backtop


Print 55 comment(s) - last by lemonadesoda.. on Oct 20 at 9:40 AM

Mike Tyson's former bankruptcy officer is expected to preside over liquidating the company's assets

It's been an interesting ride for bankrupt solar panel maker Solyndra at its stoic CEO Brian Harrison.  Not long after receiving $535M USD in loan for a specialized solar technology (CIGS thin-film) one top green-tech editor billed "not worth commercializing" and "incapable of being competitive", the gig was up.  Solyndra went bankrupt at the end of August.

Mr. Harrison who, much like the CEOs of other embattled firms like Enron, has become the target of much public vehemence.  He refused to answer question from Congress, pleading the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.  And this week he announced he was resigning from his leadership role as the company tries to restructure and emerge from bankruptcy.

R. Todd Neilson of Berkeley Research Group has been proposed as a candidate to be the firm's "chief restructuring officer".  The company describes, "The CRO will assist the debtors in their ongoing efforts to sell estate assets, winding down the debtors' operations following such sale or sales, and otherwise managing the cases."

Mr. Harrison only recently came to Solyndra in 2010 [press release], taking over the top spot from Chris Gronet, Solyndra’s founder and current CEO.  The chief had formerly served as CEO at since-acquired flash memory maker Numonyx and as an executive in the flash memory division at Intel Corp. (INTC).

Brian Harrison

Reports indicate Solyndra's base executive pay in 2010 was $400,000 USD [source], but another report indicates that the company's CFO received $831,000 USD [source] in total compensation that year.  Thus it's likely that Mr. Harrison pocketed somewhere in the range of $500k to $1M USD before the company went under.  He has refused to disclose his severance package, which may have boosted that total higher.

While Mr. Harrison might have left the situation a bit fatter financially, the firms 1,100 employees were left out to dry.  The firm violated federal laws, terminating them without the 60 day notice that is required for plant closures.  Solyndra has refused to pay these employees severance or benefits.

Solyndra is a hot topic politically as President Obama personally pushed the high risk loan.  Some argue that the government acted as a "venture capitalist" due to the high risk of the solar industry.  However, venture capitalists always charge very high interest rates on loans to safeguard themselves over financial losses from failed firms.  By contrast the government loan was almost free money with almost no interest.

A campaign bundler for President Obama, billionaire George Kaiser effectively owned 36 percent of Solyndra through his family firm.

Mr. Kaiser remarked last year about government funding for his charitable projects, "There’s never been more money shoved out of the government's door in world history, and probably never will be again, than in the last few months and in the next 18 months.  And our selfish parochial goal is to get as much as it for Tulsa and Oklahoma as we possibly can."



Given that Mr. Kaiser who describes himself as "a robber baron from Red State America" raised between $50K to $100K in President Obama's 2008 election bid, there's lots of questions being raised. 

White House visitor logs show he made 16 visits to the White House since 2009, meaning that he likely made several trips in the months prior to the loan approval.  Ken Levit, executive director of the family foundation, insists, "Kaiser’s meetings at the White House were about not-for- profit initiatives.  George Kaiser is not an investor in Solyndra and did not participate in any discussions with the U.S. government regarding the loans."

Mr. Kaiser is a respected philanthropist, joining Bill Gates' pledge to give away half of his assets.  His net worth includes a $1.9B USD bank stake.  Ironically the bank he owns a controlling stake in -- the Bank of Oklahoma Corp. -- blasted the federal bank bailout program.

The government may yet recoup part of the lost loan by liquidating Solyndra's assets, which include a brand new 300,000 square-foot (28,000 square-meter) factory in California.  Mr. Neilson, the proposed "bankruptcy CEO" played a similar role in the bankruptcy of boxer Mike Tyson and in other highly publicized bankruptcies.  He began this unusually line of work after retiring from the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation.

President Obama recently said he has "no regrets" on the decision to support loaning taxpayer money to Solyndra.

Sources: Bloomberg, CNN, YouTube



Comments     Threshold


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

Occupy Wall Street
By BloodSquirrel on 10/14/2011 8:35:52 AM , Rating: 5
So, when is Occupy Wall Street going to start protesting this? Maybe set up outside 1600 Pennsylvania ave. with some signs?




RE: Occupy Wall Street
By idiot77 on 10/14/11, Rating: -1
RE: Occupy Wall Street
By blwest on 10/14/2011 11:03:19 AM , Rating: 5
What about the idiots who actually took the mortgage they couldn't afford? In the end, it was the greed of individuals wanting something they couldn't afford and didn't want to work for.


RE: Occupy Wall Street
By sigmatau on 10/14/11, Rating: -1
RE: Occupy Wall Street
By sigmatau on 10/14/11, Rating: -1
RE: Occupy Wall Street
By vortmax2 on 10/14/2011 11:42:54 AM , Rating: 3
Actually, both parties are to blame, but the consumers moreso: The loaners for knowingly taking advantage of a situation, but the consumers for purchasing something they couldn't affort. If I made $40k/yr., I wouldn't and shouldn't be looking at a 300k+ house to purchase. That's called being irresponsible with finances. People do it all the time (e.g. credit card debt)...perfect example. Are you going to blame the credit card companies for offering their cards with high interest rates to consumers or the consumers that make a CHOICE to get the card and use it?


RE: Occupy Wall Street
By sigmatau on 10/14/11, Rating: -1
RE: Occupy Wall Street
By BansheeX on 10/14/2011 1:12:10 PM , Rating: 5
You're both wrong. If the central bank couldn't price-fix interest rates, the artificially cheap money required to create these types of loans would not have existed to be lent or borrowed. And if the government had not guaranteed and promoted so many of these mortgages through Fannie and Freddie, these loans could not have been popularized. Humans have always been greedy and with fear of loss to offset that greed. When government offloads risk from one party to another, that greed/fear balance becomes severely distorted. It changes human behavior. If you can't see that, you're doomed to blaming capitalism for problems that social engineering creates.


RE: Occupy Wall Street
By Grast on 10/14/2011 3:27:01 PM , Rating: 4
Have you ever heard of the affordable reinvestment act? That piece of legislation put considerable pressure on banks to lower their requirements when considering a loan. Additionally, Freddie and Fanny where bying every loan from banks they could get their hands on. As a result, the banks were following the rules. They lowered their standards with the understanding that with-in 60 days the loan would be packaged and sold to Freddie/fanny. the result was banks did not need to underwrite any of these loans. they simply made a tidy profit as a facilitator.

However none of that obsolves the home buyer from pruchasing a home which they could not afford. The home buyer would just get an intrest only loan which they could afford. Live in the home for greater than 6 months. Put the home on the market and sell. This event would typically make this person a tidy sum of money. this person would then go buy another house and repeat.

We had over 6 years of this type of activity which resulted in the housing bubble.

the main fault was not BANKS. The fault was the central bank and the Federal goverment for keeping intrest rates artificially low and basically giving money away with no controls.

FYI... no such thing as CORPORATE GREED. News flash corporations are a fictional entity which exist from one and only one purpose.... TO MAKE MONEY...IE... PROFIT.

That profit is used to grow the corporation and pay its share holders. Just in case you are wondering, growing the company means hiring more employees which translates to low un-employment for the country. Paying shareholders which are some private investors but mostly funds means making your 401K go up in value.

But nevermind how the real world works.... Just keep on living in your imaginary world. Or better yet.. go to your local community college and take an economics class. Actually learn how the economy works and you will see that every time the government gets involved in the economy..... THEY MESS IT UP.


RE: Occupy Wall Street
By sigmatau on 10/14/2011 6:49:22 PM , Rating: 1
So your blathering really made what point?

So basically I was right, don't blame the poor blame the corporate filth that wanted a huge bonus that day? Thought so!

You may live in theory, but I live in both theory and practice. These banks did not have to give these loans. It was still well within their hands not to. What made them do so? Greed! Not only corporate greed, but the personal greed of the bankers that got bonuses from these toxic loans.

Exactly what "pressure" did the government apply to these banks? Really? You are going to leave that out? They weren't forced to do anything different. The only thing that made them do so was the fact they thought they can rape the American people even more.

You can say whatever nonsense, and get constantly bent over by these businesses. You are a freaking idiot if you think I don't know that companies are out there to make money. Some are just trying to make 2-3x as much as the next company by monopolizing/conniving with other similar companies to set prices. Enjoy your soar rear by continuing to defend these robber barons.

Who are these people that bought too much house? The poor? Those that were flipping houses don't seem to be the ones vilified in the media. Wanna try again so it fits your talking points?

But hey, everything is simpler if you read it in a book and not understand how it applies to reality.


RE: Occupy Wall Street
By Mahazy on 10/14/2011 2:27:49 PM , Rating: 3
Nice, bash someone else's generalized opinion with your own generalized opinion that could be seen as typical to the far left politically.

I'm not saying the banks are blameless, not at all, but you can't have tunnel vision and say ooh we have our 1 source to blame now so ignore anything else. People also have to be held accountable. If someone told you, hey I could get you a loan for this Bentley here (on a salary of $75k), no problem... of course you should say no.

In addition the government's role seems always to be absent in these discussions. Why don't you go do some research, starting with the community reinvestment act. It's controversial as to how much impact it played but it's defnitely part of the equation. I think it's good for government to say banks need to make lending equally available, no matter the neighborhood, or race, etc... But, they should simply stick to making it illegal for leners to make their rates higher or decline lending based on those kinds of factors and leave the rest to the free market, instead of incentivizing or pushing lending to low income households.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-06-27/wal...


RE: Occupy Wall Street
By Reclaimer77 on 10/14/2011 3:12:54 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
If someone told you, hey I could get you a loan for this Bentley here (on a salary of $75k), no problem... of course you should say no.


And banks DID, before the Government got involved. There was a time when if you couldn't come up with 15-30% down upfront on the principle of the loan banks would tell you to get the fu$* out.

But, you see, this "disenfranchised" many minority home buyers. So Democrats doing what they do best, race baiting and class warfaring, decided this was "racist" and got involved.

The simple fact is the type of loans that were responsible for the housing "collapse" did NOT EXIST until Government and Frannie and Freddie made them. There was NO such thing as a "sub-prime" mortgage in America before from banks. Because the banks knew they were way too risky!


RE: Occupy Wall Street
By Grast on 10/14/2011 3:31:27 PM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer,

you hit right on the head. In the past banks had to underwright their own loans. This was accomplished with either a diposit base from their customers or selling an investment package of bundle loans on the open market. Investment firms would then purchase these bundled products and get a return on their money like bond or other type of intrest bearing device.

Once Freddie/Fanny starting buying package out their regardless of the risk involved, the banks no longer has to worry by underwriting their loans.

At this point, the banks were nothing more than a processing agent for the government.


RE: Occupy Wall Street
By sigmatau on 10/14/2011 6:56:59 PM , Rating: 1
The banks DID NOT HAVE TO sell these toxic loans, but they did because of greed. You guys act as though the banks were forced to do so.

If you have a company that specializes in loans, like let's say any bank, and someone tells you that you should give more loans to people you would not have before, why would you do this?

The banks made money off these toxic loans and knew they were toxic.


RE: Occupy Wall Street
By FITCamaro on 10/14/11, Rating: 0
RE: Occupy Wall Street
By sigmatau on 10/14/2011 7:40:06 PM , Rating: 3
It isn't quite as simple as that.

The more accurate example is if you knew you had some bad apples, and everyone else did too, and you knew if all of you sold all these bad apples to the government, then the apple market would collapse, would you?

That's exactly what these banks did. They knew they were selling poison to the government. They must have not known that it would come back to bite them.


RE: Occupy Wall Street
By BansheeX on 10/17/2011 11:10:05 AM , Rating: 2
You're acting as though the government is the same is everyone else. They're not. The people who make the decisons in government aren't playing with their own money. They have no skin in the game. The fear mechanism that would normally exist to prevent demand for poisonous apples didn't apply here. If the government says it wants poisonous apples in the name of social progress, by god someone is going to make and sell them.


RE: Occupy Wall Street
By snakeInTheGrass on 10/18/2011 9:19:01 AM , Rating: 2
Apparently for FIT the answer is yes, he would. And don't blame him, because if other people are unethical, then it's all good. So don't blame anyone on Wall St or the loan issuers because while they knew these were terrible loans that would probably bankrupt the people buying the homes, they were making money on them. And while there is blame for the people taking the loans, they were targeted by the banks knowing that they didn't understand what they were getting into while being promised that it was a no-lose situation, so while dumb to take the loan, the sales tactics were sleazy and misleading too. Remember, home prices just keep going up, so you can just re-fi!

Oh, I guess the fact that Wall St. was coming up with even lower quality loans to boost profits (alt-a, subprime, interest only, no-money-down crap) and bundling them in PRIVATE MBSes doesn't matter either, because hey, if the government lowered the underwriting standards somewhat, they also deregulated the banks and had no oversight of the financial firms, so again, whatever you can get away with is good.

It's what makes this country so great.


RE: Occupy Wall Street
By Reclaimer77 on 10/15/2011 10:23:23 AM , Rating: 5
Uhh Citibank was once sued by the Government to FORCE them to make bad loans, citing the CRA (community reinvestment act).

So when you say they didn't "have" to, I question if you even understand what you're talking about. They DID have to. Unless you think getting sued by the massive Federal government is a real alternative and good business sense?


RE: Occupy Wall Street
By sigmatau on 10/14/2011 7:02:14 PM , Rating: 1
Nice to bring race into this discussion. You must wake up with many conflicted thoughts. Get out of the trailer park and get you a black friend.

Did you know that about the same percentage of whites are on welfare as blacks?


RE: Occupy Wall Street
By Reclaimer77 on 10/14/2011 7:46:00 PM , Rating: 2
Are you fucking kidding me? I specifically used QUOTATIONS to show those are not my own words. Before you insult someone and come off half cocked, look up the facts, asshole!


RE: Occupy Wall Street
By sigmatau on 10/14/11, Rating: 0
RE: Occupy Wall Street
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2011 5:02:30 PM , Rating: 1
How is him pointing out that DEMOCRATS brought race into the picture, him doing so? He is reminding drones like you that what led to this was race being brought into the equation.


RE: Occupy Wall Street
By Krioni on 10/17/2011 12:01:44 PM , Rating: 3
I've re-read his comment a number of times to see how it could be read as racist to someone. I just don't see it. If you're reading that, it certainly wasn't intended as that.

However, YOUR "trailer park" comment was intended to be racist.

And before you try to flame me, I *don't* live in a trailer park (though there's nothing wrong with that) and I *do* have several black friends... close enough where I've been a groomsman in their weddings. So don't go there.


RE: Occupy Wall Street
By lemonadesoda on 10/20/2011 9:40:14 AM , Rating: 2
This did happen before, but with corporate debt. Drexel. Junk bonds. The only difference today is that the banks were selling "junk bonds" with low interest. At least Drexel charged high interest! History has a habit of repeating itself. Only this time, it did it even worse!


RE: Occupy Wall Street
By Reclaimer77 on 10/14/2011 3:20:11 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
That's brilliant! Blame the person that wanted to buy their first home instead of the wal-street scum that made a nice bonus off of selling loans that he knew would not work out.


Why would I sell property to someone I "know" can't afford it? That's not "high risk", that's just stupid. No bank in their right mind would do this. So why were "sub prime" loans given out?

Oh yeah, that's right, the Government PAID THEM TO.

But yeah, keep blaming "Wall Street" for everything.


RE: Occupy Wall Street
By sigmatau on 10/14/2011 7:05:07 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reclaimer, you just made my point and said what Grast was afraid to say.

The banks's CORPORATE GREED ALLOWED THEM TO JUMP ON THESE LOANS THEY KNOEW WOULD COLLAPSE.

The banks DID NOT have to sell one of these loans.


RE: Occupy Wall Street
By Reclaimer77 on 10/14/2011 7:38:32 PM , Rating: 1
You can call it what you want, when the Government messes with a market, something like this always happens. You probably think greed is the prime motivator for anyone in business, so we can just leave it at that.

quote:
The banks DID NOT have to sell one of these loans.


Actually they did. Could you be more ignorant?


RE: Occupy Wall Street
By spookynutz on 10/17/2011 9:27:21 AM , Rating: 2
Nobel laureate Paul Krugman[113] noted in November 2009 that 55% of commercial real estate loans were currently underwater, despite being completely unaffected by the CRA.[114] According to Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner, the claim that "the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending" was contrary to their experience, and that no empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim.[109] In a Bank for International Settlements (BIS) working paper, economist Luci Ellis concluded that "there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust", relying partly on evidence that the housing bust has been a largely exurban event.[115] Others have also concluded that the CRA did not contribute to the financial crisis, for example, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair,[110] Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan,[116] Tim Westrich of the Center for American Progress,[117] Robert Gordon of the American Prospect,[118] Ellen Seidman of the New America Foundation,[119] Daniel Gross of Slate,[120] and Aaron Pressman from BusinessWeek.[121]

Legal and financial experts have noted that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,[63][122] stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight".[123] According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made risky "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis.[124] A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans.[125] Emre Ergungor of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that there was no statistical difference in foreclosure rates between regulated and less-regulated banks, although a local bank presence resulted in fewer foreclosures.[126]


RE: Occupy Wall Street
By merc14 on 10/15/2011 9:49:58 AM , Rating: 1
You are the clueless one. Who wrote the regulations and enforced them through the office of the AG, requiring banks to make those toxic loans to low income people who had no chance of ever repaying those mortgages? Google Community Reinvestment Act and the resultant rhetoric from Janet Reno, her boss and Barney Frank if you really want to see what happened.


RE: Occupy Wall Street
By toyotabedzrock on 10/15/2011 12:59:19 PM , Rating: 2
This is a big nothing.

Everyone wants money for their state to bring new jobs. And this is Oklahoma. Isn't Solyndra in California?


RE: Occupy Wall Street
By Fritzr on 10/17/2011 12:00:32 AM , Rating: 2
The article indicates that this Oklahoma billionaire had a 26% indirect ownership of the company that built a factory in California. Indirectly in that the 26% share was registered in the name of another company that he also owns.

His comment about bringing money home to Tulsa also applies to awarding large amounts of money directly to companies he has a large ownership interest in. He wanted as much of the government giveaway & below market rate loans as possible given to companies that send him a large percentage of their net profits.


RE: Occupy Wall Street
By Fritzr on 10/17/2011 12:02:58 AM , Rating: 2
Typo ... he does not own 26% of Solyndra

The correct percentage is 36% of Solyndra is held by Mr. Kaiser's family corporation.


It seems a little much
By powerwerds on 10/13/2011 7:59:45 PM , Rating: 2
Aren't these types of loans in addition to the subsidies that the industry already gets from the government. So the government subsidizes an industry and then gives out loans too for businesses to just give it a go. I know we've got to give it a go, and I know someones going to give it the going, but at what point does the government step out of the situation and let capitalism happen?




RE: It seems a little much
By Ringold on 10/13/2011 8:56:27 PM , Rating: 2
If history is a guide, it'll step back ...

a) never
b) when there's some sort of uprising or fundamental shift in popular opinion, or at least the elite's opinion
c) when the government goes bankrupt


RE: It seems a little much
By Flunk on 10/13/2011 10:45:46 PM , Rating: 2
C) has already happened and yet it's still not stopping.


RE: It seems a little much
By sleepeeg3 on 10/14/2011 12:48:53 AM , Rating: 2
We are not bankrupt yet, but moving there fast. Bankruptcy will happen when no one is willing to lend us money. Our national debt ($14.7T) is currently 101% of GDP (14.3T) and equal to nearly 7 years worth of taxes. The White House is projecting another ~$10T will be added in the next 10 years. Greece went bankrupt when their national debt reached 129% of GDP. Within the next 10 years, it is virtually guaranteed that we will be bankrupt, unless we stop spending.


RE: It seems a little much
By sleepeeg3 on 10/14/2011 12:51:13 AM , Rating: 2
*Edit: That should be "103% of GDP."


RE: It seems a little much
By Samus on 10/14/2011 1:41:52 AM , Rating: 2
Tesla would still be building 3 cars a month in a shack using a decade old lotus platform if it weren't for government investment. Now look at them. They have the highest tech manufacturing and testing facility in the world, and will be able to produce 5000 model S's in 2013,employing thousands of high skilled labor and engineers.

what solyndra did is criminal. Most companies don't have such an agenda.


RE: It seems a little much
By Reclaimer77 on 10/14/2011 2:13:24 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah thank god the Government spent our money so ultra rich playboys had a new toy car to play with. Man, what a massive boost to the economy the Tesla loan was. No doubt ALL Americans will soon benefit from it!! And those unemployment numbers? A thing of the past thanks to Tesla! They hired hundreds of thousands of people, no doubt, to help build their extremely limited tiny production runs!!

By the way, that was extremely cynical sarcasm. In case you didn't pick up on it. Solyndra and Tesla have something in common. Both are companies in an area where there is practically no market. The market for solar panels AND ultra expensive electric cars are nearly non-existent and something we should NOT be spending public money on.


RE: It seems a little much
By Samus on 10/14/2011 3:20:52 PM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer, you do realize the Model S will be similarely priced to the Volt with far more advanced and practical technology.

The market its targetting is the BMW/Audi/Mercedes market, which we the USA currently make 0 dollars on. I think its in our best interest to lure people away from them and to something American. Caddy and Lincoln just don't make luxury cars anymore, they're just the same old recipe with a corvette or mustang engine underneith.


RE: It seems a little much
By Reclaimer77 on 10/14/2011 3:43:14 PM , Rating: 2
So the Government's job or right is now pushing what vehicle technology we go with. Is that it? It's called picking winners, and it's very dangerous to free markets.

quote:
I think its in our best interest to lure people away from them and to something American.


NOT with publican money it isn't. It's absolutely NOT in our "best interests".

quote:
The market its targetting is the BMW/Audi/Mercedes market, which we the USA currently make 0 dollars on.


??? We make lots of money every time one of those are sold here. Sales tax, tariffs, import fees and income taxes etc etc. What are you talking about? Hell BMW has a plant right down the road from here in South Carolina.


RE: It seems a little much
By spamreader1 on 10/14/2011 9:25:10 AM , Rating: 2
So...is Tesla actually turning a profit yet?


RE: It seems a little much
By theapparition on 10/14/2011 10:15:21 AM , Rating: 2
If it wasn't for government investment??? Are you for real?

Tesla wasn't started by some poor entrepreneurs working hard in their garage. It's owned by multi-millionaire (billionaire?) Elon Musk.

If Tesla is such a promising investment, then he should have spent his own money, not grants from the taxpayers and artificially low guaranteed loans.


RE: It seems a little much
By slunkius on 10/14/11, Rating: 0
RE: It seems a little much
By seamonkey79 on 10/14/2011 9:38:02 AM , Rating: 2
...take a look at Zimbabwe a couple of years ago (I haven't looked recently) to see what the power to print your own money does for you... that's right, it makes your money worthless ($6,000,000,000 for a pair of eggs) and nobody will loan you any more.


This is your "stimulus" at work
By kjboughton on 10/13/2011 8:21:38 PM , Rating: 1
Wake up!!

This was BLATANT FRAUD AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS. Just like when the banks "loaned" money to those private citizens that had no chance of ever playing the perpetual interest on their new home loan, let alone the principle payment, the Democrats that oversaw this fiasco knew, or should have known, this to be the case as well with Solyndra.

This was no "mistake." This is CRONY CAPITALISM at it's finest. The bank involved in giving the loan, the lobbying firm that was hired to oversee the loan processing, the law firm(s) used to draft up the agreements, and yes, the politicians that personally involved themselves in this mess ALL got a taste. For the politician, this would have been a kick-back payments made to their "re-election campaign."

There's a reason the government feels the need to step in and co-sign (a.k.a. guarantee) a loan of this type - namely because the market believes the "investment" is otherwise unworthy of capital allocation. (Hey, if the potential private-equity market thought Solyndra was a good bet, chances are they would have been falling all over themselves to loan money for the venture. But that wasn't the case, was it?)

Instead, this was a handout of PUBLIC money (i.e. money that must now be carried for all time by the public through the enforcement of taxes collected solely to continue to pay the interest due on the money the U.S. Treasure "lent" out that had to be first borrowed in the name of "We the People). ARE YOU MAD YET? That's right - you and your children and your children's children will be coughing up more and more of your hard-earned money for the rest of your lives, just to pay the INTEREST on the money borrowed in your names. (I don't know about you, but I don't remember being party to this loan? Do you? Well, too bad. You'll pay anyway, schmuck!)

And for what? So a group of crony "capitalist" could build a now useless manufacturing plant all the while paying themselves handsome salaries for such GREAT work in the process.

WE'VE BEEN ROBBED. The CEO is just the tip of the iceburg. He STOLE that money from us. He should be liable to pay it ALL back, plus interest. Every. Red. Cent.

And the politicians who made this all happen...they must be ultimately held to account as well. How that will ever come to be, I do not know.

ARE YOU MAD YET??




RE: This is your "stimulus" at work
By priusone on 10/14/2011 3:52:38 AM , Rating: 1
What program is next on TV?


By JasonMick (blog) on 10/14/2011 12:21:47 PM , Rating: 2
RE: This is your "stimulus" at work
By Grast on 10/14/2011 3:40:03 PM , Rating: 3
You are half right!

Why are you blaming the BANK? In this case, the bank is nothing more than a servicer of loan. The bank does not have any say in the requirements, the terms, or risk associated with the loan. That is the responsiblity of the Federal Department giving the loan. Remember this is a guaranteed federal loan. The bank may service the loan but the goverment is responsible for actually giving the bank the money.

All of the risk and the failure of this loan reside with the Federal Government not the BANK.

You almost got it right. The reason Solindra needed a Federally backed loan is because everyone else Banks, investment firms, and private equity firms passed on giving this company one dollar.

it was the president and his administration which pushed for this loan. the responsibility is 100% the Obama and his cabinet.


RE: This is your "stimulus" at work
By sigmatau on 10/14/2011 7:07:04 PM , Rating: 1
Wow dude, you got a bank up your ass you defend the so much.


Plead the fifth
By AntiM on 10/14/2011 9:25:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
He refused to answer questions from Congress, pleading the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.


quote:
He has refused to disclose his severance package, which may have boosted that total higher.


When I get audited by the IRS, can I just refuse to disclose any information, or does the fifth only apply to rich people when being questioned by congress? Can a person just plead the fifth and walk away?

New rule: Whenever a company receives public money in the form of a loan, they must account for every dollar spent.




RE: Plead the fifth
By bah12 on 10/14/2011 9:37:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When I get audited by the IRS, can I just refuse to disclose any information...
Yes you most certainly can, it is a right we all have. Now they will sue you, and if your defense team says nothing too, you will go to jail. It is not a rich only right, of course he can plead the 5th, but that does not prevent him from being brought to justice, it just means we need evidence now instead of a confession.


RE: Plead the fifth
By sigmatau on 10/14/11, Rating: 0
heh
By sprockkets on 10/14/2011 12:17:08 AM , Rating: 2
I think a lot of people are used to reading about this and other things the government does, so I'll just say this from fortune which sums up how people feel:

Indifference will be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?




"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer














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