Standard of Living already down.

[utgibbs]

Exactly. It's quite obvious that utgibbs doesn't have the first clue about how these things work.

It's VERY obvious who knows how these things work.

And it ain't droski et al.

General Motors | SEC Filings | GM.com

You need only open the latest document for Jan 19 where Christopher Liddell - ex Microsoft CFO, now GM CFO trades his "Restricted Stock" for general shares. Make sure he sends a thank you card to all 200M taxpayers....

The corporate governance and the big players were all taken care of. And I'm not playing hardball yet, folks, because it is obvious y'all have never been involved in these affairs.

The woodshed cometh.

 

[utgibbs]

I thought they were double-secret bondholders.

More trouble.

http://www.freep.com/article/201008...s-off&template=artsemantics&server=MOC-WN0326

For example, before his decision to step down as chief executive officer and chairman, Ed Whitacre was in line for $5.3 million of stock awards to be paid over the next three years, beginning in 2011. He also qualified for $2 million of restricted stock units previously valued at $53.98 each. If GM shares are trading at $108 a share one year or two years from now, that last group of shares would have doubled in value.

Super-secret stock EXPOSED.......

 

[droski]

who is arguing the employees of gm got shafted? are you arguing non employees owned restricted stock? can you give me a single example in US history of non employees or board members getting restricted stock?

 

[NEO]

It's VERY obvious who knows how these things work.

And it ain't droski et al.

General Motors | SEC Filings | GM.com

You need only open the latest document for Jan 19 where Christopher Liddell - ex Microsoft CFO, now GM CFO trades his "Restricted Stock" for general shares. Make sure he sends a thank you card to all 200M taxpayers....

The corporate governance and the big players were all taken care of. And I'm not playing hardball yet, folks, because it is obvious y'all have never been involved in these affairs.

The woodshed cometh.

The top of any company always get taken care of. It's called having inside information and keeping your mouth shut that you have it. I'm not going to name actual companies here but there was a Financial company that operates mainly as an insurance company that decided to take its financial side of the market and bring it back to a mutual. At the time there bank was a credit union and they decided to change it to a bank to create a lending division under the umbrella. It happend that this information was leaked to some of the higher ups. On the day this transaction took place they were going to buy your shares of the credit union out and to do so would give about 2.74 on the dollar if I remember right. If you had a hundred bucks they gave you 274. There was a sudden dump that day into the credit union. One top member invest about 14 million the day before the buy out was done. Things always happen differently for people at the top who are in the loop because they know what is about to happen before the action is actually done.

What you are referring to though didn't happen in the way you are stating it.

 

[droski]

The corporate governance and the big players were all taken care of. And I'm not playing hardball yet, folks, because it is obvious y'all have never been involved in these affairs.

The woodshed cometh.

i tell you what. i'll bet you $1,000 you can't find a shred of evidence that the "big players" were taken care of i.e. made whole. and no current and former GM employees and board members don't count. i'll give you until saturday to provide such information. deal?

 

[utgibbs]

who is arguing the employees of gm got shafted? are you arguing non employees owned restricted stock? can you give me a single example in US history of non employees or board members getting restricted stock?

All y'all are doing is quibbling about what the accountants call the instruments.

I said the corporate governance and the "big players" were taken care of in the deal. That's exactly what happened.

All I've heard is y'all debate what the device might be called (preferred, Class-B, restricted stock blah, blah, blah).

But the hammer is REALLY about to fall soon.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

dude... restricted stock is common stock with a big red stamp on the certificate that says "restricted". Its restricted because its part of a compensation package for executives and Board of Trustees and can only be sold at certain times. The restricted stock is counted with the overall common shares count because its exactly that, common stock.

Try harder

 

[MG1968]

All y'all are doing is quibbling about what the accountants call the instruments.

I said the corporate governance and the "big players" were taken care of in the deal. That's exactly what happened.

All I've heard is y'all debate what the device might be called (preferred, Class-B, restricted stock blah, blah, blah).

But the hammer is REALLY about to fall soon.

are you referring to your upcoming screed regarding wealth redistribution?

oh, joy...:blink:

 

[droski]

All y'all are doing is quibbling about what the accountants call the instruments.

I said the corporate governance and the "big players" were taken care of in the deal. That's exactly what happened.

All I've heard is y'all debate what the device might be called (preferred, Class-B, restricted stock blah, blah, blah).

But the hammer is REALLY about to fall soon.

it's not quibbling. it's called educating YOU.

restricted stock gets turned into common stock. preferred stock is debt. they are completely different.

as said before class B stock would be LOWER in the corporate structure the ordinary common, but GM had no such class b stock.

if you stopped talking out of your arse we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[utgibbs]

i tell you what. i'll bet you $1,000 you can't find a shred of evidence that the "big players" were taken care of i.e. made whole. and no current and former GM employees and board members don't count. i'll give you until saturday to provide such information. deal?

Made whole??????

That's what it means to be "taken care of" when a company is in Chap 11?

I said the corporate governance and the big players (bondholders, secret resticted secured preferred stockholders) would not be lumped with the common issues. That's exactly what happened.

They've been made more than whole - ZERO to anything = ^infinity more.

I'm looking at their annual filing on April 7, 2010. The hammer is about to fall HARDCORE.

 

[droski]

Made whole??????

That's what it means to be "taken care of" when a company is in Chap 11?

I said the corporate governance and the big players (bondholders, secret resticted secured preferred stockholders) would not be lumped with the common issues. That's exactly what happened.

They've been made more than whole - ZERO to anything = ^infinity more.

I'm looking at their annual filing on April 7, 2010. The hammer is about to fall HARDCORE.

taken care of certainly implies greater than 10%. what the hell are secret resticted secured preferred stockholders? tell me that was a joke?

 

[utgibbs]

it's not quibbling. it's called educating YOU.

restricted stock gets turned into common stock. preferred stock is debt. they are completely different.

as said before class B stock would be LOWER in the corporate structure the ordinary common, but GM had no such class b stock.

if you stopped talking out of your arse we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Getting worried?

As I said, I'm looking at the Apr 7, 2010 filing.

I'm trying to decide if this is you backing off the gas to save a little face. I may let you off without having you having to :mf_surrender: because this victory means little to me (although I can see it means much to many).

I pay accountants, I'm not one, admittedly. Unfortunately, even your hope of preferred stock not being on the books is about to get trashed....

 

[droski]

Getting worried?

As I said, I'm looking at the Apr 7, 2010 filing.

I'm trying to decide if this is you backing off the gas to save a little face. I may let you off without having you having to :mf_surrender: because this victory means little to me (although I can see it means much to many).

I pay accountants, I'm not one, admittedly. Unfortunately, even your hope of preferred stock not being on the books is about to get trashed....

not backing off in the slightest, nor can i see why my post would even imply that. i understand there were some convertable preferreds outstanding. they did not get "taken care of" by any stretch of the imagination.

i have a cfa charter. it requires quite a bit of financial accounting. i assure you i know a lot more about this than you do.

 

[utgibbs]

General Motors | SEC Filings | GM.com

April 7, 2010 Annual Report

p122 - 127 with special emphasis on pp126 - 127.

Special emphasis on Note 2, pp128-129

Special emphasis on p133 and the dispensation of the "preferred stock" (note that a substantial portion of this resides with the MLC - the Motors Liquidation Company)

Blah, blah, blah. It all means:

Game, Set, and Match.

This little distraction - while mildly entertaining - has postponed today's real excitement - Wealth Redistribution!

 

[utgibbs]

not backing off in the slightest, nor can i see why my post would even imply that. i understand there were some convertable preferreds outstanding. they did not get "taken care of" by any stretch of the imagination.

i have a cfa charter. it requires quite a bit of financial accounting. i assure you i know a lot more about this than you do.

I'm sure you do. :hi:

Unfortunately, semantics aren't going to take the day regarding GM though. Cast your eyes the annual report, and let me know how it goes. :thumbsup:

 

[droski]

you are pointing out the preferred stock owned by the govt if you are refering to the current stock paying a 9% dividend. and the motors liquidation company is currently trading at .01 cent per share as pointed out by another poster. this is really pathetic.

 

[utgibbs]

you are pointing out the preferred stock owned by the govt. this is really pathetic. and the motors liquidation company is currently trading at .01 cent per share as pointed out by another poster.

Am I?

I don't think you've gone through the report yet, drosk.

However, I do know the gap in semantics now. It's screwed.

I think the taxpayer got screwed in the deal; you feel the shareholders (who assumed the risk in the first place) got screwed.

Meanwhile, the stakeholders (vice ordinary shareholders) still made money out of the deal (at taxpayers expense) even though they also assumed the risk, and many were actually in positions of responsibility for the company. I think they made out like bandits (because they deserved nothing and got something - all on the taxpayers' dime), you don't.

You win the battle of semantics, but I win the war on this one. :hi:

 

[droski]

you obviously don't read these reports very often. no where does it mention preferred shareholders getting shares in the new company.

10% of the company when they deserve 100% is not making out like bandits. i assure you they didn't make money out of the deal. those bonds never traded that low until the deal leaked.

not sure how i'm arguing semantics.

 

[utgibbs]

you obviously don't read these reports very often. no where does it mention preferred shareholders getting shares in the new company.

10% of the company when they deserve 100% is not making out like bandits. i assure you they didn't make money out of the deal. those bonds never traded that low until the deal leaked.

not sure how i'm arguing semantics.

I read them often enough, and it proves my points.

Here are the semantics: Although I didn't use to the word "stakeholder" at the beginning (I did use shareholder) my point was the governance / big players got paid in a deal when they should have not been paid. They made out like bandits. You're argument of "10% isn't 100%" is not the point. It is an INFINITE amount more than they would have had without the taxpayer taking a loss. Joe Schmo on Ameritrade got royally screwed; I completely agree. Taxpayer got screwed - completely agree (although I don't mind us owning some factors of production. I would not have been afraid to go hardcore on the Board as Obama was). Certain "stakeholders" were protected. It's not a Zero-Sum game and neoliberal welfare for no reason.

I said there were instruments (whatever name I called them first) protecting these "stakeholders." Clearly the report shows there are.

In the end, you are giving me the Clinton line of "what do you mean by is." The fact is, certain stakeholders in GM were protected and paid, and that's exactly what happened.

 

[volinbham]

Am I?

I don't think you've gone through the report yet, drosk.

However, I do know the gap in semantics now. It's screwed.

I think the taxpayer got screwed in the deal; you feel the shareholders (who assumed the risk in the first place) got screwed.

Meanwhile, the stakeholders (vice ordinary shareholders) still made money out of the deal (at taxpayers expense) even though they also assumed the risk, and many were actually in positions of responsibility for the company. I think they made out like bandits (because they deserved nothing and got something - all on the taxpayers' dime), you don't.

You win the battle of semantics, but I win the war on this one. :hi:

If by stakeholders you mean union members then I agree with you. They came out smelling like roses relatively speaking at the expense of bondholders, shareholders and tax payers.

 

[utgibbs]

If by stakeholders you mean union members then I agree with you. They came out smelling like roses relatively speaking at the expense of bondholders, shareholders and tax payers.

Union took MAJOR hits - a catalog of hits.

However, jobs were saved. I wish they were building railcars instead, but it is fair to say they benefited as well.

Certainly not at the expense of the real stakeholders though. They should have been prepared to take nothing.

 

[Vol423]

Am I?

I don't think you've gone through the report yet, drosk.

However, I do know the gap in semantics now. It's screwed.

I think the taxpayer got screwed in the deal; you feel the shareholders (who assumed the risk in the first place) got screwed.

Meanwhile, the stakeholders (vice ordinary shareholders) still made money out of the deal (at taxpayers expense) even though they also assumed the risk, and many were actually in positions of responsibility for the company. I think they made out like bandits (because they deserved nothing and got something - all on the taxpayers' dime), you don't.

You win the battle of semantics, but I win the war on this one. :hi:

I highly suggest that you continue to pay those accountants. They'll keep you from making a complete a$$ of yourself like you've done here.

 

[volinbham]

Union took MAJOR hits - a catalog of hits.

However, jobs were saved. I wish they were building railcars instead, but it is fair to say they benefited as well.

Certainly not at the expense of the real stakeholders though. They should have been prepared to take nothing.

hits are relative - the bottomline is that the union came out better than a traditional bankruptcy would have resulted in.

bondholders came out worse

taxpayers came out worse

shareholders came out as bad as they could have

I still have no clue who the "real stakeholders" are. Bond holders and share holders are definitely considered stakeholders.

 

[utgibbs]

I highly suggest that you continue to pay those accountants. They'll keep you from making a complete a$$ of yourself like you've done here.

Easy to say.

Difficult to prove, especially given the details I've posted.

 

[utgibbs]

hits are relative - the bottomline is that the union came out better than a traditional bankruptcy would have resulted in.

bondholders came out worse

taxpayers came out worse

shareholders came out as bad as they could have

I still have no clue who the "real stakeholders" are. Bond holders and share holders are definitely considered stakeholders.

What would have happened to the union in a traditional chap 11? More plants closed? More health benefits revoked?