The auto bailout: How we did it

It wouldn't be anything close to that. 2.5 million is essentially the entire auto-industry in this country from manufacturers, parts suppliers, mechanics, and dealers. It was inplausible unresponsible rhetoric that was used to justify strong arming lenders and allowing the government to take over Chrysler and GM. It would have probably been more like 100,000...if that. And those jobs would have gone into other self-sustaining auto companies like Ford, who, I don't know if you've noticed, has gobbled up massive chunks of market share since the recession began.

Forgive me if I don't give one iota of respect to your "probable" estimate, especially considering the lower estimates of various experts was around 500,000.

Lenders were not "strong-armed." They would have received much less from a liquidation, which is why the worked so hard with the government to work out a deal.
 
Half a million is examining the situation in a static perspective. I already explained why.

Lenders were strong-armed into getting shafted. That's why every lender that didn't recieve bailout money was dead set against getting completely screwed, and why every lender that did accept bailout money was a good ole lap dog. The idea that "all" the lenders "worked so hard" with the government to "work out a deal" is pretty laughable.

Anyway, the Obama administration, judging by its cavalier disregard of contracts between Chrysler and some of the lenders it sought money from, thinks contracts are written on water. The administration proposes that Chrysler's secured creditors get 28 cents per dollar on the $7 billion owed to them but that the United Auto Workers union get 43 cents per dollar on its $11 billion in claims -- and 55 percent of the company. This, even though the secured creditors' contracts supposedly guaranteed them better standing than the union.

Among Chrysler's lenders, some servile banks that are now dependent on the administration for capital infusions tugged their forelocks and agreed. Some hedge funds among Chrysler's lenders that are not dependent were vilified by the president because they dared to resist his demand that they violate their fiduciary duties to their investors, who include individuals and institutional pension funds.

The Economist says the administration has "ridden roughshod over [creditors'] legitimate claims over the [automobile companies'] assets. . . . Bankruptcies involve dividing a shrunken pie. But not all claims are equal: some lenders provide cheaper funds to firms in return for a more secure claim over the assets should things go wrong. They rank above other stakeholders, including shareholders and employees. This principle is now being trashed." Tom Lauria, a lawyer representing hedge fund people trashed by the president as the cause of Chrysler's bankruptcy, asked that his clients' names not be published for fear of violence threatened in e-mails to them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/13/AR2009051303014.html
 
How could anyone say lenders got completely screwed, when they would have received far less than the 28 cents on the dollar the government was able to secure them if Chrysler had been liquidated?

Did you read the article?

Led by Jimmy Lee, J.P. Morgan's top banker and a long-standing business friend of mine, the banks had been insisting that, as secured lenders, they were entitled to repayment of their entire $6.9 billion. "And not a penny less," Jimmy said to me on more than one occasion.

From the outset that had struck us as ridiculous.

JP Morgan acting like a lap-dog? By demanding the full $6.9 billion?

Every stakeholder did better under our plan than they would have in the alternative: a liquidation, in which the lenders would have gotten far less than the $2 billion they wound up with.

And this is because:

The debt was trading at about 15¢ on the dollar, and according to Chrysler's analysis, the liquidation value of the company was around $1 billion.

If liquidation had occurred Chrysler's lenders may have gotten $1 billion, possibly less. That is roughly 14 cents on the dollar, right about where its debt was trading.

Much less than it got from the government. If you want to call that government "strong-arming," go ahead. I reserve the right to laugh at you.
 
How could anyone say lenders got completely screwed - Thiege

Because they had a legal obligation to recieve the most out of anybody involved in the bankruptcy proceedings. This isn't about liquidation. This about secured creditor's legal contracts and their fiduciary duties to their investors in the event of bankruptcy proceedings. Instead, the union got all the money with little concessions in the process.

JP Morgan acting like a lap-dog? By demanding the full $6.9 billion? - Thiege

Oh please. Once JP Morgan "saw the light" the were actually used a third party to negotiate with "Non-Tarp Senior Creditor's" after the government shut them out completely when they demanded that their legal contracts not be thrown in the waste paper basket.

http://www.businessinsider.com/senior-chrysler-creditors-revolt-2009-4
 
There's a rumour going around that apparently. Obama arranged this bailout by having sex with a CEO, in a phone box, for five pounds

That's just ridiculous. There is no way they used British currency.
 
Because they had a legal obligation to recieve the most out of anybody involved in the bankruptcy proceedings. This isn't about liquidation. This about secured creditor's legal contracts and their fiduciary duties to their investors in the event of bankruptcy proceedings. Instead, the union got all the money with little concessions in the process.

So your position is it doesn't matter that lenders probably got at least double the amount of money they would have without the bailouts, only that the government decided to give the labor unions a better deal?
 
So your position is it doesn't matter that lenders probably got at least double the amount of money they would have without the bailouts, only that the government decided to give the labor unions a better deal?

We're talking about two different things now.

I don't think they should have bailed out period. Given that they were bailed out the government should have been entitled to uphold legal obligations between the secured creditors and those car companies before rewarding the labor unions.
 
And the labor unions had what? half their property lost to give the banks that good of a deal?
 
Top Bottom