No help or wrong help for Detroit?

But that's why they loan based only on the *LOAN* value of the car,which
is much less than the retail/street value. The 'loan' value is
intentionally low so there is no difference/loss to them when they have
to possess and wholesale the car (though in reality, after all expenses,
etc., they may end up with a slight loss - I'm not in that business, so
I wouldn't know).

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Well, OK, Brent, if my making the discussion relevant to today-loans in
today-dollars bothers you so, we'll go ahead and do it your way: Be sure
and let us know how it goes when you ask for a $1,200,000,000 loan without
any co-signers (that's the rounded numerical amount of the Chrysler loans
in the 1980 dollars that were sought at the time of the loans). While
you're at it, you can let us know how you make out finding the time
machine you'll need to secure a loan in 1980 dollars.

There. All better?

 

Sweet.

 

Obviously, you cannot read. The assets _SECURE_ the loan. Thusly if the
borrower _defaults_ the assets are taken by the _lender_ and then, if
the lender desires sold to pay off the loan.

I have never written they were to sell off the assets to raise cash. That
is just misdirection.

 

I see you chose not to address the rest. Michael Jackson was able to
borrow considerable cash by securing loans with his assets. It was only
once his assets were already borrowed against that he needed cosigners.

 

I can sell my assets today and be free clear of any and all debt. I am
not a typical american consumer.

The factories, real estate, patents, manufacturing equipment, computers,
etc and so forth are all assets. Either the assets exceeded the loan
value or they did not. If they did, what was the problem? No, what I am
seeing here is just a bunch of chrysler fans arguing that chrysler didn't
really need the government when it obviously did.

The chrysler fans were arguing the assets at that time were worth more
than the loan. That is what I was addressing. If the assets were worth
more than the loan, then no cosigner is needed, no guesswork on future
value other than making sure the value won't go down below the loan
amount is needed. You can introduce as many complications as you wish,
but if the loan was less than the assets that secured it, there was no
need for the government.

 

Thanks for agreeing with me. Obviously Chrysler corporation did not have
enough free-and-clear assets to cover the loan as the chrysler fans are
trying to tell us. That's why they needed the tax payers to secure the loans.

 

John Delorean or any of the other upstarts that have failed or hung on in
the last 3 decades have had their loans secured by the government?

 

Michael Jackson isn't a corporation whose assets are valuable only when
they're *combined* with cash, in order to make a product that can be sold.
It's pretty apparent, Brent, that you're being deliberately obtuse. I knew
there was a good reason I'd put you into my killfile; thanks for the
reminder. Bye again!

 

Corporations can and do borrow this much money all the time. It is
called corporate bonds and you can help. Just go out and buy some GM
and/or Ford bonds right now. They are paying very good interest -
maybe 10 - 12% depending on term. GM and Ford together have about
$300 billion in outstanding debt right now and they are always free to
issue more.

What GM and Ford are lacking is income to service that debt. At 7%,
that is about $21 billion just to pay interest on the bonds. Even
Exxon couldn't afford that. And the new loans will be at 10% or more.
With increasing debt and continual refinancing at higher interest
rates, it isn't hard to imagine these two paying $40B per year in
interest in a couple years. With that in mind, if you want to loan
them your money, go ahead.

 

This is contary to the arguement you and the rest of the chrysler fans
were making that the assets had value greater than that of the loans so
there was no risk to the taxpayers. My arguement is that if there was no
risk, the taxpayers (government) would not have been needed.

If the assets only had that value by making cars, that value was a matter
of guesswork because the cars are only worth what people would pay for
them. Thusly the taxpayers cosigning the loan was needed and there was
considerable risk to the taxpayers doing so.

Obviously this was more than the cash flow problem you and the rest of
the chrysler fans are trying to make it out to be. It was a serious
fiancial crisis where they did not have the free-and-clear assets to
secure further loans to continue operations.

Not at all. You're the one trying to assign me an arguement of 'chrysler
should just sell some assets'. Never argued anything of the kind, yet
that is what you are attempting to do out of your brand loyalty. My
arguement is very simple, if you and the rest of the chrysler fans are
correct, that chrysler had significant _real_ assets with value in
excess of the loans then they would not need the taxpayers to cosign.
Simple as that. The future value of cars those assets might make is not a
real asset, it's speculation, and speculation shouldn't be confused with
real assets like land, buildings, equipment, etc.

Fine Daniel. Your ever increasing brand bashing and loyalty was wearing
thin on me. Makes the group seem like a highschool discussion of Chrysler
is great, Ford sucks.

And when it comes down to it, that's what is being dealt with here.
Chrysler fans want a spin that Chrysler never really needed the
government's (taxpayer) help but because of this or that excuse... That's
nothing but high school variety brand loyalty. Something most people
out grow shortly after highschool.

 

Perhaps those offering the loan thought that Chrysler would not be able
to make use of those assets to make and sell their products. I believe
the situation is analagous to someone attempting to get a loan having
sufficient material value assets but is not currently employed.

 

Perhaps that was one of the angles being attempted. But that is a
different arguement than the one's I had been addressing.

 

yes the unions do have a little impact, but the root cause of failure is the
upper management that does run the company
i worked at the grounds and seen it first hand
any one remember lloyd Royce who was in charge of gm north american op's
well his son runs the hipo program for gm and i worked with both of them in
buicks shop there.
i'm the boss so my kid will get a job now! was the feeling we shop workers had
at buick and by the way we were contract labor there, but lloyds son was a
direct hire
the amount of waste from the management of gm is staggering, just in the pet
projects they have and had! wanna talk earned bonuses! for exec's now
no union makes those calls
when a company fails 9 out of 10 times it's management's fault not the workers
i really have to wonder now that lutz is a gm guy? is he going to sell the usa
out again by deviding gm and selling it to the highest bidder so he can get a
another golden parachute retirement

 

This is a winner... you respond to the wrong post, you top post, and
cannot format the post properly.

Nobody has said it's all the worker's fault. However to ignore the
contribution of the union contracts which have become as fat and bloated as
the excutives is just plain silly.

 

Whatever thread that you found yourself in a logical dead in was
something I've long since forgotten, so your childish personal sniping
really seems funny.

But for those that weren't paying attention this time:

1) "loan guarantees" = "bailing Chrysler out with taxpayer money"

I was addressing a fairness arguement that chrysler should get whatever
the government ends up giving ford and GM. Chrysler had a turn before and
Ford and GM didn't get anything. However, rather than comprend that, the
chrysler fans got their panties in a bunch over 'taxpayer funded'. My
arguement was regardless of the semantics, regardless if it was money
directly from the government or a government co-signer, the taxpayers
were still on the hook. It might make chrysler fans feel better playing
the loan guarantees technicality to make it seem that chrysler wasn't in
deep shit, but in the end, the taxpayers had to back up that corporation
and chrysler was in deep shit.

2) "No risk means the government was not needed"

It is the chrysler fans arguing it as if the taxpayers were never in
danger of being on the hook because chrysler had free-and-clear real assets
more than that of the loans. If so, the assets could secure the loan and
not the taxpayers. When I brought that up, the chrysler fans admitted
that the assets were not real but speculative value of future vehicles
sold and that what real assets there were had already been used to secure
loans previously. You want to talk about misleading?

3) Ports.

How you draw that conclusion given my actual views and what I have posted
is bogglesome and merely some sort of personal attack. It's sad that you
are so bitter about something that you feel the need to write such a
post. The media mis-reports things all the time and I do care about it.
However focusing on something so trivial as the two words that got
chrysler fans' panties in a bunch while droping everything else is
classic usenet and nothing more.

 

Your rantings might seem less like rantings if you canned the clichés.
I mean throwing one in once in a while is OK, but the repetiveness
destroys the impact that what you're saying might otherwise have. Not
that the impcat would be great without them, but it would be better than
it is with them.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Thanks for proving me correct regarding your intent.

 

One issue may be book value versus resale value. The assets such as
tooling and factories may have been worth hundreds of millions to a
going concern. But sold off at auction (as a bank would have had to do to
recover if Chrysler failed) they might have been worth very little.

 

Hey - you're welcome - anything I can do to help! (you're an idiot)

By the way - the example of the port deal was not saying which side of
the deal you came down on - the point was that *if* (not *that*) you
were on the 'con' side, based on your past history you would use the
semantic game of saying that we were "selling" our ports to the UAE, and
when you were called on that lie, you would say that they were using
semantics. That was equivalent to your shinanigans on the Chrysler loan
discusion.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')