interested party.

Yes, it's an argument. It's a very brief one. The TARP funds need to be paid back, therefore they are debt, therefore the US Excecutive Branch is a creditor.

Reality intervenes once more in an mhaze argument -- to mhaze's detriment.

[martu]

How many of them fully understand the trading models?

I have no idea but this isn't the Hedge fund industry's problem. Don't understand, don't invest.

How many people who actually work for the hedge fund fully understand the trading models?

Most I would expect (it isn't very complicated though quants will try and tell you it is) I admit I have no idea how to quantify this for you. Do you think the opposite? Where do you get this opinion from?

I'd argue most Hedge Funds are long only shops anyway so their trading strategies are easy to follow.

Yes, the investors have some responsibility for investing in things they don’t understand, this doesn’t change the fact that hedge funds are marketing themselves to people who will not understand what is being done with their money and will not be able to assess the risk they are incurring.

Where are Hedge Funds doing this? We can't market to anybody! Well Ok perhaps not anybody but marketing of Hedge Funds is very strictly regulated, you have to go looking to find Hedge Funds for example, no big billboards at train stations as opposed to other asset management companies.

[mhaze]

Yes, it's an argument. It's a very brief one. The TARP funds need to be paid back, therefore they are debt, therefore the US Excecutive Branch is a creditor.

Reality intervenes once more in an mhaze argument -- to mhaze's detriment.No. The legal entities who were bond holders are the creditors. You refer to a "pass through interest" in some vague sense as giving the executive branch a right to the table.

But it doesn't, and the fact that the US Exec has loaned to four major TARP recipients who in turn are bond holders of Chrysler means nothing here. The parties at the bankrupcy hearing are the bond holders. The interest of the US government is at arm's length.

Unless I'm missing something.

[drkitten]

No. The legal entities who were bond holders are the creditors.

Wrong. Any entity to whom GM owes money has a right to be at the table. The US government has lent money directly to GM and Chrysler. They need not be bondholders. Certainly, in a chapter 7 bankruptcy, anyone who holds unsecured debt is subordinate in priority to the actual bondholders,...

.... but this isn't a chapter 7 bankruptcy, and won't be unless the creditors insist on converting it into one. Which would be foolish, because the assets-in-liquidation of almost any company are much smaller than the assets available through debtor-in-possession financing.

Basically, the priority debtors have an absolute choice. They can hold out for being first in line for a penny on the dollar, or they can willingly accept a debt restructuring that explicitly costs them their place in line, but that may allow GM to pay a dime on the dollar or even a quarter on the dollar.


Unless I'm missing something.

(ahem).

[mhaze]

Wrong. Any entity to whom GM owes money has a right to be at the table. The US government has lent money directly to GM and Chrysler. They need not be bondholders.

<ch 7 snipped, irrelevant> ....

Basically, the priority debtors have an absolute choice. They can hold out for being first in line for a penny on the dollar, or they can willingly accept a debt restructuring that explicitly costs them their place in line,

<GM detour snipped>...

Gee, now you are referring to the UNSECURED LOAN by the US government to Chrysler as giving the US government a right at the table. Wow...

That means you understand that the US Government loan was lower in standing than those of the secured bondholders, and likely know that the US Government loan was wiped out at the time of bankrupcy filing.

So, yeah, what right at the table is that?

The right of a spectator?

Your turn.

[drkitten]

Gee, now you are referring to the UNSECURED LOAN by the US government to Chrysler as giving the US government a right at the table. Wow...

Yes. The UNSECURED LOAN that, under the terms of the federal act authorizing the loan was nevertheless higher in priority than any other loan.

Evidently you're not aware that the rules governing priority are set by federal law.


That means you understand that the US Government loan was lower in standing than those of the secured bondholders,

I understand no such thing, mostly because it's not true.

Furthermore, even if it were true, an agreed-upon chapter 11 reorganization plan entirely trumps any priority scheme. If 90% of the secured bondholders agree to subordinate their debt, then the remaining 10% are simply out of luck.

So, once again, you lose.

[mhaze]

Yes. The UNSECURED LOAN that, under the terms of the federal act authorizing the loan was nevertheless higher in priority than any other loan.

Evidently you're not aware that the rules governing priority are set by federal law.



I understand no such thing, mostly because it's not true.

Furthermore, even if it were true, an agreed-upon chapter 11 reorganization plan entirely trumps any priority scheme. If 90% of the secured bondholders agree to subordinate their debt, then the remaining 10% are simply out of luck.

So, once again, you lose.Really? My understanding is that the US Government $4B loan was first only on unencumbered assets (which there were few if any), which would be totally logical. That makes the US Government a "third priority lender" and my prior comments are correct. To continue your educatification, the secured bondholders are secured in the sense that specific assets are under their lien.

So this case resembles a situation where you are


in default on a house loan
in default on a credit card loan
owe a plumber

And not a judge, but a politician comes in and says under the New Plan the plumber owns 55% of your house, the credit card company another part, and the prior lienholder on the house has only a minority share. Oh, and the politician bullying all the others gets a 8% rake off the top to boot.

It's simply the cronyism of Chicago Ward politics, brought to the national level, favoring a reverse cramdown, ignoring rule 9019, testing the limits of 363 and the absolute priority rule.

Standard bankrupcy? That's a complete fabrication if not a fundamental misunderstanding of bankrupcy (and of simple legal concepts like standing, arms-length, precedence, secured vs. unsecured), whichever side you may be on.

Sides here, incidentally, are not at all Democratic versus Republican, but more UAW versus non UAW. In a broader sense, sides consist of respect for the rule of law and of contracts, versus the rank smell of paying off political supporters. Paying off the UAW, specifically, by giving them, a junior creditor, majority ownership of New Chrysler.

And that's the memo.

[drkitten]

Really? My understanding is that the US Government $4B loan was first only on unencumbered assets

Then your understanding is, as usual, baseless, misleading, and wrong.

[mhaze]

Then your understanding is, as usual, baseless, misleading, and wrong.Evidence?

Hint: Picking on a nit is a symptom of losing the broader argument.

But let's see what you got.

[drkitten]

But let's see what you got.

A total win based on everything posted upthread.

Goodbye, sucker.

[mhaze]

A total win based on everything posted upthread.

Goodbye, sucker.Yes, it is time for you to quit this one, but I humbly continue, seeking only to learn more about this very interesting and unprecedented abuse of executive power.

Are you quitting before we have the opportunity to discuss Raleigh v. Ill. Dep't of Rev., 530 U.S. 15, 24-25 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-387.ZS.html) (2000)? I cite:
Bankruptcy courts are not authorized in the name of equity to make wholesale substitution of underlying law controlling the validity of creditors' entitlements, but are limited to what the Bankruptcy Code itself provides.
Or Howard Delivery Serv., Inc. v. Zurich American Ins. Co., 547 U.S. 651 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-128.ZS.html) (2006) where the Court affirms:....the Bankruptcy Code aims, in the main, to secure equal distribution among creditors. We take into account, as well, the complementary principle that preferential treatment of a class of creditors is in order only when clearly authorized by Congress....
Just when it was getting interesting, you vanish.
Awww....

Wahhh!!!! WaHH!!!!

[drkitten]

Yes, it is time for you to quit this one, but I humbly continue, seeking only to learn more about this very interesting and unprecedented abuse of executive power.

Are you quitting before we have the opportunity to discuss Raleigh v. Ill. Dep't of Rev., 530 U.S. 15, 24-25 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-387.ZS.html) (2000)? I cite:
[I]Bankruptcy courts are not authorized in the name of equity to make wholesale substitution of underlying law controlling the validity of creditors' entitlements, but are limited to what the Bankruptcy Code itself provides.

Which is fine, because the law that subordinates the bondholders's debt to the US government's was not made by a bankruptcy court, but by Congress.

You lose again.

[mhaze]

Which is fine, because the law that subordinates the bondholders's debt to the US government's was not made by a bankruptcy court, but by Congress.

You lose again.Chuckle chuckle chuckle. And I've stated the position of the US Government accurate - a third tier position. But go get your facts, and prove me wrong, if you can. I encourage you.

By the way, why do you keep referring to the Chrysler-Obamanomics debacle of a deal as a "reorganization"? It is more of a forced sale of assets to Fiat, forming a "New Chrysler". It is not a reorganization of the company, that is exactly what is being skirted with these manuevers.

Reorganization is the term for a company continuing to operate under Chapter 11 bankrupcy rules. This is where there are meetings, and the creditors can vote on what happens and decide things in court.

That is what is being subverted here.

Comprende?

[drkitten]

Chuckle chuckle chuckle. And I've stated the position of the US Government accurate - a third tier position.

If by "accurate" you mean "wrong in nearly every detail," then you have indeed (mis)represented the situation accurately. I'll give you that much.

But keep struggling. The longer you wriggle, the more credibility you and your fellow nutcases lose.

We're done here. You've got nothing. Indeed, you've had nothing since the first page of the thread. But I'm getting tired of digging up references that show you have no understanding of law or finance.

[mhaze]

If by "accurate" you mean "wrong in nearly every detail," then you have indeed (mis)represented the situation accurately. I'll give you that much.

But keep struggling. The longer you wriggle, the more credibility you and your fellow nutcases lose.

We're done here. You've got nothing. Indeed, you've had nothing since the first page of the thread. But I'm getting tired of digging up references that show you have no understanding of law or finance.Actually, you've been riding a Huffington Post spinning horse and nothing more. If you've got actual facts, bring them out. I think not. You've done nothing but avoid all substantial questions.

Want a repeat of all the questions you have avoided? We can make a list and just go down them one by one. But let's start with (your) fundamental, often repeated and premise based on ignorance:Obamanomics thugs cramming a back room deal on Chrysler is "standard bankrupcy proceedings".
Chuckle - chuckle - chuckle. Yeah, right - in the Chicago Ward.

Or any number of third world banana republics.

Ever heard of the Rule of Law?



You repeated use of the word "reorganization" in the context of the Chrysler debacle. Where is that "reorganization"?
No facts to refute my simple statement that the US Government $4B loan was first only on unencumbered assets (which there were few if any), which would be totally logical....US Government is a "third priority lender".
You stated "an agreed-upon chapter 11 reorganization plan entirely trumps any priority scheme. If 90% of the secured bondholders agree to subordinate their debt, then the remaining 10% are simply out of luck." But it doesn't (9019 and 363 issues) Your world has bankrupcy law not applying in the context of a cram down. Hmmm......

Yep, only banana republic logic will make you "right".

And that's the objection of the fiscal conservative to this plan.

[balrog666]

New developments in the Chrysler case ...

Chrysler June 5 Sale Put on Hold by Appeals Court (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azijgqIMizOk)

Chrysler LLC’s plan to sell its best assets to a new entity on June 5 was put on hold by a federal appeals court that will hear arguments that day by creditors challenging terms of the deal.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Arthur Gonzalez in New York had said the sale to a group led by Fiat SpA could be completed at noon June 5. He moved the date up from June 15, noting in an order that Chrysler is losing $100 million a day as it awaits a sale designed to make it a viable company in world markets.

The Manhattan-based appeals court is to hear the challenge to terms of the sale by a group of Indiana pension funds at 2 p.m. and written arguments are due by noon tomorrow, the appeals court said in an order late yesterday.

Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock said he was pleased the Court of Appeals agreed to hear state funds’ arguments that they and other secured creditors have been made secondary to government-preferred unsecured creditors “in contravention of longstanding bankruptcy law.” (bolding/italics by balrog666)

[mhaze]

New developments in the Chrysler case ...

Chrysler June 5 Sale Put on Hold by Appeals Court (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azijgqIMizOk)And now it goes to the Supreme Court Monday?

Geez....all the smug liberals here were assuring us there was no constitutional issue with the handling of the bond holders.

Uhhh....Huhhh....

Parroting Huffington spin doesn't make something either true, and doesn't make it constitutional?

And what's this rumour about Fiat getting Chrysler, but putting not one dime of cash into the deal, and not revealing their finances?

[drkitten]

And now it goes to the Supreme Court Monday?

Geez....all the smug liberals here were assuring us there was no constitutional issue with the handling of the bond holders.


Way to misread.

The Appeals Court APPROVED the sale because there were no constitutional issues. Here's CNN's take on it:


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- An appeals court Friday upheld Chrysler LLC's plan to exit bankruptcy.

The new company will be owned jointly by the U.S. government, an autoworker's union retiree fund and the Italian Automaker Fiat.

The deal will go through on Monday afternoon unless the Supreme Court intervenes.

Then the Appeals Court voluntarily put the approval on hold to protect the rights of the debtholders to attempt to appeal to the SCOTUS.

The SCOTUS will almost certainly not agree to hear the case, precisely because there is no constitutional issue involved.

[balrog666]

Oh, gosh, did anyone check the news on this?

;)

[mhaze]

Oh, gosh, did anyone check the news on this?

;)More fun than a bag of dr. kittens....

If I was part of the Court, though, the Executive horning in on the Judicial - as has clearly occurred here - would be a point of considerable irritation - aside from the Constitutional issues.

[balrog666]

More fun than a bag of dr. kittens....

If I was part of the Court, though, the Executive horning in on the Judicial - as has clearly occurred here - would be a point of considerable irritation - aside from the Constitutional issues.


They may not do anything if they have to step on too many toes but it would be useful to get those briefs on the record.

Get out the popcorn!

[mhaze]

They may not do anything if they have to step on too many toes but it would be useful to get those briefs on the record.

Get out the popcorn!Oh, stepping on toes is not allowed?

Tell that to the defendants and their jackbooted cramdown tactics.

[drkitten]

The SCOTUS will almost certainly not agree to hear the case, precisely because there is no constitutional issue involved.

As I said, "no constitutional issue involved."

Once again, mhaze finds himself on the wrong side of both reality and the law.

[lomiller]

As I said, "no constitutional issue involved."

Once again, mhaze finds himself on the wrong side of both reality and the law.


presumably you are referring to this

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/09/news/economy/supreme_court_chrysler/index.htm

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Oh, gosh, did anyone check the news on this?



More fun than a bag of dr. kittens....

If I was part of the Court, though, the Executive horning in on the Judicial - as has clearly occurred here - would be a point of considerable irritation - aside from the Constitutional issues.


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for the sale of Chrysler to a consortium led by Italian automaker Fiat.

On Monday, the Court had delayed the sale pending review of the merits of a case brought by the Indiana state pension funds, which argued that they and other lenders deserved better treatment by the bankruptcy court.

Chrysler's asset sale was approved by a bankruptcy judge on June 1, just hours before the bankruptcy filing of General Motors (GMGMQ).

The bankruptcy judge overseeing the Chrysler case had given approval for the company's most valuable assets, such as plants, dealerships and contracts, to become part of a new company in which Fiat would hold a significant stake.

Chrysler said in a prepared statement that the transaction is now expected to close "very shortly."

Oooopsy Daisy! That must be embarrassing.

I like it when people who don't know what they are talking about, suddenly, for a fleeting moment, think they do know what they are talking about, only to find out that they don't, in fact, know what they are talking about.

Unconstitutional? Oh the humiliation. :roll:

[BeAChooser]

As it has played out with Banana Republic White House logic, though, UAW rights to the full value of their pension fund, whether through equity or cash, trump the Indiana pensioners' rights to their full value of their pension fund.

Actually, the real logic here is that the UAW's "rights" not only trump those of even secured creditors, but the right of the taxpayer to keep his own money. Because it is the taxpayer who is having to pay to keep Chrysler afloat and "buy" the company (at inflated prices, no less) for the UAW members to own. To do this, Obama has trampled contract law, the Constitution and bankruptcy laws. The implications will be far reaching.

[BeAChooser]

Perhaps if they had less money, they would respect it more.

You realize, don't you, that logic also applies to the government. :D

[BeAChooser]

It should when it's an interested party (as it is, being a creditor).

Is it really a "creditor"? It's already been decided that the "new" chrysler will never have to repay the billions and billions of dollars that the government gave the "old" chrysler.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/05/news/companies/chrysler_loans/


An administration official confirms that a $4 billion bridge loan and $3.2 billion in bankruptcy financing won't be paid back by Chrysler following bankruptcy.

[BeAChooser]

Ever heard of the Rule of Law?

Don't you know? The Rule of Law doesn't apply to democrats. Which is why democrats had no problem supporting Clinton through thick and thin. :D

[drkitten]

Is it really a "creditor"?

Yes. Or more accurately, it was before the bankruptcy eliminated all existing debts, and therefore eliminated all creditors. Post-bankruptcy, there are (to a first approximation) no creditors at all; that's the whole point.

Of course, one of the rights that a creditor has is the right NOT to demand repayment, or to negotiate repayment in another form. In this case, the government has negotiated to get stock in the "new" Chrysler instead of debt held by the "old" Chrysler. Both the new and old Chryslers have agreed to this, as has the bankruptcy judge.

If I owe you $100,000 and declare bankruptcy, that $100,000 will not be paid off. If you accepted my bicycle instead of the money, then what you got out of it was a bicycle. If you accepted stock in KittenCorp instead of the money, then what you got out of it was stock in KittenCorp.

Only a Republican would find this concept difficult.

[drkitten]

To do this, Obama has trampled contract law, the Constitution and bankruptcy laws.

The entire federal court system, going all the way up to the Supreme Court, disagrees.

The implications will be far reaching.

They are. The implications are either that you know more about Constitutional law than the entire federal judiciary, or that you know so little about it that you don't even know you're talking bollocks.

[BeAChooser]

Of course, one of the rights that a creditor has is the right NOT to demand repayment, or to negotiate repayment in another form.

And where did the taxpayer, the person who REALLY made those trillion dollar "loans" to Chrysler (remember, the government sold the idea of them to the John Q Public as LOANS), have a say in forgiving that debt? We didn't, since obviously the government is not even listening to what we want. As proof of that, I point to the fact that polls clearly show most Americans want the stimulus effort curtailed NOW ... and that's not happening either.

In this case, the government has negotiated to get stock in the "new" Chrysler instead of debt held by the "old" Chrysler.

Whoopee. And do you think that stock is really worth anything? You going to rush out and buy a new KittenMobile from Chrysler? :D

And how much stock did the government get for the $7 billion dollars that were already sunk (and I mean that literally) into it? For the additional $10 billion the government (i.e., we, the hapless, taxpayers) are going to sink into it post bankruptcy?

We're giving Fiat 20% of the firm ... and they aren't putting a dime into it. And their share could rise to 35% over time. Sweet deal.

The plan grants 55% of the company to VEBA ... a health care trust fund for retired autoworkers. Why do autoworkers get such largess when even secured creditors where shafted?

Canada's government is getting 2% (for a $800 million contribution).

So what's left? About 8% of the *stock*. 8% of basically nothing for nearly $20 billion dollars *investment*. Only a democrat could think that makes financial sense.

And the American taxpayer had no say in this decision. All we'll be able to do is vent our anger in coming elections. Of course, what really matters (to democrats) is Obama has secured the UAW's undying gratitude ... and of course their votes.

Like I've been saying ... it's now beggars and choosers ... and the beggars are in control. :D

[The Central Scrutinizer]

And where did the taxpayer, the person who REALLY made those trillion dollar "loans" to Chrysler (remember, the government sold the idea of them to the John Q Public as LOANS), have a say in forgiving that debt?

Are you serious? Do you really not know the answer to that?

We didn't, since obviously the government is not even listening to what we want.

Of course they are listening. We wanted the Fiat/Chrysler merger to go through, and it did.

As proof of that, I point to the fact that polls clearly show most Americans want the stimulus effort curtailed NOW ... and that's not happening either.

Those people should have voted differently in November.

And the American taxpayer had no say in this decision.

Sure they did. Do you not know how representative democracy works?

All we'll be able to do is vent our anger in coming elections.

Yes you will. While the guy in the next booth is registering his delight.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
To do this, Obama has trampled contract law, the Constitution and bankruptcy laws.

The entire federal court system, going all the way up to the Supreme Court, disagrees.


You didn't actually look at the Supreme Court decision, did you? Here, note this from it:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/chrysler-order-6-9-09.pdf


A denial of a stay is not a decision on the merits of the underlying legal issues. In determining whether to grant a stay, we considered instead whether the applicant has demonstrated "(1) a reasonable probability that four Justices will consider the issue suffienctly meritorious to grant certiorari or to note probable jurisdiction; (2) a fair prospect that a majority of the Court will conclude that the decision below was erroneous; and (3) a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay"


I guess that in removing the stay, they simply figured out on which side of the political aisle most of the judges bread is buttered. :D

Furthermore, note that the government in opposing the stay stated that even if it is acting illegally, the courts are powerless to do anything about it, since the pension funds challenging its actions have no legal standing to complain. Again, they weren't arguing the merits.

I leave you with this, not that it will change your mind:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124217356836613091.html


Chrysler and the Rule of Law
The Founders put the contracts clause in the Constitution for a reason.

[BeAChooser]

Are you serious? Do you really not know the answer to that?

Well by all means, demonstrate to us how the taxpayer had a say in this particular decision.

Of course they are listening. We wanted the Fiat/Chrysler merger to go through, and it did.

Just like "we" want the stimulus spending to continue?

Like "we" want Gitmo to close?

:rolleyes:

For some reason I don't think you know what you are talking about. :D

http://www.examiner.com/x-2812-Denver-Road--Driver-Examiner~y2009m4d2-Poll-62-percent-say-government-should-let-GM-and-Chrysler-go-bust


According to the Detroit Free Press:

"The poll also found that 62% opposed the government giving GM and Chrysler additional taxpayer-backed loans to stay in business.

Fifty-nine percent believed it was “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that GM or Chrysler would go out of business over the next few years.

The poll, conducted on Monday and Tuesday, surveyed 1,000 likely voters and had a margin of error of 3%."


Here's another:

http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?p=279797


Should the Chrysler sale to Fiat go forward?

Out 4943 votes, 79.35 percent said NO.

And some more:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/econ_survey_toplines/june_2009/toplines_gm_bailout_june_2_3_2009


1* Was it a good idea for the federal government to take ownership of General Motors and provide $30 billion in additional bailout funding?

26% Yes
53% No
22% Not sure


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/econ_survey_toplines/april_2009/toplines_chrysler_april_24_25_2009


1* Which is better for the economy--to let Chrysler go into bankruptcy or for the federal government to provide subsidies that will keep it in business?

66% To let Chrysler go into bankruptcy
17% For the federal government to provide subsidies
17% Not sure


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/econ_survey_toplines/may_2009/toplines_gm_chrysler_may_1_2_2009


2* It is likely that the United Autoworkers Union and the federal government will end up as the primary owners of both General Motors and Chrysler. Will these owners do a good job or a bad job running the auto companies?

18% Good

47% Bad 

35% Not sure

... snip ...

4* Okay… should the federal government provide any additional bailout funding for General Motors and Chrysler?

13% Yes

70% No
17% Not sure


Don't believe Rasmussen polls?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117211/Americans-Continue-Oppose-Chrysler-Loans.aspx


A new USA Today/Gallup poll finds that a majority of Americans disapprove of the loans made to General Motors and Chrysler late last year to help them avoid bankruptcy.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120842/Disapprove-Majority-Government-Ownership.aspx


PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll, conducted June 9-10, finds 55% of Americans saying they disapprove of the government's investing $50 billion in General Motors to make the government the majority owner of that automaker.


In fact, CS, can you cite a single poll that actually indicates Americans approve of the government and UAW assuming control of Chrysler ... or GM? Hmmmmm? Or are you just blowing smoke? :D


Originally Posted by BeAChooser
As proof of that, I point to the fact that polls clearly show most Americans want the stimulus effort curtailed NOW ... and that's not happening either.

Those people should have voted differently in November.

So, in other words, you are saying that now that Obama is in power, it doesn't matter what the American public think? I see.

And maybe Obama and the media could hide his extremist agenda, his lies and his past during the run up to the last election (nothing like a complicit media) but I don't think they'll be able to hide the results of his agenda much longer. The cracks have already started to appear. :D

[drkitten]

You didn't actually look at the Supreme Court decision, did you?

As usual, you're misinterpreting the legal boilerplate.

That phrase you quoted -- which is actually fairly standard -- simply means that the refusal to accept the appeal cannot be cited in support of other similar cases. The key phrase is that the court found that the petitioner did not show "a fair prospect that a majority of the Court will conclude that the decision below was erroneous." In other words, at least five of the nine justices did not see any chance of the appeal even being worth hearing.


I guess that in removing the stay, they simply figured out on which side of the political aisle most of the judges bread is buttered.

Yeah, right. Because it's so easy to lean on those Federal Justices. Lifetime tenure and all.

The reason the SCOTUS didn't touch the appeal is because there was, in the opinion of at least five of the nine justices, nothing worth touching. Because the decision was legally unassailable.

Reality 1, BAC 0.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Well by all means, demonstrate to us how the taxpayer had a say in this particular decision.

Those who chose to could have written to Obama and/or their congressman and voiced their opinion. Did you do that? (I'm going to go out on a limb and guess "no")

[Merko]

Since I assume BAC is a consistent and logical person, I assume that every time any opinion by the Supreme Court comes up, BAC will claim that the opinion has no legal value whatsoever, and that it's just a result of hidden political pressure.

[ProdigalGuru]

You are not forced to pay into a pension.

You could invest the money yourself, or simply save it, be frugal, and earn no interest.

I still have no sympathy.

Investment is greed.

I could live for 10 years on 100 thousand dollars.

Walk a mile in a poor man's shoes and you will change your tune.

[corplinx]

You are not forced to pay into a pension.

You could invest the money yourself, or simply save it, be frugal, and earn no interest.

I still have no sympathy.

Investment is greed.

I could live for 10 years on 100 thousand dollars.

Walk a mile in a poor man's shoes and you will change your tune.

I've walked that mile. Now I drive it in a fancy car, and you know what? It sucks to be poor. Investment isn't greed. Mattress stuffing is just plain stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[ProdigalGuru]

Yeah, investing in a car that depreciates by 50% as soon as you drive it off the lot, now THAT is smart. LOL.

Oh yeah, trusting your life savings to greedy strangers is real sound financial advice as well. HAHA.

It is quite easy to save and earn interest with little to no risk. The fact that you are not happy with the rate of return makes you greedy, and therefore you deserve to lose it all.

You may say being poor sucks, I say I am free to do what I please without having to answer to 50 different debt collectors. You are a slave to your greed.

[balrog666]

Yeah, investing in a car that depreciates by 50% as soon as you drive it off the lot, now THAT is smart. LOL.

Oh yeah, trusting your life savings to greedy strangers is real sound financial advice as well. HAHA.

It is quite easy to save and earn interest with little to no risk. The fact that you are not happy with the rate of return makes you greedy, and therefore you deserve to lose it all.

You may say being poor sucks, I say I am free to do what I please without having to answer to 50 different debt collectors. You are a slave to your greed.



Being debt up to your eyeballs is not the same thing as being poor.

[mhaze]

Yeah, investing in a car that depreciates by 50% as soon as you drive it off the lot, now THAT is smart. LOL.

Oh yeah, trusting your life savings to greedy strangers is real sound financial advice as well. HAHA.

It is quite easy to save and earn interest with little to no risk. The fact that you are not happy with the rate of return makes you greedy, and therefore you deserve to lose it all.

You may say being poor sucks, I say I am free to do what I please without having to answer to 50 different debt collectors. You are a slave to your greed.I'm curious where you got this line of bs.

It could be developed further, such that it had strikingly vivid constructions.

How about.....

I hold freedom out to you, as I rummage through the trash bin by the Starbucks, and combine several wasted, half used cups until I hold my own, newly created, recycled Vente Latte. My freedom has a taste which the slaves spamodically and ritually going into the Starbucks lack, a fact I know from the haunted weariness in their eyes as they rush away. Your freedom becons quietly, too. It awaits your awakenings.

Ok, your turn now.