Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...


Basically, the bond holders have thrown in the towel due to
overwhelming political pressure.

Awwwww.


Do you think the Chrysler bond holders are all evil, greedy crooks?

Eisboch


I think the "investment community" sold this country down the river in
order to feed its unsatiable greed. Millions upon millions of Americans
are suffering because of their greed and the nonfeasance of the Bush
Administration, and they are suffering far worse than the loss of just
money.

HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...


Basically, the bond holders have thrown in the towel due to
overwhelming political pressure.

Awwwww.


Do you think the Chrysler bond holders are all evil, greedy crooks?

Eisboch


I think the "investment community" sold this country down the river in
order to feed its unsatiable greed. Millions upon millions of Americans
are suffering because of their greed and the nonfeasance of the Bush
Administration, and they are suffering far worse than the loss of just
money.


"unsatiable"? How about insatiable?

On Sat, 09 May 2009 18:11:57 -0400, HK wrote:

HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...


Basically, the bond holders have thrown in the towel due to
overwhelming political pressure.

Awwwww.


Do you think the Chrysler bond holders are all evil, greedy crooks?

Eisboch


I think the "investment community" sold this country down the river in
order to feed its unsatiable greed. Millions upon millions of Americans
are suffering because of their greed and the nonfeasance of the Bush
Administration, and they are suffering far worse than the loss of just
money.


"unsatiable"? How about insatiable?

How about behind the green door?

--Vic

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...


Basically, the bond holders have thrown in the towel due to
overwhelming political pressure.

Awwwww.


Do you think the Chrysler bond holders are all evil, greedy crooks?

Eisboch


I think the "investment community" sold this country down the river in
order to feed its unsatiable greed. Millions upon millions of Americans
are suffering because of their greed and the nonfeasance of the Bush
Administration, and they are suffering far worse than the loss of just
money.


Ah, huh. Now, do you think the Chrysler bond holders are all evil, greedy
crooks?
Don'tcha think *they* are the ones that have provided Chrysler the financing
to keep the
doors open, the employees paid and the pension plans funded?

Those investments were secured by the assets of Chrysler.
The unions don't have secured asset claims, yet they are getting 55% of the
company.
Fiat doesn't have secured asset claims, yet they are getting 20% of the
company.

The ones with a legal claim to the assets get nothing.

Eisboch

On Sat, 9 May 2009 18:19:51 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
om...
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...


Basically, the bond holders have thrown in the towel due to
overwhelming political pressure.

Awwwww.


Do you think the Chrysler bond holders are all evil, greedy crooks?

Eisboch


I think the "investment community" sold this country down the river in
order to feed its unsatiable greed. Millions upon millions of Americans
are suffering because of their greed and the nonfeasance of the Bush
Administration, and they are suffering far worse than the loss of just
money.


Ah, huh. Now, do you think the Chrysler bond holders are all evil, greedy
crooks?
Don'tcha think *they* are the ones that have provided Chrysler the financing
to keep the
doors open, the employees paid and the pension plans funded?

Those investments were secured by the assets of Chrysler.
The unions don't have secured asset claims, yet they are getting 55% of the
company.
Fiat doesn't have secured asset claims, yet they are getting 20% of the
company.

The ones with a legal claim to the assets get nothing.

What do you mean "legal?"
Are laws being broken?
I haven't looked at the details, but I thought this was still in
court.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

What do you mean "legal?"
Are laws being broken?
I haven't looked at the details, but I thought this was still in
court.

--Vic


It's in court, but the bond holders threw in the towel for any claim. This
removes any conflicts and allows the bankruptcy court to proceed with
dividing up Chrysler per the desires of the Fed.

The investors/bond holders were being pressured to go public with their
names and/or organizations and
they determined that the public opinion damage done by Obama may put them at
risk, either business-wise or literally physically. Many people have
lumped *all* financial institutions into the scum of the earth category
lately, if you haven't noticed. (although they are, at the same time, being
begged to start lending again).


Personally, I think investors/bondholders should have stayed the course. I
am not advocating them or the other parties involved. I am disturbed that
binding contracts become meaningless due to political power and influence.
I thought we were supposed to be experiencing a shift to honest, transparent
and open leadership.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

What do you mean "legal?"
Are laws being broken?
I haven't looked at the details, but I thought this was still in
court.

--Vic


It's in court, but the bond holders threw in the towel for any claim.
This removes any conflicts and allows the bankruptcy court to proceed
with dividing up Chrysler per the desires of the Fed.

The investors/bond holders were being pressured to go public with their
names and/or organizations and
they determined that the public opinion damage done by Obama may put
them at risk, either business-wise or literally physically. Many
people have lumped *all* financial institutions into the scum of the
earth category lately, if you haven't noticed. (although they are, at
the same time, being begged to start lending again).


Personally, I think investors/bondholders should have stayed the
course. I am not advocating them or the other parties involved. I am
disturbed that binding contracts become meaningless due to political
power and influence.
I thought we were supposed to be experiencing a shift to honest,
transparent and open leadership.

Eisboch




I think it perfectly appropriate for the identity of the bondholders to
be made public. Obama didn't put these companies at risk; they put
themselves at risk.

It wouldn't have bothered me if all the troubled financial services
companies went bellyup, and their assets sold off to less troubled
companies. If they had behaved responsibly, they wouldn't have gotten in
as deep as they did.

"HK" wrote in message
...


I think it perfectly appropriate for the identity of the bondholders to be
made public. Obama didn't put these companies at risk; they put themselves
at risk.

Normally, I would agree. But their concern was due to the current level of
resentment against all financial institutions and the physical threats that
have been the result. There's a lynch mob mentality that exists right now.


It wouldn't have bothered me if all the troubled financial services
companies went bellyup, and their assets sold off to less troubled
companies. If they had behaved responsibly, they wouldn't have gotten in
as deep as they did.

You are lumping them all together (which is, in part the problem that
exists).
As I previously pointed out, the Chrysler bondholders are the ones that kept
the
company afloat and provided the funds to pay employees and conduct business.
Chrysler used up all their money, then the Fed money. (which, BTW, I don't
think is even secured)

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...


I think it perfectly appropriate for the identity of the bondholders
to be made public. Obama didn't put these companies at risk; they put
themselves at risk.

Normally, I would agree. But their concern was due to the current
level of resentment against all financial institutions and the physical
threats that have been the result. There's a lynch mob mentality that
exists right now.


You mean, like crazed christian conservatives surrounding a family
planning clinic? Or texans threatening to secede?

On Sat, 09 May 2009 18:40:53 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


The investors/bond holders were being pressured to go public with their
names and/or organizations

Do you have any cites for this allegation that don't trace back to
Lauria? You seem to have accepted his account, while ignoring the White
House denial, and more importantly, Perella Weinberg's denial.