For what? Some new ex post facto we don't like you law?Astronuc said:...It seems to me that there should be a heck of a lot of criminal prosecutions going. .
Fraud for starters. I read where at least two people at Merrill Lynch exchanged emails about how bad were the investments they were pedalling. Those two I believe were indicted, but I have to wonder if they were the only two involved.mheslep said:For what? Some new ex post facto we don't like you law?
WASHINGTON – Neither General Motors nor Chrysler submitted acceptable plans to receive more federal bailout money, the Obama administration said as it set the stage for a crisis in Detroit that would dramatically reshape the nation's auto industry.
The White House pushed out GM's chairman and directed Chrysler to move quickly to forge a partnership with Fiat if it expects to receive additional government assistance.
President Barack Obama and his top advisers have determined that neither company is viable and that taxpayers will not spend untold billions more to keep the pair of automakers open forever.
In a last-ditch effort, the administration gave each company a brief deadline to try one last time to convince Washington it is worth saving, said senior administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to more bluntly discuss the decision.
Obama was set to make the announcement at 11 a.m. Monday in the White House's foyer.
. . . .
WhoWee said:Forcing them to build to MORE restrictive standards isn't going to improve profitability in the short term...it only advances a green political agenda.
GM has 3 problems...1.) Union agreements, 2.) Government standards, and 3.) Overpriced/un-financiable vehicles.
This is a lot closer to what a small personal vehicle SHOULD cost...$2,000 to $5,000...not $15,000+.
No. Failure to perform due diligence is specifically not fraud. It is negligence, a civil matter, if it can in fact be shown that no due diligence was performed.Astronuc said:... Then there are all those securities sold as AAA investments without any due diligence (on the part of ratings agencies and the financial companies that later sold them), and in fact, those investments were not AAA. That's fraud.
How is it 'apparent' that there was market manipulation? Because the price of oil spiked at the same time India and China's oil usage was soaring? The CFTC has 60 odd investigations open at anyone time. How does this justify the prior statement that "there should be a heck of a lot of criminal prosecutions going"?Then there is the apparent market manipulation in commodities, such as oil, which is under investigation. ...
Astronuc said:True - Obama doesn't have 20 years experience as a corporate executive. But the managers at GM, Chrysler, AIG, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, . . . all had executives with at least 20 years experience - and look where they are now.
Just because Obama has run a company doesn't mean that he doesn't understand the concepts. Obama also has numerous advisors, including folks like Warren Buffett. Hopefully he's getting and heeding good advice.
How many Senators and congresspersons have run for-profit corporations.
Chuck Hagel is one of whom I can think of the top of my head.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/4-banks-become-first-to-repay-tarp-money/Four smaller regional banks on Tuesday became the first financial institutions to return the federal money they had received under the government's banking bailout, leaving a program that placed restrictions on their executive compensation and other spending.
The banks: Signature Bank of New York; Old National Bancorp of Evansville, Ind.; Iberiabank of Lafayette, La., and Bank of Marin Bancorp of Novato, Calif." said they had bought back a total of $338 million in their preferred shares, which had been sold to the government in the fall under the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, in exchange for capital.
A number of banks have been chafing under the restrictions imposed by TARP. Northern Trust of Chicago said in February that it would repay more than $1.5 billion “as quickly as prudently possible” after a hail of criticism from Capitol Hill over its lavish entertainment spending at a golf tournament in suburban Los Angeles.
Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America are among the biggest banks that have said they are aiming to return the government's bailout money.
The big banks were told in the fall by then-Treasury Henry M. Paulson Jr. that they were required to accept TARP money in order to strengthen the banking system, which had been severely shaken by the global financial crisis. But President Obama's economic stimulus plan, enacted in February, changed the rules to allow banks to pay back the money ahead of schedule. It also tightened the restrictions on bonuses and other spending.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama administration is seeking to ease General Motors Corp into a "controlled" bankruptcy by persuading some creditors to agree to a plan that would divide the company into two pieces, the New York Times reported on Wednesday.
Citing people briefed on the matter, the Times said the plan is to push GM into a structured bankruptcy "somewhere between a prepackaged bankruptcy and court chaos," using taxpayer financing for leverage.
The administration is drawing in part from its experience with troubled banks, seeking to create a new, healthier GM, but leaving behind its liabilities and less valuable assets, possibly for liquidation, the Times said on its website.
Under the plan, GM would file for prearranged bankruptcy, the report said, and would then use a sale authorized under Section 363 of the U.S. bankruptcy code to sell off desirable assets to a new company financed by the government.
I sincerely hope not. The wrong-headed business-plan of the last few decades seems to have been driven by a reluctance to re-design and re-tool (something the Japanese excel at) in order to hold down costs and inflate short-term profits. I don't think a team of political appointees would do any better. Honda should buy GM's physical plants to secure entry into the light-truck market. Toyota is doing quite well in that market (considering weak automotive sales overall) and they could use a nimble competitor. I'd like to see Subaru jump into light trucks, too, but they seem quite content to stick with full-time AWD passenger vehicles and light SUVs.Astronuc said:And the US government is going into the auto industry?
All of the Government workers I know have mandatory drug testing, plus background and security checks.WhoWee said:I have a two-fold solution, given that Obama says that health care (includes accidents) is a major problem with the economy and also given Hillary Clinton's stipulation that we are the root of the problem (our national drug addiction) with the Mexican drug cartel problem.
Here it is...a ZERO TOLERANCE drug policy for ANYONE who receives federal or state funds for ANY reason.
Obama has allocated $634billion to address health care (with no particular spending plan), so why not use a few $hundred million to drug test every federal and state employee, employees of every company taking bailout money (every employee of banks and auto companies included) or working on a government contract (including sub-contractors), everyone on unemployment or food stamps or receiving EIC or (again...FOOD STAMPS), SSI, Section 8, medicaid, other state benefits, all postal service employees, all employees of state universities (yes professors are included) EVERY MEMBER OF GOVERNMENT (Exec, Judicial and Legislative including staffs)...EVERYONE that receives more than $1.00 per year from any branch of government.
If Hillary is right...drug use should drop a little, Obama will have a specific use for some of the funds, anyone testing positive could be given a program with re-testing to follow or be cut from benefits or terminated (this might reduce costs), the testing and oversight will create jobs, and companies that produce test strips/lab work will flourish.
Private life insurance companies test people all of the time, so do employers...why not everyone who receives taxpayer money?
Evo said:All of the Government workers I know have mandatory drug testing, plus background and security checks.
Are you saying politicians?
A friend of mine has bought several Saturn models over the past decade, and after about 5 years, they are nothing but trouble. He had them in the shop so many times it was ridiculous. He's seriously considering Honda or other Japanese car maker for is next car.WhoWee said:This is the part I can't comprehend...Saturn may very well be the best American car ever built. I have one with a 4 cylinder motor and approaching 300,000 miles...it just goes and goes...and averages about 32 mpg.
Yet, the top priority is to get rid of this division. Saturn should be the platform for green development.
http://www.autonews.com/article/20090318/ANA05/903179965/1197
Instead of selling Saturn (or any auto company) to a foreign group...a spin-off/IPO should first be attempted. If necessary, GM and US-Obama Car Corp. can retain equity, package up and attach a few $billion of legacy costs in the form of low interest long term debt and set it free.
one of my wife's co-workers got rid of her Saturn, though she couldn't get rid of it soon enough because the difference between what she owed and what she might get in a sale was too big. It was under warranty, but it nickle-and-dimed her to death for years until she was able to afford another car. The major problem is that the nearest Saturn dealer is over an hour away, and she had to arrange rides to get repairs done, and take time off from work to do drop-offs and pick-ups. She's a nice young lady, and she fell for the "Saturn=quality" assertions. My wife tried to steer her toward Accord, Camry and other models that had been proven over the years to be reliable, but she liked the slick Saturn commercials and the styling of the car she had picked out.Astronuc said:A friend of mine has bought several Saturn models over the past decade, and after about 5 years, they are nothing but trouble. He had them in the shop so many times it was ridiculous. He's seriously considering Honda or other Japanese car maker for is next car.
I've been with Honda since grad school, and I'll continue to buy Honda's because of the quality and cost.
I understand the Saturn owners tend to be loyal, which is fine. As for dealers, perhaps it depends on the dealer. My friend has had problems with the local dealership.WhoWee said:However, the Saturn owners are very loyal and the brand and dealers have a good overall image.
The 2Q'09 should be interesting.. . . .
The administration's display of authority sent U.S. stocks tumbling and raised questions about whether the government would take similar steps against top executives at U.S. banks that are also receiving government bailout funds.
. . .
Obama said that if they fail to achieve those goals, GM and Chrysler might need to use bankruptcy as a "mechanism to help them restructure quickly and emerge stronger." Such a move would wipe out the mountain of debt weighing down the companies.
The administration's decision to oust G. Richard Wagoner Jr. sharply ratchets up its control over companies receiving government assistance in the face of criticism about a lack of accountability over billions of taxpayer dollars. The government demanded Wagoner's departure even though it does not own a stake in the automaker. The three companies the government does control -- American International Group, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -- were required to replace their chief executives. The government has not, however, required any banks in which it took smaller stakes to replace its top executives. It did pressure Citigroup to replace several members of its board of directors.
Now the president's aggressive move against GM has left some banking executives wondering whether they are next in line.
"Is there a heightened risk for the Obama administration" to remove a banking executive? asked Scott Talbott, chief lobbyist for Financial Services Roundtable. "I think you'd have to conclude that the answer is yes."
. . . .
Ivan Seeking said:HAH! Broke 8000.
We have to let the bear take bites whenever it is advantageous. That's how the market is supposed to self-correct. The perpetuation of a false bull market based on cheap federal money and trades in over-valued unsecured assets is what got us into this mess in the first place. Bears and contrarians can help keep the market healthy, and we need them to keep things honest.WhoWee said:...beware the BEAR...
Ivan Seeking said:I'm more interested in the economy than personal victories and losses. Obviously any particular stock buy has to be carefully considered.
How much wealth has been created since March 2nd?