tmhudson2
New Member
Good luck. Carlos Ghosn, the suit who brought Nissan back to profitability, took a pass on Chrysler.
Big 3 Auto Bailout?
- Thread starter Four Suns
- Start date
Good luck. Carlos Ghosn, the suit who brought Nissan back to profitability, took a pass on Chrysler.
billandamy
New Member
- Oct 22, 2007
- 3,043
- Boat Info
- 2008 205 sport. MonsterTower wakeboard tower.
- Engines
- 5.0 mpi (260 hp) alpha one drive with 19p ss prop.
Dan Quayle strikes again. Does he spell it venture or ventur capital?
The Senate probably won't pass the bill so as ar as I am concerned there won't be a bail out. Instead our esteemed idiots in Washington will let the big three file chapter 11 and spend a ton more of our tapayer dollars (than the bailout would have cost) trying to deal with the re-organization of the smashed-up three
(I also heard if this happens that Nancy Pelosi will bcome Chairman of GM and Barney Frank will become Chairman of Ford. The Illinois Governor will be made Chariman of Chrysler in punishment for trying to sell Obama's Senate seat.:wow
But in all truthfullnesses our entire economy will back slide even more probably into a depression (and this time it will be the Republican's fault) and make a prediction of a 4000 DJI seem like a real possibility
So fasten your seat belts..................if the vote is NO we will totally destroy the US car industry and set the wheels in motion for another major depression and the un-rest and crimne that will come after.
That's my story and I am sticking to it.
(I also heard if this happens that Nancy Pelosi will bcome Chairman of GM and Barney Frank will become Chairman of Ford. The Illinois Governor will be made Chariman of Chrysler in punishment for trying to sell Obama's Senate seat.:wow
But in all truthfullnesses our entire economy will back slide even more probably into a depression (and this time it will be the Republican's fault) and make a prediction of a 4000 DJI seem like a real possibility
So fasten your seat belts..................if the vote is NO we will totally destroy the US car industry and set the wheels in motion for another major depression and the un-rest and crimne that will come after.
That's my story and I am sticking to it.
I don't agree with you Dave. Why is it congress' fault (or the republicans or democrats)? Ford is not taking the money now... they announced yesterday they don't need or want it. Why is this not Cerberus' fault? They have $24B in net assets and OWN Chrysler and are leaving them out to dry and want congress to put money in while they keep their equity. That is obscene! An investment group will not support a company they own and it's now congress' fault? I don't buy it... The finger should be pointed at the company owner especially when they have the assets to back it and choose not to. If the current owner (Cerberus) does not want to support a company they own, then *they* are the ones that choose to put it through a bankruptcy so another owner can pick up the assets on the cheap, reorganize it, and make money. That's the way our system works....
Last edited:
AndersonAcres
Member
I agree with Gary on this one. Let Cerberus bail themselves out, or go into bankruptcy. GM should do bankruptcy, too. It will do them good IF they can get a bit leaner and more flexible, both in terms of their union commitments and in terms of their top-heavy management structure.
Both firms, imo, don't have a good feel for what the market wants. They need to reestablish a good feel for the market or they'll cease to exist. Propping them up with bailouts, subsidies, and possibly an Auto Csar who also won't have a feel for the market, will not work.
PS. If the head of Russia was the Csar, and his wife was the Csarina, what are the kids called? Csardines.
Both firms, imo, don't have a good feel for what the market wants. They need to reestablish a good feel for the market or they'll cease to exist. Propping them up with bailouts, subsidies, and possibly an Auto Csar who also won't have a feel for the market, will not work.
PS. If the head of Russia was the Csar, and his wife was the Csarina, what are the kids called? Csardines.
I just thought you called them Died. :huh:
IMHO - Noway do we need another government oversight program for the auto companies.
douglee25
Well-Known Member
You guys jogged my memory here -
I was attending Fanuc Robot Training in Michigan a few years ago. This one gentleman must have been in his late 40's or early 50's. He was talking about the 'bank' this, the 'bank' that. I finally stopped him and asked what the hell the 'bank' was. He was talking about the job bank at his company. I asked what company and he replied GM. His stories bragged how people in their 'bank' were getting paid $40 - 50$ dollars per hour to just sit there because not enough work was available. Needless to say, I wasn't too fond of him after that.
Doug
I was attending Fanuc Robot Training in Michigan a few years ago. This one gentleman must have been in his late 40's or early 50's. He was talking about the 'bank' this, the 'bank' that. I finally stopped him and asked what the hell the 'bank' was. He was talking about the job bank at his company. I asked what company and he replied GM. His stories bragged how people in their 'bank' were getting paid $40 - 50$ dollars per hour to just sit there because not enough work was available. Needless to say, I wasn't too fond of him after that.
Doug
- Feb 4, 2007
- 7,251
- Boat Info
- 1996 450DA, TNT, Caribe dink w/15hp OB.
- Engines
- 3126 427HP TD transmissions
I think the fear of the unknown is what is driving the idea of the bailout. Just like banks bought up failing banks with pretty much no hickups, the same thing will happen to GM. Other car manufactures will pick this and that and incorporate them into the fold. I've got to believe that Fords move has to be for a reason. Do you think they are going to make a move on one of the others? Why wouldn't Ford want to have access to a bridge loan, just incase? Will this bridge loan keep them from doing certain things, like taking a chunk of GM?
AndersonAcres
Member
IMO Ford is in a better position than GM or Chrysler and that's why they bailed out of the bailout.
- Feb 4, 2007
- 7,251
- Boat Info
- 1996 450DA, TNT, Caribe dink w/15hp OB.
- Engines
- 3126 427HP TD transmissions
But it's a bridge loan, and they don't have to use it if they don't want to. But to say "No we don't need to have access to this loan" has me puzzled. Any business would like to have a loan available to them if they find they need it.
Gary
The Republicans are the ones in the Senate who are opposing the bailout. Therefore I blame them if the bill is not approved.
Ford may not need the money now but if the economy doesn't pick up they will need it. And if GM goes under or files Chapter 11, Ford has already said they will go under as well because they all (the big three) use many of the same suppliers who will undoubtedly also wind up facing bankruptcy (with no bailout). As far as Cerberus and Chrysler go, I don't disagree with you. But if you were Cerberus and the government is stupid enough not to tell you NO (in other words use your own money or file bankruptcy) then why not try and get low cost loans? I certainly don't like that either but the government chose to include Chrysler. It is also unclear in my mind what the ripple affects would be to Ford and GM if Chrysler wasn't included and had to go bankrupt. It is probably minimal but I really don't know.
I don't make my comments lightly. We are in a heap of trouble here and the folks that say the big three don't deserve a bailout are certainly entitled to their opinion. But if it happens that GM goes under, dragging the others two with them, I think a chain of events will be set in motion in this country and around the world that none of us want to go thru. Only history over time will prove what really happens. I truly hope to be proven wrong but I don't think I am.
They did? :smt017
I think they still want the money if they need it.
"In the plan it submitted to Congress last week, it asked for access to a $9 billion line of credit just in case."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jV-HVQ-_t6NRC0nZL0rwJTdXwDDwD9504BJ80
Well... I think the government should say NO... Private equity is an awful and ruthless business... and Cerberus should be kicked to the curb and lose all their equity for any deal to happen. They made a bad bet and have done a wonderful job making people believe it's the taxpayers and congress' fault. Unbelievable.
I got an idea... why not kick all the shareholders of GM and Chrysler to the curb, combine them, and then do an IPO to recap them? Wait... that would require a bankruptcy... nevermind... Give Cerberus their money... what the hell.
They made an announcement yesterday they were bailing on the bailout... Ford got their own financing by leveraging their own assets instead of getting government funds...
So the bailout is now only GM and Chrysler.
Alex D
Active Member
I would like nothing mroe than see those Detroit morons have to file for Chapter 11 in order to really have to restructure their business. The gov. bail out is an insult to the American people !!!
AndersonAcres
Member
Bankruptcy is not the end of the world. It doesn't mean that, should Chrysler or GM file for bankruptcy, that they shut their doors. Bankruptcy gives them protection from their creditors, the ability to renegotiate contracts, and both firms could emerge from bankruptcy stronger than they are now. In bankruptcy, both firms will likely stay in business, though they may close unprofitable parts of their operations, or sell other parts.
Bankruptcy could be very good for GM and Chrysler. IMO, it is vastly preferable to prolonging the current situation. If the current mess is allowed to continue it will likely get worse. That is the scenario that would be most damaging to the workers, as in that case, they all could really lose their jobs.
Bankruptcy could be very good for GM and Chrysler. IMO, it is vastly preferable to prolonging the current situation. If the current mess is allowed to continue it will likely get worse. That is the scenario that would be most damaging to the workers, as in that case, they all could really lose their jobs.
I understand that it's not included in the current amount of the bailout. But it doesn't mean they won't need one. The amount in the current bailout is also not sufficient to cover GM and Chrysler needs for more than several more months either. But if the first one fails, it doesn't speak well for future bailouts which in all liklihood will be needed.
More excerpts from http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jV-HVQ-_t6NRC0nZL0rwJTdXwDDwD9504BJ80
The move to secure credit proved to be key to Ford's assertion that it doesn't need an emergency loan from Congress now like General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC do.
and
Should industrywide U.S. auto sales drop to new lows in 2009, Ford says it would need to come to the government for help. In the plan it submitted to Congress last week, it asked for access to a $9 billion line of credit just in case.
and
And if GM, Chrysler or both declare bankruptcy, it could drag down parts suppliers and force Ford into the same situation, Mulally said. Any long-term gains in market share would be overshadowed by short-term pain in a disrupted supply chain, and negative customer perception.
AndersonAcres
Member
Viewpoints. Glass half full or half empty?
I think bankruptcy for GM & Chrysler would be good for them. Other's see a disaster.
Oh well.
I think bankruptcy for GM & Chrysler would be good for them. Other's see a disaster.
Oh well.
Bankruptcy will be a lot more painful than a bailout because of all the economic repercussions thru-out the worldwide economy with many more job losses and business failures than you would experience with a bailout. Just remember it won't be just GM who goes bankrupt. Ford will get dragged down too and Chrysler is toast. And even if those companies can theoretically operate during bankruptcy, can you really pull that off in such a complex environment and the worst economic times in a 100 years? "Protection from creditors" means suppliers get pennies on the dollar (or nothing at all depending on who is administering the bankruptcy) and this can easily result in resources lost for parts needed to build cars as those suppliers go bankrupt as well (and may not be able to re-organize). And of course those suppliers lay off lots of people as well contributing to further economic woes around the world. Expect the housing and mortgage markets to continue to get worse too. And this occurs on a worldwide scale because GM and Ford have a huge presence in Europe, Australia, and China. And it is unclear what happens to companies like Mazda which Ford owns a major portion of. Same thing goes for GM who owns Daewoo in Korea and then of course there are companies like Volvo and Saab owned by Ford and GM. (At least the Swedish government is trying to help them with their own bailout plan.http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200812110741DOWJONESDJONLINE000571_FORTUNE5.htm )
And wouldn't it be ironic if a country like China stepped up and bailed out GM.
:smt009:smt009:smt009
AndersonAcres
Member
I guess time will tell.
