backtop


Print 201 comment(s) - last by monkeyman1140.. on May 29 at 4:48 PM


President Obama speaks to reporters on Thursday about Chrysler's bankruptcy, and what it means for the company's survival chances.  (Source: Doug Mills/The New York Times)

Bankruptcy will clear Chrysler's debts and allowed it to charge ahead, restructured, in its electric vehicle efforts.  (Source: UPI.com)

The bankruptcy means that a merger with Fiat will be coming within two months, and that Fiat's models, popular in Europe, will be coming to the U.S. One such performance rally model, the Fiat 500 Abarath SS, is pictured here.
Government may wipe out debtholders who refused to deal

After weeks of uncertainty, Chrysler has at last become the first of the Big Three to file for bankruptcy, in a process that some analysts expect may be replicated by at least General Motors in coming months.  Despite a last minute deal with major bondholders (banks), a deal with UAW and CAW, and a merger deal with Italian automaker Fiat SpA, the potential for recovery outside bankruptcy was sunk by bondholders with minor debt stakes --- hedge funds and investment firms.

Last night the group of 20 small investors rejected the government's proposed terms and offered up terms of their own.  In the end, government regulators with the Treasury Department decided instead to put Chrysler into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, with paperwork currently being filed in New York, this Thursday.

The move marks the second Chapter 11 bankruptcy for Chrysler and the conclusion of another saga in Chrysler's recent eventful, but troubled history.  Chrysler has bounced about, first sold to German automaker Daimler then to investment firm Cerebus.  Now at last, Chrysler has found itself under new management, being carefully guided by the government in its survival bid.

President Barack Obama, speaking to the press, praised the efforts of the American automaker to survive, while admonishing the bondholders who refused to deal.  He stated, "While many stakeholders made sacrifices and worked constructively, I have to tell you some did not.  In particular, a group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout. They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices and they would have to make none."

In the end it appears that the bondholders that refused to deal will see their money wiped out by a bankruptcy, which will likely "surgically" remove the unsettled debts.  The bondholders will be forced to settle with a loss, a tax writeoff.  President Obama says that they are getting what they asked for by demanding unreasonable terms -- over twice the settlement of the large stakeholders.  He states, "I don't stand with them.  I stand with Chrysler's employees, their families and their communities. I stand with Chrysler's management, its dealers and its suppliers. I stand with the millions of Americans who own and want to buy Chrysler cars.  I don't stand with those who held out when everybody else is sacrificing."

Will Chrysler's brand image survive the bankruptcy?  President Obama believes so.  He states, "No one should be confused about what a bankruptcy process means.  This is not a sign of weakness, but rather one more step on a clearly charted path to Chrysler's revival.  The necessary steps have been taken to give one of America's most storied automakers, Chrysler, a new lease on life."

A full transcript of the President's speech is available here, courtesy of The Washington Post.

The President has ordered $3.5B USD in funding for the company, upon its entrance into bankruptcy.  An addition $4.5B USD will be granted when it exits the process and merges, officially, with Fiat.

In a letter, Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli cheered the merger, writing, "This is a historic day for Chrysler. As a result of the comprehensive restructuring plan agreed to by many of our stakeholders, I am very pleased to report that Chrysler LLC and Fiat S.p.A. have reached an agreement in principle to establish a global strategic alliance. This agreement creates a new, competitive, global car company that will take over a majority of Chrysler's operations. With the completion of this alliance, Chrysler will be repositioned for long-term success, validating the great efforts and sacrifices that you have made to help us get to this momentous point."

The bankruptcy is expected to be settled in two months at most.  Once it is complete Chrysler faces, according to analysts, a tough challenge in developing synergy with Fiat, which is much more cash-strapped than former partner Daimler.  Even if it can work well with Fiat, it faces the challenge of revitalizing its sales and restoring consumer confidence in the brand.  Chrysler continues to move ahead, though, on promising key technologies like its electric vehicles, which go on sale in 2010.

The bankruptcy will not affect Chrysler Canada or Chrysler Mexico, but these separate units may soon follow in suit.

As a final note, one interesting thing about the bankruptcy is that it will further distance Chrysler from its struggling former financial unit, Chrysler Financial, also held by Cerebus, but now a separate company.  Chrysler is partnering with GM's financial unit, GMAC, instead.  Mr. Nardelli writes, "As part of the restructuring and with the backing of the U.S. Treasury, we have reached an agreement in principle with GMAC to become the preferred lender for Chrysler dealer and consumer business. This is very good news as GMAC will be able to offer the best long-term finance options for Chrysler dealers and customers with standard rate installment products."


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Sucks...
By quiksilvr on 4/30/2009 2:26:15 PM , Rating: 1
But it had to happen. I pray for those that lost their jobs and their transition to another job will be as pain free as possible.




RE: Sucks...
By afkrotch on 4/30/2009 2:28:40 PM , Rating: 5
Fck the unions. They did it to themselves.


RE: Sucks...
By Bateluer on 4/30/2009 2:31:40 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. While the big three were circling the drain and living off tax payer money, the UAW was still demanding that its unskilled labor get paid 70+ per hour. Blatant denial of reality.


RE: Sucks...
By mindless1 on 5/1/2009 7:37:54 PM , Rating: 5
O'rly? You don't think the devaluation of the Japanese Yen or that Chrysler didn't have any designs that could hold a candle to an Accord or Camry had anything to do with it?

It's easy to puppet what someone else said but they're not unskilled, they're not getting "paid" 70+ per hour, and in case you need a clue, these businesses are taxpayer money, they pay taxes, as do their employees on income, and on purchases, a trickle down effect that made our economy stronger than if the industry wasn't around.

Someone can always say "oh but if there was no union it would be better". Sure, we can idealize anything but these unions did exist long before Chrysler or GM were getting into financial trouble, and hint hint, Toyota Mazda Honda et al. are also having financial trouble now.

Who has the blatant denial of reality?


RE: Sucks...
By ICE1966 on 5/3/2009 11:36:20 AM , Rating: 3
i understand what you are saying and yes the other car makers are having trouble but the unions are an eyesore to the car companies. I know people who work for the big 3 and I can tell you that most think they are owed everything they get simply because of the UAW union. I can tell you that there is no pride in thier job simply because they know that no matter how well the perform they get paid the big money . There was a time that unions were needed to help workers but with the many government regulations in place for employers there time has gone. if you were to take away the cost of wages and benefits payed because of the union you would be amazed at how much it adds to the price of a car. Sure, the designs need to be better but how do you expect there to be money for such things when the comapnies are being held with a knife at the throat by the unions. What chrysler should have done years ago at the factory they have for research is to train non-union people how to do the jobs. Give them a fair wage and benefit package, and then fire all the UAW workers. Hopefully Fiat will bring better designs to chysler in the months and years to come. Chysler already has one of the best looking retro cars on the road with the new Challenger, along with Ford and the latest retro looking Mustang. Check out the new Camaro, what an ugly car and we all wonder why GM is having trouble. Good Luck Chysler, and fck the UAW.


RE: Sucks...
By phxfreddy on 5/5/2009 4:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
Obama stepped into petty dictator territory shortly after taking office.

Is it 2012 yet?

The blow back from his heavy handed approach is very quickly going to make this economic situation worse. Letting people with a "union state of mind" run the country is a bad idea. Anything but progressive.

Authoritarian is what comes to my mind.


RE: Sucks...
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Sucks...
By afkrotch on 4/30/2009 2:48:03 PM , Rating: 5
Reasonable? They held off on even talking with anyone until recently. I don't see walking out of a meeting being reasonable.

Only reason they conceded was Chrysler was closer then ever before to a bankruptcy. They had no room left to play ball. It was either concede or never be able to ripoff the company again.


RE: Sucks...
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Sucks...
By clovell on 4/30/2009 3:08:42 PM , Rating: 5
No it's not, Mick. This is just the nail that broke the coffin's back. No one group caused this. In the end, Chrysler needed to sleep in the bed it made, rather than continue to be rewarded for bad behavior (think Pavlov).

These investors had every right to do as they pleased with their money in this instance. If they wanted to be hard-nosed about it, that's their business.

Chrysler was insolvent and this was a long time coming. I'm glad somebody finally bit the bullet and let Chrysler go.


RE: Sucks...
By FITCamaro on 4/30/2009 4:28:12 PM , Rating: 5
Exactly. These firms had no obligation to take the governments deal just because the government said so. These days the government seems to want everyone to lose money and accept whatever the government says, regardless of how bad it is for them.

The fact that the government shouldn't even be involved in this IS the bottom line. Because Stone Cold says so.


RE: Sucks...
By wallijonn on 4/30/2009 6:09:51 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The fact that the government shouldn't even be involved in this IS the bottom line.


Just so long as Chrysler doesn't ask the American Taxpayer to give them an interest free loan.

Chrysler didn't have to ask for a bailout. They could have just gone directly to Chapter 11, Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy.


RE: Sucks...
By FITCamaro on 5/1/2009 12:26:30 AM , Rating: 5
I don't care that they asked. I care that the government gave it to them. Period.


RE: Sucks...
By Samus on 5/1/2009 12:35:13 AM , Rating: 3
They're bankrupt because they've made nothing but complete shit for 30 years and their last great innovation was the minivan, which everybody now makes, much better. Beginning with the K car and ending it all with the ridiculous Charger, this company hasn't produced a quality product in recent memory, and the only reason they survived this long is because Crysler financial was giving loans to just about anybody over the last few years, people who had no intentions on paying the financial unit back. And of course, like in any market, there will always be die-hard Mopar supporters.


RE: Sucks...
By djc208 on 5/1/2009 8:06:04 AM , Rating: 1
I think you'd have a hard time backing that up. While they're not the company they started as the sales numbers and product lines don't support your statement.

Considering that both VW and Nissan have contracted to sell Chrysler vehicles under their own brand seems to say Chrysler makes some pretty competent vehicles. I've had a couple of Chrysler vehicles I'd throw up against it's competitors. The new RWD full size cars have been well recieved by both the automotive press and the public. Hell they were even good enough for our President to own one (a Chrysler 300C).

Besides, while partially earned, the reputation of the crappy disposable American cars is also somewhat self-fulfilling. How many people bought a K-car, or a Cavalier, or a Ford econobox because it was just cheap transportation. They didn't care about the car and they barely maintained it since it was "disposable". Vice the "investment" that it's Japanese compeitors are seen as.

I'll admit I'm a Mopar fan, but this attitude, without any quantifiable data to support it, is why the big three are having a hard time. I can show you the crap 92 Honda Accord I'm working on now (engine replacement), personnaly I'll work on my American car any day, (easier and cheaper) but I haven't had to, even though they're the same age and mine has more miles.


RE: Sucks...
By TA152H on 5/1/2009 8:04:19 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, the minivan was a VW invention. The Microbus was the original, and was actually on a Beetle wheelbase of 94.3. It was released in 1950. I'd say that predates Chrysler. By over two decades?


RE: Sucks...
By KamiXkaze on 5/1/2009 10:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yes that is right the mini bus came out way before chrysler's offering.

kXk


RE: Sucks...
By DeepBlue1975 on 5/1/2009 6:10:31 AM , Rating: 2
problem is... when you invest your money in something, without anyone forcing you to do so, you are actually putting your money at a certain risk rate that you don't consider important because you think winning probability will be higher than the loosing one.

For this shareholders, they just lost their bet. They can play hardball with their money if that's what they see fit, but with a company in the position of Chrysler, if I were in the shoes of these people, I'd rather have settled for a small loss or a far smaller profit than expected, than performing an "I'm all in" kind move.

They furthered their risk, and they lost. An excessive risk for the time being, if you ask me. Specially considering the fact that the bankruptcy ghost had been hovering over Chrysler for some time now.


RE: Sucks...
By StinkyWhizzleTeeth on 5/2/2009 12:36:00 AM , Rating: 3
What's this "I'm all in" move? I thought in bankruptcy court a judge decides who gets what. These hedge fund owners decided they were better off going with the bankruptcy. They don't lose everything, and they didn't lose more than they would've if they took Obama's deal. Please prove me wrong.

It sounds to me like Obama is doing what Bush did when he called those against the war "unpatriotic". Obama's making them out to be greedy selfish people who don't care about anyone but themselves. We can't possibly know that is there motivation, when there are other possible motivations to consider.


RE: Sucks...
By CarsonM on 5/2/2009 3:26:34 PM , Rating: 2
Have you been getting your news from the DailyKOS? Please show me the quote of Bush calling someone against the war "Unpatriotic".


RE: Sucks...
By CarsonM on 4/30/2009 3:41:37 PM , Rating: 5
Actually, the UAW got the best deal of all. They now own 55% of the company, have their pension funds restored, and have a rep on the board. Is this a great country or what: Come to America, get paid to work, drive the company into bankruptcy via Union negotiations, then end up owning the company.

Why would anyone ever invest again; just join a union!


RE: Sucks...
By Martimus on 4/30/2009 4:00:25 PM , Rating: 5
Since they own the company, perhaps they will be more willing to do things that are in the company's best interest now.


RE: Sucks...
By DRMichael on 4/30/2009 4:05:39 PM , Rating: 5
I guess they'll negotiate with themselves..LOL


RE: Sucks...
By DRMichael on 4/30/2009 4:27:52 PM , Rating: 5
I can just see the headlines now - UAW SHORTS STOCK, VOTES TO STRIKE


RE: Sucks...
By nayy on 4/30/2009 6:07:58 PM , Rating: 3
Here is the UAW new bussines model:
- Raise Union's salaries
- Have the Union lend money to the company
- Keep raising salaries until the company reaches a critical point and the goverment hands out a bailout
- Renegotiate debt for greater ownership of the company
- Repeat the cycle

just kidding... sort of :(


RE: Sucks...
By StinkyWhizzleTeeth on 5/2/2009 12:39:21 AM , Rating: 2
What "deal"? Has the bankruptcy judge ruled on this yet? Where did you see that information?


RE: Sucks...
By CarsonM on 5/2/2009 3:18:45 PM , Rating: 2
Judge!!?? The shareholders should be so lucky. This is known as BINO - Banckruptcy In Name Only. This was orchestrated by the White House.

LINK:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124087751929461535...


RE: Sucks...
By aftlizard on 4/30/2009 2:49:43 PM , Rating: 5
Disagree. And so does Michael Barone:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/be...

Chrysler is going into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, despite the Obama administration’s efforts to keep it out.

The problem was that a group of small bondholders rejected the deal that car czar Steven Rattner and his deputy (and it seems the real dealmaker) Ron Bloom.

The bondholders made a good point. They are secured creditors, and in our bankruptcy law secured creditors get paid off in full before unsecured creditors get anything. That’s a sound legal principle: why would secured creditors lend anyone anything unless they can get their security back if the loan isn’t paid off? In this case, the small bondholders were willing to settle for only 60% of what they were owed. But, they complain, the government wouldn’t negotiate directly with them, but only through JPMorganChase, which (unwillingly) took TARP money on October 13 and thus is under pressure to do what the government wants.

Translation into politispeak: The government squeezed the small bondholders too hard in order to protect the United Auto Workers, which of course has over the years been a bounteous source of money (and manpower) for the Democratic party. The government can muscle the big banks, but it can’t (at least not yet) muscle creditors whom it hasn’t forced to take its money.


RE: Sucks...
By TomZ on 4/30/2009 2:59:52 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah, it seems like the Obama administration is running afoul of some pretty big ethical/moral problems here. Why should the government have the right to force this loss upon creditors in this way? I think there should be some outrage about that.

If the goverment wants to clean Chrysler's balance sheet, they should just pay off the creditors. That's the cost of choosing that direction. I don't think it is a good choice, but it is a more ethical choice, IMO.


RE: Sucks...
By Steve1981 on 4/30/2009 3:05:18 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Why should the government have the right to force this loss upon creditors in this way?


It's always easier when it's someone else's money. I mean really, "hedge funds" just sound so dirty, they're an easy mark. Call em corporate fat cats for good measure, and we can rip them off for all they're worth.


RE: Sucks...
By Lord 666 on 4/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Sucks...
By wallijonn on 4/30/2009 6:26:36 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If the government wants to clean Chrysler's balance sheet, they should just pay off the creditors.


Why should WE, the People, pay for their mistakes? Are you willing to play $100 a year for the next fifty years to Chrysler in the form of higher taxes, or less tax refunds? Are you willing to off load this debt to our children?

As part of the bailout the CEO, FCO, etc., and the board members should have been fired since they are clearly failures. No unemployment packages should be awarded. Awarded for what? Failure? All options should be negated. Why should they be able to cash in on their options when the stock is worthless?


RE: Sucks...
By TomZ on 4/30/2009 9:11:28 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not interested in paying for the bailout, but us paying for it is about as arbirary as secured creditors having to take the loss. It's really no different than the government coming to your house and telling you they are going to take that away from you for no good reason.


RE: Sucks...
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Sucks...
By aftlizard on 4/30/2009 3:14:44 PM , Rating: 5
Sorry Mick but I will take Barones opinion over yours on this. The Obama administration went out of its way to protect the Unions while demanding the investors take massive losses even when they already offered to settle for 60%. I highly doubt the Union would be willing to go that low.


RE: Sucks...
By clovell on 4/30/2009 3:14:48 PM , Rating: 5
I disagree. The economy is an organism, and like any organism, it needs a mechanism by which it 'takes out the trash'. Something like the economic equivalent of TNF (Tumor Necrosis Factor).

The economy needs to be willing to shed its counter-productive components in order to remain viable. In a Darwinian sense, these investors serve a vital function.

Hate them all you want, but somebody had to do it.


RE: Sucks...
By Jeff7181 on 4/30/2009 3:30:28 PM , Rating: 5
Woah... wait a minute here. Did you read what you just typed?

You're saying investors should not be able to pull their investments at will? That's insane. You can call it greed all you want... the bottom line is they made a poor investment in Chrysler and wanted what was left of their money. It may have been foolish for them to take a loss with no consideration for the company, but that's their right.

If you want to place blame, keep your fingers pointed at the Union and crappy management. THEY ran the company into the ground, not investors.


RE: Sucks...
By Murst on 4/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Sucks...
By Solandri on 4/30/2009 4:19:46 PM , Rating: 5
You have it backwards. The investors who held out were secured creditors. In a regular bankruptcy, they get paid first. Unsecured creditors like the UAW get paid with what's left after the secured creditors are paid, which is usually nothing or close to it.

I'm still reading up on the matter, but it sounds like the government offered a deal that was very favorable to the unsecured creditors (particularly the UAW - a 55% ownership stake). The secured creditors cried foul. So the government dumped the blame for the bankruptcy onto them.


RE: Sucks...
By Murst on 4/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Sucks...
By jRaskell on 5/4/2009 12:56:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If another group of investors decides that the would like to pay for Chrysler's bankruptcy, then they would be more than welcome to choose how the company ownership is distributed.


Actually, if another group of investors decided to pay for Chrysler's bankruptcy, they would STILL have to obey existing bankruptcy laws as far as paying off debts is concerned, which is entirely separate from who gets ownership and continues running the business post-bankrupty.

They would not be able to pay off ANY UAW debt whatsoever before paying out any secured debt, and the government should not be allowed to do so either.


RE: Sucks...
By Murst on 4/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Sucks...
By Steve1981 on 4/30/2009 4:15:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Now, the smaller investors will probably get nothing. Sure, they hold secured debt, but you need to keep in mind that the government will be funding the bankruptcy via billions of loans. Those government loans will take precedent over any securitized debt that the investors may own, thus eliminating their value to nothing ( or next to nothing ).


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the new government loans won't wipe out the old secured debt; while a DIP loan takes precedence over older debts, that loan is injecting new capital into Chrysler. Unless Chrysler pisses that new cash away too (which obviously could happen), those secured debts should theoretically be covered, no?


RE: Sucks...
By Murst on 4/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Sucks...
By Steve1981 on 4/30/2009 5:02:47 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The small investors and hedge funds wanted 60%, which is already MORE than what they were expected to get assuming Chrysler does not go through bankruptcy. This is pure greed, and pretty stupid.


Hypothetical... You give me 10000 dollars with the understanding that I will pay you 11000 dollars next year and I give you a coupon stating such. I piss most of that money away. Are you greedy for wanting your 10k back? It was probably stupid to give me money in the first place, but if I were in your shoes, I'd kick some ass.

quote:
IMO, there is only one possible reason why they refused to accept the gov't offer, and that is because they believed that the administration would bail them out and pay them the 60%. They thought that the administration would not let Chrysler go into bankruptcy.


Ehh I imagine a possibility is that the hedge funds hedged their bets with credit default swaps, so a bankruptcy wouldn't be the end of the world.

quote:
So, for all of the people complaining about bailouts and how the Obama administration is just throwing money around, at least in this case, hopefully you can see that they refused to bail out the hedge funds. All conservatives should applaud what the Obama administration did in this particular case, but instead they continue the Obama bashing without giving it real thought.


I'm not enthused by it because Obama shouldn't be intervening in the first place. I don't think wiping out hedge funds that would like the money they're lawfully owed is all that conservative either.


RE: Sucks...
By Murst on 4/30/2009 5:06:57 PM , Rating: 2
Hedge funds bought credit default swaps on secured debt? Is something like that even possible? I'm just wondering... where exactly did you get that info?


RE: Sucks...
By Steve1981 on 4/30/2009 5:12:16 PM , Rating: 2
It certainly is possible, although its impossible to say at this time whether it happened or not.


RE: Sucks...
By borowki2 on 4/30/2009 8:05:29 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't surprise me at all if the biggest holder of Chrysler CDS turns out to be AIG. So there you go, the bondholders will get their money from the taxpayer-backed insurer. Obama gets political cover by branding them as villains. The UAW gets a huge stake in the company--now also backed by the taxpayers. Everybody wins!


RE: Sucks...
By Steve1981 on 4/30/2009 5:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
PS: You still haven't really answered my original thought.

A DIP loan could theoretically wipe out the old secured debt, yes. But... that is only if the value of Chrysler's assets + the assets acquired with the new loan drop below the value of the new loan. Presumably, the point of all this is such that the aforementioned scenario does not happen.


RE: Sucks...
By Murst on 4/30/2009 5:14:28 PM , Rating: 2
Umm... you do realize that with the new gov't loans, chrysler's assets are worth less than the amount of money that they borrowed? So, after the 8 billion loan that the gov't is about to make, the scenario you've described will already have taken place.


RE: Sucks...
By Steve1981 on 4/30/2009 5:24:07 PM , Rating: 2
After the 8 billion loan that the government is about to make, Chrysler will have 8 billion dollars in new assets...hence that loan is covered at least temporarily. Like I said, if Chrysler manages to piss it all away, then the bondholders may be screwed. But presumably, we aren't loaning them more money so they can piss it all away...


RE: Sucks...
By Murst on 4/30/2009 5:28:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
After the 8 billion loan that the government is about to make, Chrysler will have 8 billion dollars in new assets


Obviously you haven't been following the auto industry for that long. Chrysler already blew through 4 billion in 2 months that the gov't lent it. Do you really think that this 8 billion that they get will go into some account and acquire interest? The money will pay for closings of dealerships, contract buyouts, etc. It will be gone.

The government isn't trying to make money on this. They're simply trying to allow Chrysler to survive and keep hundreds of thousands of jobs in the USA.


RE: Sucks...
By Steve1981 on 4/30/2009 5:34:46 PM , Rating: 2
The government may not be trying to make money on this, but they certainly do expect to be paid back (kind of like those greedy bondholders...). Presumably for that to happen, Chrysler has to do something useful with that cash.


RE: Sucks...
By Murst on 4/30/2009 5:39:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but they certainly do expect to be paid back

True.
quote:
kind of like those greedy bondholders

Not true.
The goverment will most likely do a swap for shares in the company - which is exactly what the bondholders refused to do. The gov't will hope that they can eventually get their money back when Chrysler is back in good shape. It is a huge risk, but one that they obviously feel is worth taking.


RE: Sucks...
By bhieb on 4/30/2009 5:54:17 PM , Rating: 4
And why not take a huge risk, easy to do when your playing with other ppls money. Just hope there is someone left with some money to pay for all of these "investments".


RE: Sucks...
By Steve1981 on 4/30/2009 5:57:43 PM , Rating: 3
So if these greedy bondholders refuse to take that huge risk, they should be wiped out? Sounds fair. Care to invest in some Chrysler bonds? You could be a real patriot.


RE: Sucks...
By Steve1981 on 4/30/2009 5:59:43 PM , Rating: 3
I would also note that Chrysler bondholders were offered cash, not stock.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090430/ap_on_bi_ge/us...

"A person briefed on Wednesday night's events said the Treasury Department and the four banks tried to persuade the hedge funds to take a sweetened deal of $2.25 billion in cash. But in the end, this person said most thought they could recover more if Chrysler went into bankruptcy and some of its assets were sold to satisfy creditors. This person asked not to be identified because details of the negotiations have not been made public."


RE: Sucks...
By FITCamaro on 4/30/2009 4:34:55 PM , Rating: 4
They were doing exactly what they were legally able to do. It doesn't matter if everyone else was stupid enough to accept 20%. They were entitled to what their contract said. They agreed to accept 60% of that.

Just because everyone else jumps off the cliff because the government told them to, doesn't mean you have to as well.


RE: Sucks...
By Steve1981 on 4/30/2009 4:45:23 PM , Rating: 2
Bingo.


RE: Sucks...
By Murst on 4/30/2009 4:59:19 PM , Rating: 2
Stupid enough to accept 20%? What contract exactly are you referring to? There's no such thing.

See my reply to Steve1981 above about exactly what they can expect to receive in bankruptcy. The only people who were stupid in all of this were the hedge funds.


RE: Sucks...
By Steve1981 on 4/30/2009 5:04:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
What contract exactly are you referring to?


The bond is a contract....


RE: Sucks...
By Murst on 4/30/2009 5:09:28 PM , Rating: 2
It certainly doesn't guarantee 60% of your money back, which is what the guy who I was replying to posted.


RE: Sucks...
By Steve1981 on 4/30/2009 5:13:20 PM , Rating: 4
In this instance, you are supposed to get whatever the bond was secured by.


RE: Sucks...
By Murst on 4/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Sucks...
By Steve1981 on 4/30/2009 5:21:02 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know what the bonds are secured by; do you?


RE: Sucks...
By Murst on 4/30/2009 5:41:28 PM , Rating: 2
No, I do not. But, according to S&P, whatever was used to secure that debt is now worthless in bankruptcy.


RE: Sucks...
By Steve1981 on 4/30/2009 5:44:31 PM , Rating: 2
Your earlier quote said they'd get 30-50 cents on the dollar, which isn't exactly worthless.


RE: Sucks...
By Murst on 4/30/2009 5:52:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your earlier quote said they'd get 30-50 cents on the dollar, which isn't exactly worthless.

Read the quote again. They will get 30-50 cents on the dollar IF the goverment does not provide loans during bankruptcy. If the government does provide loans, they should expect to get nothing.


RE: Sucks...
By Steve1981 on 4/30/2009 5:56:04 PM , Rating: 2
...If the government doesn't provide loans and Chrysler is liquidated then those who hold secured debt get 30-50 cents on the dollar. That means whatever is securing those debts is worth 30-50 cents per dollar of secured debt, no?


RE: Sucks...
By Murst on 4/30/2009 6:04:50 PM , Rating: 2
It seems you don't understand. When the goverment will issue the loans to restructure Chrysler, that 30-50 cents that secures the bonds will now secure the new gov't loan. And the proceeds from its sale will be used to first pay back the gov't, and not the hedge funds. If by some miracle Chrysler is sold for more than 8 billion ( yeah, right ), then the extra money will go to pay off the bond holders. Does it make sense now?


RE: Sucks...
By Murst on 4/30/2009 6:13:10 PM , Rating: 2
BTW, Fox Business has a pretty neat article that explains what will happen with the bond holders now: http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industrie...


RE: Sucks...
By Steve1981 on 4/30/2009 6:27:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
BTW, Fox Business has a pretty neat article that explains what will happen with the bond holders now: http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industrie...


I doubt it'll be quite that simple of a process. Of course, a lot of it depends on the bankruptcy judge I suppose.

In either case, I imagine it's a bit more complex than making Chrysler 2 Motor Co, moving all the cash to that, and saying all that's left of Chrysler (the original!) is the debt and some old factories.


RE: Sucks...
By Steve1981 on 4/30/2009 6:20:01 PM , Rating: 2
Remember this statement that you made???

quote:
Yes, and they will. The only problem is that the thing the bond was secured by is worthless.


That's all I was responding to. Currently, the bond is secured by something that has value, as you acknowledge...

quote:
When the goverment will issue the loans to restructure Chrysler, that 30-50 cents that secures the bonds will now secure the new gov't loan. And the proceeds from its sale will be used to first pay back the gov't, and not the hedge funds. If by some miracle Chrysler is sold for more than 8 billion ( yeah, right ), then the extra money will go to pay off the bond holders.


Well that all depends.

As the loan is taken, it is secured not by Chrysler's existing assets, but by the new cash in Chrysler's bank account. So long as Chrysler can use that new cash to generate wealth instead of pissing it away, the bondholders will eventually get their money. Given that the plan (theoretically) is to get Chrysler back on its feet, and not to sell it for 8 billion dollars, I suspect that the bondholders won't get wiped out. That's all I'm saying.


RE: Sucks...
By Murst on 4/30/2009 6:22:47 PM , Rating: 2
I hope you're right. I really do hope that they will get something of value for their investment. However, my point is that it is very unlikely given what is going on.


RE: Sucks...
By Steve1981 on 4/30/2009 6:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I hope you're right. I really do hope that they will get something of value for their investment.


Indeed. I can certainly sympathize with them. I can't really call someone greedy for expecting a loan to be repaid. That Chrysler was abysmally run for the last few years isn't the bondholder's fault, and I don't generally believe that they should have to suffer for the management's & union's stupidity.

quote:
However, my point is that it is very unlikely given what is going on.


At this point, I suspect its everything or nothing for everyone, except Uncle Sam. He's always pretty good about extracting what he's owed from people/companies. I do wonder if even he can extract the full amount of the DIP loan if Chrysler continues to piss the cash away though...


RE: Sucks...
By wookie1 on 4/30/2009 4:45:58 PM , Rating: 2
Well I hope nobody needs to raise money using "secured" debt again. Now that it is obviously not so secure, there may not be many investors willing to offer it. I thought the administration was supposed to be helping with the availability of debt (creating more willingness to lend)? This will send shockwaves through the lending institutions.


RE: Sucks...
By Steve1981 on 4/30/2009 4:54:35 PM , Rating: 5
Don't you see the logic???? It's like dramatically increasing spending on garbage projects to get out of debt.

Next we can print more money to combat inflation.


RE: Sucks...
By Murst on 4/30/2009 5:03:46 PM , Rating: 2
Secured debt is no different than before. If a company restructures, the secured debt holders may get screwed if someone else sponsors the restructure ( as in this case ). You're confusing restructuring with liquidation, in which case the secured debt holders get priority on money raised. However, Chrysler is not going to go through liquidation.


RE: Sucks...
By FITCamaro on 4/30/2009 4:32:02 PM , Rating: 2
Best post so far.

And isn't Obama trying to get the power to control even these smaller financial institutions so that he can exert his will over them too.


RE: Sucks...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/30/2009 5:16:25 PM , Rating: 1
WOW Mick... you really ARE in the tank.


RE: Sucks...
By mydogfarted on 4/30/2009 2:36:24 PM , Rating: 2
Blame the unions here? Not this time. Everyone got on the same page to avoid this except for a small handful of hedgefunds and creditors. Let's not forget that hedgefunds and speculators are the jackasses partially responsible for things like $4/gallon gas prices last summer and huge stock market swings. The unions and management have done their fair share to screw things up, but lets point the finger where it belongs at this very moment.


RE: Sucks...
By Suntan on 4/30/2009 4:50:50 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The unions and management have done their fair share to screw things up, but lets point the finger where it belongs at this very moment.


Then it will be pointed squarely at the people that worked *inside* the Chrysler buildings. Not the people that loaned them money with clear cut agreements as to how they expected to be paid back.

Honestly, what is the mindset coming to in this country? In what world is it normal to think that someone is being “mean” because they expect you to make good on the promise that you made with them?

Politicians chum it out left and right that it is alright to be stupid, make bad decisions and then turn around and feel betrayed because someone actually expects you to live with your actions after the fact. You stupid people eat it up because it then means you have someone else to blame for your own ignorance.

When is the last time you gave someone a couple grand with a clear, written understanding that it is a “loan” and not a "gift", watched as they pissed it away then turned around and told you that you were the devil because you wouldn’t just forgive them of the debt?

-Suntan


RE: Sucks...
By callmeroy on 4/30/2009 3:17:29 PM , Rating: 1
you still disagree with the unions but have the open mind an a bit of compassion to know that some of the those workers were just regular folks going to work like you and I everyday trying to put food on the table. Only in America -- the many are judged base don the few.....

Ever think that maybe some of the workers were also against what their management did?

I'm not making excuses or praising the UAW their management and leadership were the morons, I'm just more tuned to realities...and the realty is -- some of the union folks are just regular workers who in dire times do object to what the union management does....


RE: Sucks...
By FITCamaro on 4/30/2009 4:36:20 PM , Rating: 4
They obviously don't object enough to change the management of the union.


RE: Sucks...
By Suntan on 5/1/2009 12:35:43 PM , Rating: 4
Or go get a new job.

-Suntan


RE: Sucks...
By rippleyaliens on 4/30/2009 10:21:02 PM , Rating: 2
Well, Unions for what it is,, works.. Maybe not the best available, but it does work. The huge benefits = much needed. Retirement=much needed. working in a IT environment, as it is, is hard, stressful, but there is no protection what so ever.. Job outsourced=BYE!!!, Recession=BYE!!!.

People complain about the UAW's long term benefits, but most people fail to see the basics.. 1. People who worked for the same company for >25 years.. OTHER than the auto-industry, or a government job, name a profession that that peopel can work for a company for 25 years, and not get Fired...

People argue, that they should invest in 401k, and roth ira's, yet those were not avaliable 20 years ago, duh.. So now people are celebrating the fall of chrysler, well to those who work in non-union shops, who are suppliers to them, GoodBye...

Myself, you could not pay me to work for a auto plant.. LONG
hours, Mandatory overtime, SAME JOB, hr, by hr, day, by day.
People who work for honda celebrate, yet, great.. now we will all have foreign cars to drive.. yet another industry that the USA has lost, and its own people are cheering...


RE: Sucks...
By Suntan on 5/1/2009 12:56:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
OTHER than the auto-industry, or a government job, name a profession that that peopel can work for a company for 25 years, and not get Fired...


Well, you can get fired no matter what. That said, there are many people at my company that have been here that long. We have a 3 story car garage for employee parking and the entire ground level is reserved parking. The only way to get a reserved spot is to work here for more than 20 years.

quote:
People argue, that they should invest in 401k, and roth ira's, yet those were not avaliable 20 years ago, duh..


Pretty sure that 401ks as we know them came into being with the Tax Reform Act of 1978, now I didn't get a calculator out, but if my mental math is close... 2009-1978>20

Now in all your little hissy-fit there, you seemed to fail to mention that while you are working for the company, they are paying you to be there. It's not like you are doing them a favor by working there, both parties get something out of it. Your company is not your mother. They don’t have to love you “no matter what.”

If you feel that companies "owe" you a guaranteed job without the chance of losing it, how would you feel if the tables were turned? How would you feel about signing a contract that made you guarantee that *you* would work for that company for the next 30 years? Want to move to a different city? Too bad, gotta honor your contract. Break your back? TS, your needed on the line tomorrow. Want to take a year off because you just had a baby, forget it you have to honor your contract... Yeah, doesn't sound fair when you look at it that way.

Personally, I think unions were a necessary evil back when my grandfather worked in the steel mills and they striked for such things as safe working environments, or the right to have a day off if their child was sick in the hospital. However, I think unions now are nothing more than the toxic residue left over from the industrial revolution. They have grown too fat and too full of self entitlement to be good for the society and as hard as it would be to expunge the land of them, it would be better off on the whole if it happened.

-Suntan


RE: Sucks...
By monkeyman1140 on 5/29/2009 4:43:43 PM , Rating: 2
Chrysler's parent company Cereberus has hundreds of billions of dollars. it wasn't the unions that killed chrysler, it was the executives who hoped they could milk it for some cash before they sold it off. Let Cereberus absorb the debt, not the US Government.
Things Unions did not do at chrysler: They did not design terrible cars, they did not engineer terrible cars, they did not greenlight terrible cars, they did not take huge salaries for poor performance. All that is at the feet of Chrysler executives who will come monday morning, be at new jobs, destroying other companies.


RE: Sucks...
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Sucks...
By AmazighQ on 4/30/2009 2:41:41 PM , Rating: 2
it wont be helping much either cause Fait is not what you call a really good automaker.
there car quality standard are not as high as the German company's seconded by the French company's
even Dailmer couldnt change things around but that could be that management structure was different

but one fact im curtain off when Fait is 100%(50+) in control
and the government is out. progress will stop,
cause the American wont listen to some Italian far away


RE: Sucks...
By TomZ on 4/30/2009 2:49:40 PM , Rating: 2
I agree - these cross-pond mergers are typically a disaster. Didn't anybody learn from the D-C merger or many similar mergers in the past? I'd bet 10:1 against that merger being a success. Chrysler should remain an independent American company and work itself back to viability.

But I'm sure the US Government knows what is best for Chrysler and the industry, LOL.


RE: Sucks...
By Hare on 4/30/2009 3:30:43 PM , Rating: 2
You do realise that "Fiat" is not just a bunch of cheap mid and small size family cars? These belong under Fiat as well:

Ferrari
Maserati
Alfa Romeo
Lancia


RE: Sucks...
By djcameron on 4/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Sucks...
By Hare on 4/30/2009 4:24:54 PM , Rating: 3
Thanks for your insight and thorough explanation! I just find it funny that these cars that you say are 'crap' are quite nice compared to most GM cars. There are good reasons why Chrysler and GM are not doing well but car manufacturers like VW (VAG) and Fiat are selling quite well. Go figure...

Ps. I don't like italian cars.


RE: Sucks...
By 67STANG on 4/30/2009 4:35:57 PM , Rating: 2
Translation: You can't afford anything on this list.

Honestly, anyone that calls Ferrari "overpriced crap" has never driven one. I've never owned one, but I've driven 2 (a 550 and an Enzo). I have to say the Enzo is probably the best car I've EVER driven.


RE: Sucks...
By FITCamaro on 4/30/2009 4:41:59 PM , Rating: 1
For a few million dollars it better damn well be!

But the fact is that I can buy a far cheaper car and make it a hell of a lot faster than an Enzo and handle just as well. Sure it might not have as fancy an interior or have a Ferrari badge on it, but I could care less. It might not rev to 12,000 rpm or whatever but I could care less.

Ferraris and cars of its class are for people with a lot of money who want a toy. Their reliability is horrible and their repair costs insane because they're not built for America.

I'd buy a brand new ZR1 any day over a Ferrari no matter how much money I had. I can drive the ZR1 every day without issue.


RE: Sucks...
By Spuke on 4/30/2009 4:57:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But the fact is that I can buy a far cheaper car and make it a hell of a lot faster than an Enzo and handle just as well.
You could definitely make ANY other car faster in a straightline. Not a big deal there but making it handle better will take some knowhow. The Enzo is the real deal not some poseur machine. Unless you have a lot of track time under your belt or you're a suspension engineer, out muscling an Enzo on a road course or even a mountain road is a pipe dream. It's not impossible or even improbable, mind you, it will just take more than a set of sticky tires and Eibach Pro-Kits to do it.


RE: Sucks...
By C'DaleRider on 4/30/2009 5:12:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can buy a far cheaper car and make it a hell of a lot faster than an Enzo and handle just as well. Sure it might not have as fancy an interior or have a Ferrari badge on it, but I could care less..


So you do care, right? Or did you really mean you couldn't care less?

Anyway, sure you can gin up a cheap car to be fast, handle a bit, etc. But it sure won't get chicks worth a damn like a Ferrari will.....a car guaranteed to get panties to drop for any geek here, unlike a Mustang.


RE: Sucks...
By FITCamaro on 5/1/2009 12:29:35 AM , Rating: 2
Because that's a reason to own a car....

You only care about what women think of your car if you're compensating for something. I own a GTO because I love the sound of a V8 and I love punching the throttle, getting thrown back in the seat, and going. If I wanted chicks I'd get a BMW.


RE: Sucks...
By MamiyaOtaru on 5/1/2009 2:46:14 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
So you do care, right? Or did you really mean you couldn't care less?


Woohoo another convert for the "change a goofy idiom" crusade. Yeah, it's a little backwards, but I could care less.


RE: Sucks...
By Deschutes on 4/30/2009 9:25:19 PM , Rating: 2
Ferrari's come from a long history of cars bourne of racing heritage. A heritage that includes the cutting edge Formula 1 technologies. Couple that with an extremely successful racing record. To suggest that modifying mainstream pedestrian vehicles that exceed the capabilities of current Ferraris' performance and driveabilities is ambitious to say the least. Granted, the ZR-1 is an outstanding performer for the money, but it too is not inexpensive compared with other domestics. Moreover, the quality between Corvettes and Ferrari's cannot be compared either. I'm not suggesting the quality is poor on the Corvette; on the contrary, the choice of materials the manufacter uses will not be in the same league as that of a Ferrari. Why, because it would drive the cost of the vehicle up beyond what people would pay for it. If Ferrari's cost the same as Corvettes - people would gravitate towards Ferrari's. You do pay for the quality you receive in a Ferrari; ask the people who bid at Barrett-Jackson.


RE: Sucks...
By 67STANG on 5/1/2009 12:04:01 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not going to say that you can't make a car faster than a Ferrari.. I mean you could buy an Ariel Atom for 60-70% less money and have a car that's just as quick or quicker. That still doesn't mean that Ferrari's are "crap", which was the purpose of my post.

Oh, and by the way:

Ferrari Enzo:
0-60: 3.2 Seconds
1/4 Mile: 11.1 Seconds
Leeched From U.S. Tax Payers: $0

Corvette ZR1
0-60: 3.3 Seconds
1/4 Mile: 11.2 Seconds
Leeched From U.S. Tax Payers: $15.4 billion


RE: Sucks...
By monkeyman1140 on 5/29/2009 4:48:07 PM , Rating: 2
If I had a Ferrari Enzo I would sell it and immediately retire.


RE: Sucks...
By amagriva on 5/2/2009 7:48:08 AM , Rating: 2
Stop please my belly hurts...too funny! From what you say I guess that if you open a Ferrari trunk you'll not be able to name the half of the pieces inside. Cars sometimes steer and stop...But it's futile... Go buy muscle cars Enjoy your flip over. p.s. watch this (talking about value)
http://www.rmauctions.com/FeatureCars.cfm?SaleCode...
And this(for your eyes only)
http://www.rmauctions.com/FeatureCars.cfm?SaleCode...


RE: Sucks...
By TomZ on 4/30/2009 4:14:11 PM , Rating: 2
Those brands have zero significance to the American car market.


RE: Sucks...
By Spuke on 4/30/2009 5:00:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Those brands have zero significance to the American car market.
Granted, two of those names don't make cars here but Ferrari and Maserati sell most of their cars here so I would say that's significant. Both of those makes are also extremely well known and even total non-car people can recognize a Ferrari.


RE: Sucks...
By Lord 666 on 4/30/2009 7:36:19 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot to mention women get excited at the sight of a Maserati.

Being this is clinically proven, they should market it as such in the US for the new UAWFiat dealerships


RE: Sucks...
By Hare on 5/1/2009 8:48:06 AM , Rating: 2
Zero significance? Alfa Romeo competes with BMW, Audi and on some level Mercedes (car for old geezers). I think it actually has significance. Fiat itself makes ok cars. Compared to the crap GM makes they could actually do quite well in certain markets.

Quality? Ford F150 is a best seller in the US so I quess quality is not that big of a factor.

Sing with me US residents:
Who likes crappy plastics,
We like crappy plastics

Who likes metal parts with huge gaps,
We like metal parts with huge gaps

Who likes 1980 engine tech,
We like 1980 engine tech...


RE: Sucks...
By TomZ on 5/1/2009 10:15:56 AM , Rating: 3
Your perception of the American automakers is what is stuck in the 1980s.


RE: Sucks...
By Hare on 5/1/2009 3:01:36 PM , Rating: 2
Not really. The Dodge Nitro, Avenger, Chrysler Neon, Sebring etc are considered the cheapest and crappiest of their category here in EU. That's why they are so cheap here. The quality is not good. That's exactly why we have the Ford Focus etc. Ford can't sell the US models here because they suck *** and would not fly compared to Audi A3 or VW Golf. Even the Opel based Saturns are doing better than GM products in the US... Wonder why...

Ps. Feel free to google "Top Gear F150".


RE: Sucks...
By Spuke on 5/1/2009 5:34:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ps. Feel free to google "Top Gear F150".
You Google it. The rest of us already know it's a great product. Also, your last post showed your total ignorance of the product. Doesn't surprise me any, I just felt I should point that out. Specifically, your post says that the engine is 80's tech. What exactly about the F150's engine is 80's tech? Also, what engine tech was developed in the 80's that the F150 uses and why is that tech inferior to tech from other time periods?


RE: Sucks...
By Hare on 5/2/2009 1:22:18 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say that the F150 specifically has an ancient engine. I think it actually has a decent engine (although I find it amusing that you have to invent 'ecoboost' etc marketing names for a friggin turbo). Compared to many other american engines it actually has a reasonable efficiency & power/torque performance compared to displacement.

Ps. I don't have to google what I typed above. I have seen the clip. I suggest you watch it also.


RE: Sucks...
By Spuke on 5/1/2009 5:26:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Quality? Ford F150 is a best seller in the US so I quess quality is not that big of a factor.
The F150 is a fantastic product and I wish Ford could afford to put that much effort into all of their products. You don't outsell EVERY single vehicle in the US for the last 30 years by making a crap product. It doesn't work that way.


RE: Sucks...
By afkrotch on 4/30/2009 2:50:09 PM , Rating: 2
I'm hoping when Chrysler comes out, they don't hire union workers. There's more than enough ppl willing to take the job.


RE: Sucks...
By TomZ on 4/30/2009 2:51:53 PM , Rating: 2
Nice dream...unfortunately UAW and CAW still dominate labor at Chrysler, and a bankruptcy is not going to change that. Unions are not easy to get rid of.


RE: Sucks...
By FITCamaro on 4/30/2009 4:42:27 PM , Rating: 2
The union owns the majority of the company now.


RE: Sucks...
By Lord 666 on 4/30/2009 7:21:22 PM , Rating: 2
Just because the name is famous you think they will survive two bankruptcies? At the end of the day, only their dealer network, Jeep, and performance cars are worth anything. This company is best to be sent to the chop shop.

Look back into very recent history and you will see someone with a famous name who went through at least 2 professional bankruptcies leaving a mess only to be promoted to muck up things more.


another $8B
By mattclary on 4/30/2009 2:41:30 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The President has ordered $3.5B USD in funding for the company, upon its entrance into bankruptcy. An addition $4.5B USD will be granted when it exits the process and merges, officially, with Fiat.


We just keep hemorrhaging cash. Bad money after good.




RE: another $8B
By knutjb on 4/30/2009 3:56:55 PM , Rating: 3
They should have filed bankruptcy last year, same with GM. Where did the money go? To the unions through slight of hand they now possess a majority holding. If they had gone into bankruptcy instead of taking those loans the union would be SOL. Obama did this to pump money into the unions. Not part of a union, you pay taxes you paid the dues...


RE: another $8B
By wolfwood on 4/30/2009 4:42:53 PM , Rating: 5
I'm pretty sure there was another president last year who also wouldn't allow Chrysler or GM to go into bankruptcy.


RE: another $8B
By Machinegear on 4/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: another $8B
By TomZ on 5/1/2009 8:37:13 AM , Rating: 4
Well, he is a politican after all...how good can even the best politican be?


RE: another $8B
By clovell on 5/1/2009 12:39:40 PM , Rating: 1
... which is a rather moot point when you recall that the majority of Mr. Obama's campaign was a response to 'the failed economic policies of the Bush Administration'.


RE: another $8B
By clovell on 5/1/2009 3:58:21 PM , Rating: 2
You guys can rate me down all you want, but the truth hurts. No response to that, eh?


RE: another $8B
By Machinegear on 4/30/2009 4:01:44 PM , Rating: 5
Agreed.

quote:
Chrysler Files For Bankruptcy, Obama Offers Praise, $8B USD Cash


Did anyone else get depressed with the current administration after reading the article title? The President rewards failure??? Great leader; great way to lead by example. This is America's new motto:

"Failure... the quickest way into the public treasury."


RE: another $8B
By FITCamaro on 4/30/2009 4:47:52 PM , Rating: 2
Last Sunday marked Debt Day. From Monday (4/27) until the end of the fiscal year, every dollar the government spends is borrowed. Before now, that day wasn't normally until August at the earliest.


RE: another $8B
By Steve Guilliot on 4/30/2009 8:05:32 PM , Rating: 1
Right, so Obama would have been a "socialist" if he forbade Chrysler to merge with Fiat, or he's an idiot to allow it...

This is the kind of damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't criticism the Right has been trotting out since November 3rd. The only goal is to undermine Obama regardless of the policy or outcome, which puts ideology ahead of country. Pretty sad.


RE: another $8B
By FITCamaro on 5/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: another $8B
By Armassault on 5/1/2009 4:23:19 AM , Rating: 1
-Job losses in the health insurance industry.
Yeah, because that's what we need right now, to pay high salaries to people who provide goods or services that aren't necessary/beneficial or provide any real value.
Cut the middle man already.
At least the auto industry workers provide something tangible.

-Immigration reform.
?

-Taxing pollution.
This is already done in every western country you normally compare yourself with. And increasingly so, just make peace with it.
Your electricity rates and gas prices are roughly half of what they are in Europe, yet most european economies are outperforming yours. So much for your fear tactics.

Did you miss the memo on how the increased tax rates will be offset by other tax reductions?


RE: another $8B
By Manch on 5/1/2009 6:16:44 AM , Rating: 5
You wouldnt cut the middle man you would just replace it with the government.


RE: another $8B
By Regs on 5/1/2009 9:19:36 AM , Rating: 3
Of F' me. Just what we need is another Mike Moore running around spreading their propaganda. Once you compare private sectors with "most European economies" as well as GDP, Income per capita, consumer indexes, and then maybe take a history lesson why this country grew into the beast then we can talk.

The the health industry is just more hysteria, and there's just no easier way of saying this. People die and it's a scary fact of life. For some reason if we switch to nationalized health care, people think Doctors will turn into gods, and people will all live to see the age of 150.


RE: another $8B
By Steve1981 on 5/1/2009 9:51:51 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
For some reason if we switch to nationalized health care, people think Doctors will turn into gods, and people will all live to see the age of 150.


All while eating our pizza and cheeseburgers, smoking a pack a day, and enjoying a six pack of beer every night no doubt.

The scary part about it to me is that people think they have a right to health care. I can't really fathom having the right to the goods and services of others without paying for it on mutually agreeable terms, but I guess I'm an evil capitalist.


RE: another $8B
By Hakuryu on 5/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: another $8B
By Spuke on 5/1/2009 5:42:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but I wonder if you would change your mind if you lost your job and health insurance
Been there, done that. You know what I did to fix that situation? I GOT A JOB THAT HAS HEALTH BENEFITS!


RE: another $8B
By nixoofta on 5/2/2009 3:25:25 AM , Rating: 2
I think a lot of auto workers used to feel the same way.


RE: another $8B
By Steve1981 on 5/4/2009 8:41:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can't fathom that many people in this world feel justified to let others suffer, but I guess I'm just an evil humanist.


Who said people would have to suffer? Charity exists in a capitalist system, just not forced charity.

To put it another way: if I am walking down a road with a sandwich and I pass a homeless man, he does not have a right to my sandwich. However, that's not to say I'd let the poor soul go hungry.

But, perhaps we should have a universal feeding program: a government bureaucrat pops up out of thin air and takes my sandwich. For his services, he needs half the sandwich, and the poor person and myself have to split the other half. Justice for all!


RE: another $8B
By TA152H on 5/1/2009 11:20:05 AM , Rating: 1
Actually, what makes you think the United States compares itself with Western countries? You have the tail wagging the dog. Imitating Europe is far from what the United States wants to do. For one, the cowardly pacifism of Europe gives it significantly lower costs, and puts the burden on the United States. Also, we have states bigger than France, the largest western European country, and the population density is much higher, making the situation with fuel very different.

On top of that, you're absolutely wrong about electricity costs in Europe. In France, electricity is very cheap, thanks to the nukes they put on the border of Germany and Belgium (so if they blow up, they poison their neighbors).

The United States is the huge superpower of the world, with a very different situation from Europe, which has a bunch of small, half-rate pacifist countries, that combined do have a lot of economic power, but a military equivalent to our trained dogs. It's a lot easier when the superpower is footing the bill to keep the world safe, instead of you.

This of course is not directed at the Brits, who, still take pride in themselves, and do their fair share. The rest of Western Europe just whines to the U.N..


RE: another $8B
By Drexial on 5/1/2009 12:58:15 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe they aren't pacifists... But don't give a shit cause its not their problem. If they aren't being attacked then why should they help? I mean that's the idea most people in the US have when it comes to other countries problems. Well, that i unless we feel we have an economic gain in that region. then call in the troops. I love how the same people that hate paying taxes to support someone else and think with a "do or die" attitude are the same people that cant buy into the idea that 90% of the decisions the US government makes are about personal investments of money. What can make the companies they worked for richer, so when they leave office they get a nice fat bonus from them.

I mean its just their American right to do what they need to to make money isn't it? Who are we to say that they shouldn't invade a country if it will make them a few bucks, they are allowed to do what they can to make money. The free market will decide their fate.... ohh wait, they are the ones in office that were a director on the board or a former CEO on a company that a particular regulation helped pig out on cash. *shrugs* oops.


RE: another $8B
By Spuke on 5/1/2009 5:51:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, that i unless we feel we have an economic gain in that region.
We usually intervene somewhere when asked. Whether it's the country's government or the UN or an ally. I and lots of other Americans, quite frankly, are semi-isolationist. I say semi because most of us have no problems with trade as that's a benefit to us all. There is a small "movement" where some Americans think we should not even trade with other countries but I don't think that's going anywhere. I do think that you will see less of America after the Iraq and Afghanistan business is completed. It looks like we're going that way.


RE: another $8B
By TA152H on 5/1/2009 8:25:03 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, just like they didn't care about Germany before WW II, because it wasn't their problem? And guess what, it was!

You're a fool if you don't think it's better to prevent issues from happening before they've come unsolvable. Besides, if you think we should have invited Muslims to keep bombing us and not retaliated, you are more than a fool, you're a dangerous one. They understood the beating they took, and anything less would have invited more problems. Israel knows this well. The best form of negotiation is dealing with them after you've already hit them with a hammer.

Europeans have degenerated into pacifists that can't defend themselves. It's shameful and disgusting. Especially Germans, who have such a rich history of performing exceptionally well in wars, to simply absolve themselves of any responsibility is revolting. Prussians were the finest soldiers in the world, now they lay with the French. What could be worse than that?

It's a dangerous world out there, and you can't just put your head in the sand and let people build up weapons that can threaten you, especially when you know they will. Especially with nuclear weapons being a possibility, you have to be proactive in preventing the threats from becoming real. Europeans know the Americans will handle it, so they do nothing, and let the Americans take care of it, and then whine about it. Or, if they do take some initiative, it constitutes whining to the U.N.. They must have estrogen in the water supplies based on how they act. It's so shameful. German pacifism? I don't get it. They were the best fighters in the world, consistently.


RE: another $8B
By StinkyWhizzleTeeth on 5/2/2009 12:53:17 AM , Rating: 2
Taxing pollution?

Why not use excise taxes?


RE: another $8B
By callmeroy on 5/1/2009 8:36:36 AM , Rating: 2
I hate politics period -- call your self demo, lib, republican, conservative, green party, independent, moderate, plaid, fuscia, WHATEVER --- politics sucks. The main thing I hate about it is whenever issues arrise of a significant nature -- like the economy today.....we as a nation spend more time and energy talking about everything else around the problem rather than fixing the problem. And then when you are honestly just calling it how you see it and how you interpret the facts and say this [insert politician's name here] is wrong because of [state your case here]....you are OF COURSE labeled one party or another because some folks in this world can't resist the need to see things in labels.

Anyway...I disagree with Obama's spend happy nature - you are all correct who think "how the heck do you throw good money after bad and then expect things to just get better?".

BUT wait until the movement about nationalised health care (who a surprising amount of folks around here actually support) sparks up a few notches....you think the spending is done? Not by a long shot....

I wonder if folks realise the time will come when the bills (loans) will have to be paid...what then?


Blame
By clovell on 4/30/2009 3:02:29 PM , Rating: 5
I don't understand why the President has to blame the investors on this. They have rights and they exercised them. Let's cut the 'class-warfare' bullshit of hedge-fund investors versus fatory-line workers.

Wake up folks - politicians are using class-warfare to manipulate the masses. It's time to govern in a way that is fair to everybody, not just to those who are less fortunate.




RE: Blame
By FITCamaro on 4/30/2009 4:49:04 PM , Rating: 1
+1


RE: Blame
By Lord 666 on 4/30/2009 7:52:28 PM , Rating: 3
And the media is running a huge smoke screen story (swine flu or 2009 H1N1)right now so this deal can be swept under the carpet. Do you think the general public will be ok with the UAW owning majority of a company that received billions from the govt?


RE: Blame
By aromero78 on 5/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Blame
By clovell on 5/1/2009 12:32:24 PM , Rating: 2
No seriously - why is this news? Huh? Chrysler screwed up, and wanted the gov't. to bail them out; UAW screwed up and wanted the gov't to bail them out; investors now screw up, and there's 'BLOODY MURDER IN THE EFFING STREETS!!!'??

No, the moral of the story has not a damned thing to do with your thinly veiled verbal assault on capitalism or the cursory references to class-warfare. The moral of the story is that people need to clean up their own goddamned mess. I am so sick of this shit. It's like their moms never taught them better - you sleep in the bed you make.

What you did get right is the liberal vs. conservative. No more does liberal vs. conservative = democrat vs. republican. After seeing the republicans play straight into the hand of the class-warfare crap the democrats thrive on, I'm going libertarian. It's time for some accountability. Dammit.

[/rant]


RE: Blame
By aromero78 on 5/1/2009 4:04:40 PM , Rating: 1
I completely agree that everyone should clean up their own mess, no argument there. I also don't think the bailout was a good thing, I was just pointing out that some of its strongest opponents are the same people that will turn around have their hands out when it looks like its there turn. If the management of any company is unable to keep that company out of the red then things should be allowed to take there course and either the company should change its way of doing business or someone else should step and do it better. That is the ideal capitalism in a vacuum scenario. But my assault was not on capitalism in general, it was on our version of it. The way things are set up now it's an unsustainable system where all roads lead to the situation where we are headed. Business and politics are to tied to get anything really done. If you think for a second that its our votes that count more then dallors thrown at the guys over in Washington then your kidding yourself. So you go libertarian, and you guys will have all of the best intentions but by time (if ever) you get a real foot hold in DC it will be the same story all over again. Only then we'll be saying Democrat, Republican or Libertarian its all bullshit.


By Mathos on 5/1/2009 3:00:13 AM , Rating: 4
And that seems to be the most common thing I see on these comment threads. Let's see, as someone who grew up in Flint Michigan, and for a short time around Detroit. Both of which were many GM and Chrysler plant cities for decades. I don't hate the unions, but at the same time I don't agree with some of their practices. Everyone acts like all union members are nothing but unskilled lazy people who got paid $50 an hour to do nothing. Lets see the actual reality here. The reality is that this is false. Though many line workers aren't skilled, in certain places they are mainly there for parts quality control. I'll use my step father who worked for AC Delco branch of GM at the Delphi Factory, for 30 years, finished off his last 5 at the Shreveport truck plant. At the end of 35 years with the company, he was making a grand whopping amount of $24/hr. Yes, he of course had the retirement benefits and medical insurance. Now, lets compare this to my former department manager at Wal-Mart, where there are no unions. After 25 years with the company, she was making $26/hr, plus 401k, and was putting part of her income into the company stock purchase plan the whole time. Which job requires more skills? Contrary to what people believe, the average line worker in the auto industry only tops out at about $23/hour, some that have been there longer might make more, many will make less than that. Now, think about what kind of education the mechanical engineers that design the production lines, and dies that make the vehicles and parts. Those are your highest paying UAW jobs. Then filter that down to the Die makers who have to use skilled trades in metal working to make the dies that are used to mold/press parts. Next step down are the Die setters. You have to be fairly intelligent and skilled to be able to assemble, and mount a press die, as well as safetey trained on a 50-500 ton massive press machine. I can think of many other skilled jobs to lay down here. I'd like to see anyone here go up to these people and tell them they're unskilled lazy slobs, and watch you try and do their jobs for a couple hours, since I don't think you could make it a full 12 hour day. Then we'll find out who the skilled workers are. By the way, I make around $10 an hour, and I've only been working at Wally world for just over 2 years, I also have blue cross blue shield medical coverage along with other health care benefits, I started at just over $6/hr. Retail still sucks of course to work, regardless of pay and benefits.

As far as someone saying Chrysler hasn't had anything but crap vehicles in the last 30 years. Again, from personal experience I can point to the contrary. Dodge Ram has been one of the more popular trucks for a while, due to distinctive sound and body, as well as performance. A lot of people drive them in the area I live in Texas. Dodge Viper still has a good following in that market. The Dodge Charger and Chrysler 300 are more popular than you realize. The Dodge Challenger was brought back as a retro car move, much like the Pontiac GTO. And I wouldn't mind owning one myself. Now there are quite a few badges that I wish hadn't been killed off, like the Dodge Spirit/Plymouth Acclaim(both very good and safe vehicles). Chrysler New Yorker and Lebarons were both good, my grandmother owned 2 different ones, and a friend of mine had a LeBaron for a long time. Dodge Stratus was also a decent Sedan.

Now as far as the whole bankruptcy thing goes, well given the circumstances there may have been no other way. People are getting greedy these days, and some times companies and people need to start from a clean slate for things to change. Part of the principals this country were based on revolve around the bankruptcy laws that were instated in it's early years. This countries business system was founded on the belief that people should have the option to start over again if they fail, and not ground into oblivion, impoverished, or imprisoned for their failures.




By just4U on 5/1/2009 3:11:53 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with what you've typed here. I don't know a whole helluva lot about the auto industry or unions for that matter but having people say their unskilled is silly.. as is trying to blame them for this whole mess. SURE they may have contributed somewhat as it's a general failure all around that caused such poor showings with the big three.


By Manch on 5/1/2009 8:07:16 AM , Rating: 2
I dont think most people blame the workers. The majority of them work hard make an honest days living. I and many others blame the Union Bosses. They're filling there pockets on the backs of the people they claim to protect. Over priced golf courses anyone? They're no better than the politicians. I feel bad for the workers becuase ultimately they'll get the shaft on this. The greed of the union bosses coupled with the incompetence running Chrysler has led to this. This is not to say the workers themselves are blameless. Refusing to negotiate what gets thrown off a sinking ship just leads to everyone drowning faster. In Japan when factories are having trouble they cut back on shifts/split shifts so everyone will still have work. Here in the US there's a pervasive mentality of every man for himself and and attitude of entitlement. People see that attitude splashed all over the TV and it destroys any sympathy they have for them.


wait what?
By Screwballl on 5/1/2009 9:43:36 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The bondholders will be forced to settle with a loss, a tax writeoff.


So that means they write it off and are no longer owed it by Chrysler or its parent companies, and the government gives them a portion of it back anyways.

quote:
"I stand with Chrysler's employees, their families and their communities. I stand with Chrysler's management, its dealers and its suppliers. I stand with the millions of Americans who own and want to buy Chrysler cars. I don't stand with those who held out when everybody else is sacrificing."


Chrysler employees are the high dollar scam artists that put Chrysler into this predicament. the rest of the "employees" are UAW workers who have remained quiet while their union leaders scream about having to actually be accountable for their members, and stop paying the non-working members and all the extra fat and gristle that the manufacturers have had to pay for over the past few decades(and now most recently us taxpayers having to pay for it).

You know what, if these companies are taking such a big chunk of money out of my pocket, I expect to get something for it, like a shiny new car fresh off the manufacturing line in my driveway.
Obama is out of touch with reality and I still refuse to support him or this liberal Congress that has screwed us over for the past 2+ years.




One short, sweet, simple message:
By Motoman on 4/30/2009 4:43:39 PM , Rating: 5
Allowing the continued existence of the unions in Chrysler, or anyone else, is an action directly opposed to the long-term viability of the firm.




RE: One short, sweet, simple message:
By just4U on 4/30/09, Rating: -1
Sickening
By bubbastrangelove on 5/1/2009 10:51:28 AM , Rating: 2
I'm currently in the process of taking my knowledge and assets to Switzerland. If you wish to call me a coward you wouldn't be the first - our government has abandoned us.

What we have is a government that has been corrupted by corporate influence. That power has to be wrested back and
placed in the hands of the people. That is what representative
government is designed for. It was designed to act on behalf of the people's interests.

As soon as my fellow Americans are willing to fight for this I'll be on the first plane back. But I've honestly lost all faith.

We've become sheep and our forefathers would be ashamed.




RE: Sickening
By kalak on 5/6/2009 5:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As soon as my fellow Americans are willing to fight for this I'll be on the first plane back. But I've honestly lost all faith.


It's easy to blame others.... Why YOU don't fight ???!!!


Taxpayers Bailout UAW
By greyparrot1 on 5/2/2009 3:23:08 PM , Rating: 2
Why did the taxpayers need to be put on the hook for billions of dollars in bailouts when the end result was just going to be bankruptcy anyway? Because normal bankruptcy would have allowed companies like Chrysler to renegotiate the union labor contracts that are the cancer eating at the heart of the American auto industry. Extra special government guided bankruptcy keeps those contracts intact.

The Treasury has an agreement in principle with the United Automobile Workers union, whose members' pensions and retiree health care benefits would be protected as a condition of the bankruptcy filing, said these people, who asked for anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case.

In summary, the American taxpayers were just dragged through a complicated and expensive bailout process not to save companies that were “too big to fail” but rather to keep big-money, liberal-supporting unions from having to re-negotiate their contracts.

Would that the Obama administration treated the people in America who actually create jobs and prosperity (like, say, business owners) with the same sort of preference he gives people who destroy jobs and prosperity (unions).




RE: Taxpayers Bailout UAW
By superflex on 5/8/2009 12:18:33 PM , Rating: 1
But they conceded to quit taking Easter Monday off in 2010 and 2011. These guys are bending over backwards.
Who the fuck gets the day after Easter off? Even the govt reatrds don't claim that as a holiday.
Gettlefinger and Obama can kiss my hairy ass.


This line had me chuckling
By madoka on 4/30/2009 3:04:37 PM , Rating: 3
Obama's speech sounded great, until near the end when he said:

"And I am very confident that we're going to be able to make, once again, the U.S. auto industry the best auto industry in the world."

Even he couldn't say that line very confidently and kind of muttered it.




RE: This line had me chuckling
By Armassault on 5/1/09, Rating: -1
FIAT
By greyparrot1 on 5/2/2009 2:50:30 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know why Pharoh Obama thinks FIAT has superior technology. I've always heard that FIAT stands for Fix It Again Tony.




By dxf2891 on 5/6/2009 3:46:07 PM , Rating: 2
It's funny how the "Evil Government" is forcing Chrysler to do "this" and forcing the creditors to do "that." In the purest and simplest terms this is what the government has said, To Chrysler: Either come up with a deal and a plan that proves you will remain financially viable or we will cease to loan you money and you will have to file bankruptcy. To the creditors: In an effort to help restructure Chrysler during its bankruptcy, if you must be paid NOW, we will give you $.30 on the dollar as the taxpayers will be paid back first. The citizens are harping about their tax dollars and they are also harping about whether or not the creditors get paid. The Whitehouse attempted to do what it thought was best, but that green-eyed devil Greed reared its ugly head and killed any possible amical outcome. It was greed that got Chysler in this mess in the first place. It was greed from the shareholders (Lay off workers to increase cash and dividends, but didn't realize that their employees were a large customer base as well), greed from the United Auto Workers (we need more to stay competitive, but as my grandmother always said you can't get blood from a stone and Chrysler is sinking like a stone) and the public (I want a car that goes 100 miles on a gallon with no polution for under $10000.00 and it must be foreign) who killed the job market with their snobish behavior. In 1997 when Chrysler began its first round of layoffs here in Detroit, I asked a friend of mine how did they expect to get out of their economic downturn if they were laying off the workers who bought their cars? This country is in a vicious cycle, where the companies think they can recoup loses by laying off workers. If all of the companies lay off their workers to stay financially sound, who will buy their products?




Debtor-in-possession?
By teckytech9 on 4/30/2009 5:08:33 PM , Rating: 1
And a speedy bankruptcy? Does it mean that the Feds can print more money and use it as DIP financing too? Sorry for Chrysler's and the debt holders predicament, but they will have their day in court. Its also ironic that this article suggests that the debt holders may be left with nothing, whilst bonds are usually insured by the likes of TARP recipient companies.

I feel sorry for the workers of Chrysler, the pensions, health care, and jobs. I have no blame with the unions or the right for workers to join and organize either.

Hedge funds have every right to deny what is dictated to them. It is not a "take the money or else" scenario. There are laws in the constitution and bill of rights that allow certain freedoms when dealing in these proceedings.




Enough of the "Blame Obama" game
By Armassault on 5/1/09, Rating: -1
Enough of the "Blame Obama" game
By Armassault on 5/1/09, Rating: -1
Bama is a naive FOOL
By Beenthere on 4/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By TomZ on 4/30/2009 3:03:32 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with your first paragraph - a merger with Fiat is stupid at best. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and is practically guaranteed to finally kill Chrysler in the end.

Don't take this the wrong way, but the American market does not want Italian (...or French, British, etc.) cars. They never have, and it would take an exceptional brand to be able to change Americans' minds. Fiat is not that brand.


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By Spuke on 4/30/2009 4:26:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't take this the wrong way, but the American market does not want Italian (...or French, British, etc.) cars.
I'm not sure what you mean here as Ferrari's and Lambo's US market is their largest one. Not to mention the Camry and Accord being the best selling cars in the US. Let's just keep it at Fiat because Americans are buying foreign cars from various car makers by the millions. And a couple of crappy Fiats built back in the day doesn't equal an automatic failure in today's market. I've seen the Fiats they plan in bringing here and they're very nice. As long as the quality is decent or comparable with the competition, they should be fine.


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By bhieb on 4/30/2009 5:43:32 PM , Rating: 2
Yes and GM makes quality fuel efficient cars, but past image is everything. In the US Fiat sucks always will, just like very few people probably set foot in a GM lot if they want a fuel efficient modest sedan. Most will go to an import because of false perceptions based on past failures.

To your other point Ferrari has no bearing on your argument, Fiat owned or not. American does not want it means America (those not spending a life savings on a car) don't want it. Ferrari is nice no doubt but that affection ends there as a pipe dream, it does not represent what Fiat brings to the table.


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By Spuke on 4/30/2009 7:19:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To your other point Ferrari has no bearing on your argument, Fiat owned or not. American does not want it means America (those not spending a life savings on a car) don't want it.
Ferrari sells most of their cars HERE in the US therefore it's relevant to my point. Affordability is irrelevant. People buy them hence people want them. YOUR point is moot.


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By bhieb on 5/1/2009 10:37:48 AM , Rating: 2
Just because you keep saying even in bold does not make it true. The Ferrari brand has nothing to do with the Fiat image problems in the US. Doesn't matter that you think it does the American public equates Fiat with small low quality cars. Rarely is a company judged on it's best product, rather it's failures are what stay in the mind of the consumer.

Customer: I don't want a crappy Fiat.
Sales: Ok well we do have a good brand.
Customer: Really how much
Sales: Little over $2 Million will get you into this Enzo.
Customer: Uhh.....

If you still cannot see how irrelevant Ferrari is when talking about Fiat, I cannot help you. It is not like your talking about Chevy vs Caddillac one that carries a premium. Your talking VW vs the Bugatti Veron, yes the companies are closely related, but not relevant to each other at all from a consumer perspective.


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By Spuke on 5/1/2009 6:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just because you keep saying even in bold does not make it true.
Just because you say I have no point does not make it true.

quote:
Rarely is a company judged on it's best product, rather it's failures are what stay in the mind of the consumer.
The US consumer doesn't remember the last Fiat sold in the US. Ask someone less than 80 years old what they think of Fiat. I'd bet that they don't even know who Fiat is.

quote:
If you still cannot see how irrelevant Ferrari is when talking about Fiat, I cannot help you.
If you cannot even read my posts properly, I can't help you.


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By Manch on 5/1/2009 10:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just because you say I have no point does not make it true.


But the fact that you have no point makes him right. ;-)


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By Lord 666 on 4/30/2009 7:27:35 PM , Rating: 2
Did a brand like Daimler Benz make the cut of an exceptional brand to sway sales? If anything, they ran them into the ground.

One purchase that makes sense (to me) is if VW Group picks up Volvo.


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By Fanatical Meat on 4/30/2009 3:11:40 PM , Rating: 2
I am trying to understand why Fiat would want to spend 20-30 Billion.... BILLION ... to buy a dealer network? That's insane they could easily build thier own dealer network for less $$'s


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By Hare on 4/30/2009 3:36:44 PM , Rating: 2
Don't confuse people with facts. Get your tin foil hat and join the party!


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By SublimeSimplicity on 4/30/2009 4:40:17 PM , Rating: 2
No kidding... My understanding is that dealership contracts have become very favorable to the dealerships rather than the manufacturer.

This would be like saying that Fiat bought Chrysler to get their hands on their "prized" UAW contracts.


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By Manch on 5/1/2009 10:47:46 PM , Rating: 2
They share some "small car tech"(re-badged Fiats) with Chrysler in exchange for a 20% stake, use of Chryslers factories and an inplace dealer network. If Chrysler recovers they get a 35% stake for their efforts. If Chrysler goes belly up and liquidates their small car tech stays with them and they lose nothing. It's win win for Fiat.


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By Spuke on 4/30/2009 4:14:00 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
When millions more U.S. jobs are gone, maybe Americans will finally wake up to the failed economic policies of Bama and the FOOLS on Capitol Hill?
Yes because after 100 days in office, EVERYTHING should be smelling like roses.


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By FITCamaro on 4/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By Nfarce on 4/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By Spuke on 4/30/2009 5:35:16 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
In < 100 days he put us in more debt than Bush did in his entire first term.
My point is that it's ridiculous to make judgments so damn nearly in the new Presidents term. Did you do the same for Bush? Were you up in Bush's a$$hole at his 100 day mark? I don't like the debt anymore than anyone else, quite frankly, don't feel it's necessary BUT I'm not an expert and he's surrounded by them. I'm, at least, willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and see if this works. It's about results and right now it's too goddamn early to tell!!!!

And I'm REALLY starting to get pissed off at all of this far left, far right, your wrong cause your a Dem, I'm right cause I'm a Repub polarizing bullsh!t!!! In REALITY, we are ALL both wrong and right. And we flip flop between the two continuously. I didn't vote for Bush nor did I vote for Obama cause both represent the status quo and the status quo hasn't been working for a LOOOOOONNNNNNGGGGGGGG f%&king time but that said, I'll STILL give any of the administrations a chance.

Besides, what choice do you have now? The f%*kers in office. If you want things to really change, QUIT VOTING FOR THE SAME TWO GODDAMN PARTIES !!!! If you're unwilling to do that then you get what you deserve.


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By bhieb on 4/30/2009 5:47:07 PM , Rating: 2
VIVA LA REVOLUTION

The only true answer to politics as usual.


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By Spuke on 4/30/2009 7:22:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
VIVA LA REVOLUTION The only true answer to politics as usual.

VIVA LA IDIOTA

Only a polarized party-goer would disregard my entire post by neatly putting it into yet another polarized basket.


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By Nfarce on 4/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By Spuke on 4/30/2009 7:28:14 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Exactly what part of a full unchecked filibuster-proof Democrat party do you not understand?
So the best thing we can do is re-vote the Republicans back in office so that we'll all be less f$%ked up than now? I think there's still some scum left in the bottom of that barrel left to be scraped.

Most Americans are middle of the road and that's where MOST of our politicians should be. Not left and not right. THAT, my friend, is what is dangerous.


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By Nfarce on 4/30/2009 8:02:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I think there's still some scum left in the bottom of that barrel left to be scraped.


Republicans are pu$$ies. They are easy to get booted out of office. They don't fight back. Democrats on the other hand, well, most of the power hitters among them are ex-lawyers. They will not go down without a swinging bloody fight. They play dirty, they fight dirty. That's what it takes. They aren't going anywhere any time soon, and the rest of us (and corporations) can continue to bend over under more government control and forced dependency ON said government.

A [liberal] Democrat politician's worst enemy is not terrorism or a tanked economy. That would be instead an independent and self-sustaining citizen who doesn't need his/her "services" in Washington. With that said, what are your ideas on a viable third party/Independent platform that can win over a plurality of voters? The closest we ever had to that was the election of 1992 when Bill Clinton got 43% of the vote, Bush got 38%, and Perot got 19%. Who out there today can do this again? Independents? Libertarians? I don't think so.

Finally, I don't care about the lesser of two evils at the moment. The complete imbalance in Washington which will happen when Franken goes in after winning by a whopping couple hundred votes, will be disastrous. All I say is that while the Republicans dug their own grave in just 6 years, I hope to hell the Democrats do it in 4.


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By FITCamaro on 5/1/2009 12:31:27 AM , Rating: 3
I'm thinking more like 2. 2010 needs to be a year for conservatives to get in. We need to kick McCain and all other other idiots out.


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By Nfarce on 5/1/2009 12:38:04 AM , Rating: 1
Note the downvoting from the Obamabots. Gotta luv it.


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By Spuke on 5/1/2009 6:18:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Note the downvoting from the Obamabots. Gotta luv it.
I don't know why, I don't support their blind views either.


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By Spuke on 5/1/2009 6:27:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I hope to hell the Democrats do it in 4.
They will. They always do and the Repubs will get voted back in to continue the blind march into the desert. Other than Perot, there is/was no credible independent candidate for President. The people that could probably do the best job don't have the money to run alone and if they did, the Repub and Dem Congress would just stonewall them. It would literally take a genius to run for office as an independent AND get enough support from Congress to get things done. And that's the problem, people just simply vote in their Dem or Repub candidate.

All that said, real change would have to start in Congress not with the Presidency. Vote people in that get the job done, not just along party lines. Then complain when they don't get their way when you got EXACTLY what you asked for.


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By FITCamaro on 5/1/2009 12:24:27 AM , Rating: 2
At Bush's 100 day mark he hadn't really done anything.

I'm not going to give Obama a chance. Because government programs don't go away. If they're a failure, they'll stay a failure. Look at the ones we already have. Trillions in the hole and no sign of reform. And sorry but a third party candidate has no chance of winning. The media will never give them the time of day. Look at Ron Paul. He tried running as a Republican candidate and the media ignored him.

I'd be happy to vote for the man despite not agreeing with him entirely. But my gripes with him I can live with.

There is nothing Obama says that I find appealing. So no, I'm not just going to "give him a chance". Everything that comes out of the man's mouth is a downright lie or is something that seeks to radically change the American way of life.


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By Nfarce on 5/1/2009 12:40:57 AM , Rating: 2
Yup. Note how instead of others joining the fray and offering ALTERNATIVES, we just get downrated. Ah, just another successful day on Daily Tech with the mindless masses who can only speak with a vote.


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By AMDJunkie on 5/1/2009 8:25:52 AM , Rating: 1
You're just frustrated that the proles don't have to join in the two minutes' hate that is DailyTech commentary.


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By Nfarce on 5/1/2009 10:38:17 AM , Rating: 2
Actually what I'm frustrated at is the people who say BOTH parties suck (and more often than not they do), yet offer no dialogue in viable alternatives on what to do about it. Then, when people like me slam one side or the other, people like you say we're just full of "hate."

Our Founding Fathers before, during, and AFTER 1776 fought amongst themselves, and nobody mindlessly called it "hate" back then. Yes, I'm also frustrated at people like you who throw out the word "hate" at every whim of having the audacity to SPEAK OUT against the way our government is being run. It's like people mindlessly calling others "racists" who speak out against Obama - it just demeans the REAL meaning of the word.


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By Steve1981 on 5/1/2009 11:30:31 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Actually what I'm frustrated at is the people who say BOTH parties suck (and more often than not they do), yet offer no dialogue in viable alternatives on what to do about it.


Unfortunately there can be no alternative so long as the people voting these fools into office continue to vote blindly for words like hope, change, and maverick instead of delving deeper to see what change is being offered and what the ramifications are for that change.

When people actually evaluate individuals running for public office on their ideas and merits and not for the letter by their name, we might get somewhere. When people actually educate themselves on the issues, we can do something to improve the country.


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By Spuke on 5/1/2009 6:33:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually what I'm frustrated at is the people who say BOTH parties suck (and more often than not they do), yet offer no dialogue in viable alternatives on what to do about it.
So, to you, not continuing to vote for the same two parties, ad nauseam, is not a viable alternative? You gotta start somewhere and not casting a vote for the Dem/Repub train is a HUGE step in real change and reform. Not voting for those two parties alone would make people LOOK at other candidates without blindly checking the status quo box. Ask yourself, if I choose not to vote Dem/Repub, who DO I vote for? That question begs other questions. It's a start and does not require a 10 page essay on the virtues of voting outside of the two party system.


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By AMDJunkie on 5/1/2009 11:29:44 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, reference fail. But perhaps its best you not know the reference; you'll surely misconstrue my use of it anyway.

Also, some of the Founding Fathers did hate each other - to death even. Ask Alexander Hamilton.


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By skaaman on 5/1/2009 3:36:47 PM , Rating: 2
Then you are obstinate and naive. Go ahead, down rate me. I sucked it up for 8 years of the last idiot, and yet I tried to maintain a modicum of respect for the gentleman.

You trivialize that which most reasonable thinking people would agree is the most difficult job in the world. The truth of the matter is that current and past administrations are not put in place by majorities of either party, they are put there by moderates who at the current time are quite bored of the McCarthy like ramblings of the Rusch Limbaugh party. As soon as the right stops throwing the baby out with the bath water then they may once again begin to see some moderates joining them in support of there policies (many of which have substance.)



RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By phxfreddy on 5/5/2009 4:48:58 PM , Rating: 2
oh gee wilarcres its the hardest jobby in the world!

The guy has shown himself to be a petty dictator. His heavy handed approach will not end well. He's not the gifted one he thinks himself to be. He thinks he talks well....well I think he talks like a preacher and I personally hate preachers.

Give me Reagan anyday. Even dug up and propped up he's better than the Obama petty African style dictator.


RE: Bama is a naive FOOL
By skaaman on 5/7/2009 10:38:21 AM , Rating: 2
OK Archie. You must be right...:) (no pun intended.)


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki