Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1228...s_opinion_main

Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of the onerous contracts and
merge Chrysler with Ford.

No bail out.


Wall street brokerage house and bankers...

Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of all management, and then blow up
their buildings.

No golden parachutes.

Oh...and in all publicly traded corporations, no executive earnings to
exceed 10 times the earnings of the average employee.

I'd vote for that. I can't believe the compensation some of those CEOs
get while the companies they run are into the dirt.

If a company had a decent board of directors it would already have such
policies. But I too always vote for it when I see it. One other thing I
like is locked in performance bonuses that mature years later and they can't
sell. I do watch insider trading.

Problem is, the board of directors are often an "old boys" butt kiss club in
many cases. So one hand payolas the others in non-obvious relationships. I
always research the board and CEO history before buying a stock.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 13:38:35 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:

On Dec 6, 9:16*am, JohnH wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:56:28 -0600, Vic Smith



wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:39:04 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
inet...
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:38:52 -0500, D.Duck wrote:

You just want to see what some bankruptcy judge would do to union
contracts.
Direct labor costs are only @10% of the cost of building a car. *If you
want to cut costs, labor isn't the place to start.

Someone outside and disconnected from management and the labor unions needs
to review and determine that.

What if your fixed labor costs are based on selling 18 million cars a year
but you only sold 10 million last year?

Eisboch

Then you have massive layoffs, of course.,

UAW has sub-pay, or whatever they're calling it now.
When I was UAW at IH the senior guys went first on a layoff.
95% pay for fishing. *I think they got unemployment comp then
the company made up the rest.
Never saw a layoff, but heard what happens when we got close once.
That's one of the things Corker was hammering the union guy about.
I don't think I ever heard a straight answer.
But that's one of the contract provisions that should have to go as a
condition of a taxpayer loan.
The only way to make it work is the UAW gives up a lot.

--Vic

jobs bank,,,http://tinyurl.com/cbksn
--
John H.

you beat me to it John, I didn't know you'd already posted it.

crazy, ain't it?

As we used to say in Korea, "No sweatida."
--
John H.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 07:14:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1228...28184421.html?
mod=rss_opinion_main

Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of the onerous contracts and merge
Chrysler with Ford.

No bail out.

Personally, I can't see Chrysler surviving. Ford, yes, and a much
smaller and different GM.

Agreed. Cerberus had this in mind for Chrysler all along. Buy Chrysler,
strip out some good parts, cash and package a turkey for the market. They
have been desperate to unload this turkey for awhile now.

Surprises some senator or congress person does not bring this up. Or maybe
they have some private equity in Cerberus. LOL. There was a board member
they had a few years back, everything he sat on turned to trash including
NorTel. Needles to say I didn't buy in.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 07:14:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1228...28184421.html?
mod=rss_opinion_main

Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of the onerous contracts and merge
Chrysler with Ford.

No bail out.

Personally, I can't see Chrysler surviving. Ford, yes, and a much
smaller and different GM.


Exactly. Chrysler hired an outside bankruptcy law firm yesterday. They
are preparing for the inevitable.

GM needs to replace Wagoner. He is so out of touch with reality that he
can't be in charge of
reorganizing.

The Ford guy (ex-Boeing) seems to be a little more pro-active and may be
ok. He's only been there for two years
and has already made some serious changes to Ford's overall business
structure.

Eisboch

Funny, I would bet on Ford too. In fact, picked some up cheap the other
day, short term play.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 07:14:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1228...28184421.html?
mod=rss_opinion_main
Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of the onerous contracts and
merge
Chrysler with Ford.

No bail out.
Personally, I can't see Chrysler surviving. Ford, yes, and a much
smaller and different GM.


Exactly. Chrysler hired an outside bankruptcy law firm yesterday. They
are preparing for the inevitable.

GM needs to replace Wagoner. He is so out of touch with reality that he
can't be in charge of
reorganizing.

The Ford guy (ex-Boeing) seems to be a little more pro-active and may
be ok. He's only been there for two years
and has already made some serious changes to Ford's overall business
structure.

Eisboch

Sorry, but if we can bail out the useless pushers of paper on wall street
and get absolutely nothing in return, we can help the millions of real
working Americans whose jobs depend on the domestic auto industry. I don't
buy into the concept that bankruptcy reorganization will work for
Chrysler, Ford or GM.

Are you going to bail out small business too?

I ask as most of the 500,000 people suffering in November, and maybe a
million in December are mostly non-union, non-auto. Who is bailing out the
little guy?

Might as well put the whole nation on welfare.

The only sane solution is to cut waste and get more competative with less
debt. If you can't do that like 300 million other people, you are screwed.
Letting Detroit into the public purse, a bad mistake for everyone in the
end.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 07:14:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1228...28184421.html?
mod=rss_opinion_main
Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of the onerous contracts and
merge
Chrysler with Ford.

No bail out.
Personally, I can't see Chrysler surviving. Ford, yes, and a much
smaller and different GM.

Exactly. Chrysler hired an outside bankruptcy law firm yesterday.
They are preparing for the inevitable.

GM needs to replace Wagoner. He is so out of touch with reality that
he can't be in charge of
reorganizing.

The Ford guy (ex-Boeing) seems to be a little more pro-active and may
be ok. He's only been there for two years
and has already made some serious changes to Ford's overall business
structure.

Eisboch

Sorry, but if we can bail out the useless pushers of paper on wall
street and get absolutely nothing in return, we can help the millions of
real working Americans whose jobs depend on the domestic auto industry.
I don't buy into the concept that bankruptcy reorganization will work
for Chrysler, Ford or GM.

You just want to see what some bankruptcy judge would do to union
contracts.

We're in dire straits in this country. Everyone has to sacrifice, and if
that means nulling and voiding contracts, let's also cut the pension and
healthcare benefits of civilian and military retirees. Right?

Don't worry, I think you will eventually see exactly that.

Keep in mind government revenues are going down in this, further increasing
debt. Since the government is quite litterly putting this on printing money
credit, it is debt on the currency, at some point this will crash the dollar
and breed hyper-inflation. Government has yet to realize you can't pay debt
with more debt to get out of a hole. That practice means a deaper hole. I
think government actually wants inflation thinking if a home inflates faster
than deflation pressures that somehow the banks will not collapse further.

But I think they are on a fools errand.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:43:59 -0500, Boater wrote:

D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 07:14:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1228...28184421.html?
mod=rss_opinion_main
Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of the onerous contracts and
merge
Chrysler with Ford.

No bail out.
Personally, I can't see Chrysler surviving. Ford, yes, and a much
smaller and different GM.

Exactly. Chrysler hired an outside bankruptcy law firm yesterday.
They
are preparing for the inevitable.

GM needs to replace Wagoner. He is so out of touch with reality that
he
can't be in charge of
reorganizing.

The Ford guy (ex-Boeing) seems to be a little more pro-active and
may
be ok. He's only been there for two years
and has already made some serious changes to Ford's overall business
structure.

Eisboch

Sorry, but if we can bail out the useless pushers of paper on wall
street
and get absolutely nothing in return, we can help the millions of real
working Americans whose jobs depend on the domestic auto industry. I
don't
buy into the concept that bankruptcy reorganization will work for
Chrysler, Ford or GM.


You just want to see what some bankruptcy judge would do to union
contracts.




We're in dire straits in this country. Everyone has to sacrifice, and if
that means nulling and voiding contracts, let's also cut the pension and
healthcare benefits of civilian and military retirees. Right?

You thinking Obama's going to run the government out of business?
--
John H.

I do. Literally and figuratively. Obama may try bail out and free money,
but it will fail. Government is ignoring some pretty obvious problems and
solutions, because no one wants to hear it.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:39:04 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
t...
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:38:52 -0500, D.Duck wrote:


You just want to see what some bankruptcy judge would do to union
contracts.
Direct labor costs are only @10% of the cost of building a car. If
you
want to cut costs, labor isn't the place to start.

Someone outside and disconnected from management and the labor unions
needs to review and determine that.

What if your fixed labor costs are based on selling 18 million cars a
year but you only sold 10 million last year?

Eisboch

Then you have massive layoffs, of course.,

UAW has sub-pay, or whatever they're calling it now.
When I was UAW at IH the senior guys went first on a layoff.
95% pay for fishing. I think they got unemployment comp then
the company made up the rest. Never saw a layoff, but heard what happens
when we got close once.
That's one of the things Corker was hammering the union guy about.
I don't think I ever heard a straight answer.
But that's one of the contract provisions that should have to go as a
condition of a taxpayer loan.
The only way to make it work is the UAW gives up a lot.

--Vic

The UAW already has proposed massive givebacks. Congress acknowledged
that.

Let the details be told then. My guess a token amount. But I think local
market and not union rates is more appropriate.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 8:06 am, wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:38:52 -0500, D.Duck wrote:
You just want to see what some bankruptcy judge would do to union
contracts.

Direct labor costs are only @10% of the cost of building a car. If you
want to cut costs, labor isn't the place to start.

Well, but shaving off some of that 10% could help. i know this is a
2005 doc. but it still goes on.

i can't understand this type of reasoning:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1503982/posts
-----
That statistic is bogus any way. 10% is just for assembing it. There is
more in the supply chain and management as well. Magna (CAW) and JCI (UAW)
are union for example. In fact, you could go right back into steel
production and transportation unions. Finding 30% should be trivial if you
are earnest about it.

This is why the CAW and UAW are treating this like Custers Last Stand
because if chapter 11 happens, their pay and benefits for nothing contracts
disappear and will signal a turn in the whole industry.

You should see what the NDP (backed predominantly by union) in Canada is up
to with the Liberals who want government payola for screwing up. My
sediments on it:

_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ / For GM, CAW, UAW and their supporters
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
For which I will nevery buy a product again that has your mark. I don't
want you in my wallet against my will.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

wrote in message
t...
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:42:35 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


The fairest and most efficient means to save the auto industry is
through a government (taxpayer) supported, pre-packaged Chapter 11
filing. They don't go immediately out of business. Current workers
continue working. But, a federal judge will arbitrate new contracts,
vendor payments, and the negotiations required to accomplish these.
Government (taxpayer) financial support can be given subject to specific
uses for the money, as overseen by the bankrupcy court.

It works.

I'm not sure bankruptcy court would work in this case. Bankruptcy court
is good for getting people to do the same things, only cheaper.
Detroit's supply chain, is already working on very thin margins, as
evidenced by the number of in-bankruptcy companies, e.g., Delphi. It
seems to me, a more innovative approach is needed for long term
viability. Bankruptcy courts are not known for being innovative. I tend
to prefer Frank's bill.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press...ss111708.shtml

That is because they all have the same problem. Slack incompetant
management and union. Detroit has already spun off divisions and business
in a complex non-value added web. But they are related to the issues.
These contracts and management "buddy" relationships need to become more
competative.

They are correct this is an industry issue, and to let GM go into chapter 11
is really a necessity to send the shot out that it isn't going to pay to beg
on the public purse. It is now a mater of principle and GM has screwed
itself too far into the ground. Tehy should ditto this to banks, if they
can't make it work then it should be no different.

Hands in my pocket and they are not mine.