myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Barney being Frank
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 15, 16, 17  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2731

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's no surprise that those whose knowledge of the credit markets, and of bankruptcy proceedings, is restricted to 30 minutes of recent web searches, would focus on the value that Chrysler bondholders received. To do so completely misses the point. Investors must have confidence that the laws and practices affecting their investments will be upheld. Without that assurance the size of the market will shrink dramatically, and the return required by remaining investors will rise significantly. In the Chrysler bankruptcy, there is absolutely no question that the proper procedures and a century of legal precedent were swept aside by the Administration. The claims of bondholders, who had purchased Chrysler bonds only because they were secured against hard assets, were subordinated to the claims of the UAW which were unsecured. In doing so, legally binding contracts were ignored. The Harvard analysis makes all of this very clear no matter how hard others try to spin the truth. The executive summary of that analysis leaves no doubt as to the conclusions of the analysis:

Abstract: Chrysler entered and exited bankruptcy in 42 days, making it one of the fastest major industrial bankruptcies in memory. It entered as a company widely thought to be ripe for liquidation if left on its own, obtained massive funding from the United States Treasury, and exited via a pseudo sale of its main assets to a new government-funded entity. The unevenness of the compensation to prior creditors raised concerns in capital markets, which we evaluate here. We conclude that the Chrysler bankruptcy cannot be understood as complying with good bankruptcy practice, that it resurrected discredited practices long thought interred in the 19th and early 20th century equity receiverships, and that its potential, if followed, for disrupting financial markets surrounding troubled companies in difficult economic times is more than small.

The darling of the left commented on the shady scheme as follows:

Warren Buffett worried in the midst of the reorganization that there would be “a whole lot of consequences” if the government’s Chrysler plan emerged as planned, which it did. If priorities are tossed aside, as he implied they were, “that’s going to disrupt lending practices in the future.” “If we want to encourage lending in this country,” Buffett added, “we don’t want to say to somebody who lends and gets a secured position that the secured position doesn’t mean anything.”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevenbard



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 4240

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Buffett and the other Obama oligarchs swing whichever way is best for them. He didn't get hurt, and sheltered all his earnings with a donation to his favorite charity, himself!

Buffett knows all too well that the Buffett rule wouldn't effect Buffett! So what if OTHER investors get screwed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5391

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spin, spin spin. No doubt that the rapidity of the bankruptcy was rapid, and it may well have been bad policy. It is also without question that mrgybe's first three or four postings were over the top,l dishonest and selective in order to slam Obama. But then he was trained at Exxon--see the new book "Private Empire" and comments elsewhere in the forum.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2731

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A 35 page Harvard analysis, the executive summary of which I quoted directly, is spin? It's little wonder that some people spend their entire careers as low level government bureaucrats. To quote my favorite philosopher............

"Only idiots refuse to change their minds" Brigitte Bardot.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5391

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Reading comprehension is not your forte, is it? I didn't say that I support the Chrysler bailout, I said that you misrepresented it as a crime. That makes you a liar. Again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2731

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A teachable moment for those whose knowledge of bankruptcy practice and credit markets is as thin as their knowledge of the law. One can break the law without committing a crime. That's why nowhere did I suggest that a crime had been committed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5391

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A teaching moment, eh? Mrgybe's first post on this was:

Quote:
Surely you meant to ask "What other President has deliberately broken bankruptcy laws by steamrollering the legally protected rights of the secured creditors (bondholders) in favor of the unsecured creditors (the UAW)? Answer: No other President has ever done that....thankfully.


Then he chastised us, telling us he was only talking about the Chrysler bailout. Now he tells us that he wasn't accusing Obama of breaking the law. Somehow "deliberately broken bankruptcy laws by steamrollering the legally protected bankrupcty laws etc." isn't accusing Obama of deliberately breaking the law.

What mrgybe didn't tell us was that the government had more money in the overall deal than either Chrysler or their creditors. He didn't tell us that the matter went to bankruptcy court and then was appealed. He didn't quote the part of the article that I did, which made it clear that with so much government money in the deal they could choose to protect pensions.

What bothers mrgybe immensely is that the US. Government would have an interest in protecting pension rights rather than in paying unemployment. Particularly pension interests of union employees. Now he complains that I don't know much about bankruptcy law. Only too true, and I didn't benefit from any clear explanation from the oily one. But I know enough about mrgybe to suspect that, as usual, he wasn't telling the full truth, and was seeking a spin that would slam Obama.

What do you call people that are willing, no eager, to believe the worst about the people who don't escort them into the inner sanctum of government decision makers? Oil company employees? Or liars? Or is that redundant?

Teaching means you lay out a point clearly, support it, clarify what is your opinion and what is fact. But most importantly, it doesn't involve supressing the portion of the facts that doesn't support your saying that Obama has broken the law--when the Administration's decision was in fact upheld in court.

Honesty and reading comprehension both seem to elude the man from oil.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2731

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Reading comprehension is not your forte, is it? I didn't say that I support the Chrysler bailout, I said that you misrepresented it as a crime. That makes you a liar. Again.

A little homework to broaden your education.............look up the definition of "illegal"; next look up the definition of, say, a "tort". Finally, look up the definition of a "crime".......I'm sure Wikipedia will have a simple explanation. With a little bit of effort it will become clear that an illegal act can be performed without committing a crime. No apology necessary.......you didn't know what you were saying.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5908

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 3:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tort. Did we see that legal word used earlier in the discussion?

mrgybe, given your adamant position that President Obama did something unlawful in the Chrysler bailout, I have to ask, do you want President Obama to pay in some special way? Seems like water under the bridge to me, but you're still pretty riled up about what happened. Are you one of those secured creditors that lost some money in the deal?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5391

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What part of lost in court does mrgybe not understand, as well as not convey? I thought it was courts, not mrgybe, that ruled on such matters.

Hubris is such an amazing thing. No apology necessary, and humility is not in your future.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 15, 16, 17  Next
Page 16 of 17

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group