(POL) Time to let General Motors go bankrupt?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's what happens when you start dipping into people's pockets to subsidize failed companies.

My industry is dying too, it's several times a week that I hear about people I know who are losing their jobs after 20 years or more. Good, hard working people. And they've done their jobs without an organization extorting every dime it could from the employers along the way. Meanwhile we're barely hanging on ourselves and the clock is ticking louder on that every day.

I work in IT and I see the same thing.

[DaddyTorgo]

tru nuff SI.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by MO542

I say let the auto makers file chapter 11 bankruptcy. Chapter 11 bankruptcy is there to give a corporation a second chance. The law allows them to declare an automatic stay; that is to hold off debtors until the business restructures. GM is laying off workers anyway, so I don’t see how giving them a loan is going to save any jobs. Also, filing bankruptcy will lessen the headache of negotiating with the union because the union contract could be void with approval of a bankruptcy judge. I just don’t understand why the government doesn’t use the laws that are already there to help a corporation out.

GM has many issues; the union is just one of them. No doubt, the union is an issue because they are paying wages higher than their competitors without adding much value. However, management has also allowed lines of cars that compete with a finite amount of buyers and are overleveraged; basically a bad business model and bad financial decision making. Thus, I think the union is a scapegoat because they are only part of the problem. Lowering the wages of union workers is only one slice of the pie that GM needs to eat to become competitive again.

+1 except with the caveat that it's not necessarily the wages that need lowering, as others have pointed out. it's the massive retirement obligations

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

+1 except with the caveat that it's not necessarily the wages that need lowering, as others have pointed out. it's the massive retirement obligations

Oddly enough perhaps, I'm not comfortable with reneging on agreements like that. Fix it going forward sure, but don't take away anything that was legally obligated and IMO morally & ethically obligated as well (once it was agreed upon in good faith).

But then again, as a nation we seem to be generally okay with people defaulting on their obligations to lenders and to companies doing likewise to their creditors so I guess this would be logically okay too.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's what happens when you start dipping into people's pockets to subsidize failed companies.

My industry is dying too, it's several times a week that I hear about people I know who are losing their jobs after 20 years or more. Good, hard working people. And they've done their jobs without an organization extorting every dime it could from the employers along the way. Meanwhile we're barely hanging on ourselves and the clock is ticking louder on that every day.

I disagree. I can't speak towards your company, of course. But I work for a large company, one who had record profits last year, even in Q4 after the economic downturn, but the rank and file haven't had raises in 6 or 7 years. Not even cost of living adjustments. So, yeah, we're getting extorted from- it's just a matter of who's doing the extorting.

This used to be one of *the* companies to work back in the 70s and 80s, known for good working conditions and taking care of their workers. Now, our little slash and burn CEO is getting paid handsomely for our billion dollar profits. Who reaps the rewards from this? Him, his group at the top, and Wall Street who bet on us.

Oh, but we're still going to be paring jobs this year and once again, no bonuses or pay raises are expected again. I'd rather have a little protection from this and some of the record profits churned back into the workers. Maybe then we'd have a higher retention rate of our good talent and be able to provide better services and products for our customers. But, no, in this system- we'd rather reward "the business owners" who had nothing do with founding this company decades ago.

As a personal note, I had multiple levels of managers basically telling all of us that there will likely not be raises and the only way to get paid more is to change jobs. So, the people good at their job either plot for their next job or do like me and ship my rear end across the country (on my own dime) to get a mildly better job so they can make slightly more money. But, more realistically, it's all to get better skills and train for the next jump, which probably won't be with this company.

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Oddly enough perhaps, I'm not comfortable with reneging on agreements like that. Fix it going forward sure, but don't take away anything that was legally obligated and IMO morally & ethically obligated as well (once it was agreed upon in good faith).

But then again, as a nation we seem to be generally okay with people defaulting on their obligations to lenders and to companies doing likewise to their creditors so I guess this would be logically okay too.

as a matter of principle i'm not comfortable with it either. but something has got to be done at some point. we have known that for years, that the retirement benefits were this massive 1000-lb weight around the neck of US automakers, and yet nothing has been done about it.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

No, that's how the economy should work. It's not how capitalism works, tho. And it's definitely not the American way. Where are the startups in big industries? Where are the new car companies? Everyone knew we were headed down this road years ago- it's not as if Honda and Toyota made these inroads overnight. So why, when times were "good", didn't someone start up a new American car company? Because you CAN'T.

Where are the new oil companies or new airlines or new financial firms, the "real companies"? You can't create new ones. It's not because we have too much regulation in this country. It's because we have too few. Entry barriers are so steep in most major industries because we don't break up our monopolies or oligopolies who are illegally leveraging their monopoly status. It's great for Wall Street and great if you're in that incestuous, recycled family of corporate "leaders" but ultimately screws the consumers and the workers, of which almost all of us are both.

Sure, you can create a new luxury item and make big money off it. One could almost argue computers were that way but they created an infrastructure all their own. But you're just not going to break into a big industry

But, in short- the misplaced vitriol over the last few months towards the car industry is almost laughable but, man, are they public enemy number 1. Scratch that, hell, unions and their billion dollar fat cat union members- they're the big enemy. You know, all those union workers in their mansions- they're the reason why we're in this mess.

Wait? You mean union members tend to make wages comparable to what most of us on the board make for much crappier jobs but everyone is faking the cost by including health care. Hell, then I bet almost everyone on this board makes $75K+ if they get health insurance since most companies pay around $30-40K per year towards your health costs and a damn lot of you guys are well into 6 figures.

The impotent unions have been made the enemy when they barely have power as it is. This isn't the MLBPA and unions haven't had real power since Reagan basically crushed them. But they sure as hell are one great scapegoat.

SI

I wasn't fighting the unions. I'm literally saying break up the large behemoths and force innovation into an industry that needs it.

It was a completely separate argument and has nothing to do with the unions. At least from my comment, but to the 'fat cats' who run these sinking battleships.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'd rather have a little protection from this and some of the record profits churned back into the workers. Maybe then we'd have a higher retention rate of our good talent and be able to provide better services and products for our customers. But, no, in this system- we'd rather reward "the business owners" who had nothing do with founding this company decades ago.

They made the investment and took the risk, they deserve the rewards as far as I can figure.

I'm definitely not talking about your situation in particular here, so please don't take it that way but to be completely candid, I don't know if there's anything more overpaid & overrated than the average American worker, so general calls for raises ring extremely hollow in my ears. Reality is that most people seem to have a fairly low replacement value any more.

Want those profits put back into the workers (again, generally speaking)? Then strive to be difficult to replace.

Instead, our collective entitlement conditioning seems to kicks in & we see a lot of people acting as though raises & bonuses should just fall from the sky by virtue of not managing to get themselves fired. Bzzt. Wrong answer.

Like I said, this is not directed as your specifics, but it's a general rant about something that really disgusts me about the state of affairs here and has for what is starting to be a pretty long time now.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I wasn't fighting the unions. I'm literally saying break up the large behemoths and force innovation into an industry that needs it.

It was a completely separate argument and has nothing to do with the unions. At least from my comment, but to the 'fat cats' who run these sinking battleships.

I know- I need to stop quoting people, talking to their point for one paragraph, and then going off on a crazy tangent about other stuff- I've been doing that a bit lately. Sorry, not all was directed at your quote

SI

[SportsDino]

Here is a thought, sheeponomics + government regulation = barriers to entry for new companies. Government regulation has not been encouraging new business formation, if you look at it, to me it appears overwhelmingly to be pro-big monopoly (minus some exceptions that get lots of hype).

Tack on people always buying bullshit brand and doubting any innovation in various fields you have a climate where mediocrity and looter CEOs thrive.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

No, when costs are figured, at least in the figures I've seen, the numbers are company wide. Even if you're right, the health costs still fall greater on American automakers as a greater number of retired workers are being paid for currently.

If you compare salary and current benefits the US companies aren't that far apart from foreign manufacturers. The main problem is the greater percentage of retirees.

By company wide, do you mean the all of the workforce in the world of the respective companies? When you put together the pension and health care costs that the Big 3 have, they already start in the hole.

[Galaxy]

A few thoughts:

1) It's not as the demand for cars will somehow go with the automakers. It might be down now to the economy, but the demand will always exist. Other car makers will build and expand plants in the US and auto parts makers will be able to compete for for contracts to supply these cars.

2) I don't do the "buy America" thing when it comes to cars. To be honest, I don't even know what that means. Just because they are headquartered in the US, that makes them "American"? Toyota, Honda, ect. are just as "American" as the Big 3 when it comes to assembling cars. They just don't have 10 brands and huge spending liabilities.

[stevew]

At this rate next years super bowl MVP will drive off in a hyndai.


There's Gotta be an option besides letting them fail or writing a blank check.

I'm for something like giving tax credits of say 25-50% on all new big 3 cars for the near future. Capped at a certain point.

At the same point the union needs to get realistic too.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

They made the investment and took the risk, they deserve the rewards as far as I can figure.

I'm definitely not talking about your situation in particular here, so please don't take it that way but to be completely candid, I don't know if there's anything more overpaid & overrated than the average American worker, so general calls for raises ring extremely hollow in my ears. Reality is that most people seem to have a fairly low replacement value any more.

Want those profits put back into the workers (again, generally speaking)? Then strive to be difficult to replace.

Instead, our collective entitlement conditioning seems to kicks in & we see a lot of people acting as though raises & bonuses should just fall from the sky by virtue of not managing to get themselves fired. Bzzt. Wrong answer.

Like I said, this is not directed as your specifics, but it's a general rant about something that really disgusts me about the state of affairs here and has for what is starting to be a pretty long time now.

No personal offense taken. It's actually something to think about. Not in a "duh, I'd never thought of anything vaguely in that realm before" but in an "that's an angle worth exploring".

It's an interesting paradox because I think one of the biggest transformations I've seen in my working lifetime, which isn't very long, is towards making procedures to make workers as fungible as possible. You see a lot of long time (20+ year) veterans replaced by people making half as much who have less than half the skill/experience, so you'd think quality of service and products would go down.

Problem is, of course, that majority of the people who make these procedures are basically glorified bean counters, completely divorced from the actual work being done. Ultimately, you can say these procedures might come back to bite companies in the hind end. However, they have a lot of resources that the little guy doesn't. It's a lot like the Mac commercial about Vista- sure, I could spend money fixing Vista, but that money is all better spent buying some PR to get me out of the problem. Now, Microsoft is going to have more problems on their hands, if Windows 7 is any indication, but if they had done that (PR buy), built a better follow up product- then they suffer very little for a lot of folly.

----
----

Taking this back to my personal life- I worked as a contractor and then as an employee for the company I currently work as a field engineer. In short, something breaks, I came to your site and fixed it. I don't have great innate mechanical skills and was in danger of getting fired my first week because I was so green. But eventually, I got quite good both at the repair side of things, and even more importantly the customer side of things and I was taken in-house when the big company decided to make a changes (see below). Once there, I became one of the go-to people, especially for big, new customers- I was one of two on my team (along with the lead, and later another transfer) who helped give good impressions to new customers. So, yeah, in short, I was as invaluable as possible in my position.

Did I get paid more than anyone else on the team? No. Hell, our team lead was a team lead in name only- he got paid the same as the rest of us, and all he had to show for it was more headaches- more responsibility but no more reward or power. There were ways to scratch out token bonuses but that's all they were. All of us on the team made the same despite people who were of varying levels of competence- I mean, we had a couple of people who probably created as much work in a day as they achieved or at least were definitely not pulling their weight- but they still made the same as those who did their work.

Personally, I had seen this for quite a while and, fortunately, had a supportive manager so, leveraged the only thing I had really gained, a good reputation, into a better job learning new stuff halfways across the country with a token pay raise that really only covered the cost of living difference.

In a perfect world, bad workers are fired and replaced with good ones, but we already could never find good new hire candidates for the relatively low pay and bad working conditions. Either that or the better people would be rewarded. However, as long as you stay ahead of or on the level with "industry standard", which is continuously falling with competition from companies in countries which have nationalized care or, more importantly, cost a few bucks a day for workers.

----
----

One thing I've seen a lot of with the company I work for is that if you can shift the money around to a different "cost center", then you can get away with bad ideas. As I said, I was a contractor. This company loves to outsource and "in-source" the field engineer work every 5-7 years and has done so now for almost 30 years. Basically, some regime will come in, see how things are (either in-house or outsourced), claim the other way saves more money and then execute that plan. Then, the plan is executed, to varying degrees of success either with outsourcing costing a little less and customers being a lot less satisfied or bringing it in-house and the unexpected costs of infrastructure eating up and sort of cost savings you hoped for and then some. Then, in 5-7 years, that regime moves on and the cycle starts all over.

----
----

In the end, this all comes back to my Ultimate Electronics example that I've probably referenced a dozen times on the board. It's from the same vein of thought that causes people to bitch about the quality of service from Best Buy but that's after they spent an hour picking the brain of the guy working elsewhere and then bought from Best Buy for $10 less. If money is all that you love, then that's what you'll receive. And that's what we have right now.

SI

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

In the end, this all comes back to my Ultimate Electronics example that I've probably referenced a dozen times on the board. It's from the same vein of thought that causes people to bitch about the quality of service from Best Buy but that's after they spent an hour picking the brain of the guy working elsewhere and then bought from Best Buy for $10 less. If money is all that you love, then that's what you'll receive. And that's what we have right now.

I think I've also posted the example of the Amiga retail outlet I used to work for in college. Sales dropped, but foot traffic stayed the same as everyone came in to pick our brains for advice, then bought mail order, then wondered where the store went...

[Warhammer]

Things come and go in cycles. When times are good, many companies seem to turn to bean counters to come in and maximize profits. The problem is they often trim too much, or not reinvest in the company because those decisions mean larger immediate profits which is all they care about.

I've worked for companies that were poorly run. When I was working for one of the largest pump companies in the world, I saw my hours increase by 50% over 3 years (from an 8 hour job to a 12 hour job) with the only compensation being the amount of headaches and threats I received. They cut the department by 66% and then wondered why I never job my job done. I gained some experience and contacts and then left.

The companies that are going to survive and thrive are those that actually invest and take care of their employees. Also, those that give their employees reasons to stay and understand that employees are a resource that are to be cultivated and not one that is to be used up.

Regarding large companies, the problem why we don't have more competition in many industries are the barriers to entry. Many of these barriers are governmental in origin, others are of a financial nature. Also, monopolies are not a problem unless they act in a manner that is predatory and seek to bar competition from entering the industry (think Microsoft in the 90s). GM did not act as a monopoly to my knowledge. We've seen a number of new entries in the auto market in the last 15 years, mostly foreign companies, but there were new entries in a market that requires large amounts of capital to start. The reason why we don't see new oil companies is a double whammy. You have both governmental barriers as well as financial barriers. Even a few years ago when oil was making all these huge profits, they were only returning something like 5-8% on their investment. Many banks wouldn't give you any money unless you showed double that even over the last few years.

Now, what could happen if you let GM go under, you might be able to get a new player in the market that steps in and buys the plants cheap. They can then tap into the labor, but under new agreements and have a more versatile management system that allows them to adapt to market forces more easily.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Oddly enough perhaps, I'm not comfortable with reneging on agreements like that. Fix it going forward sure, but don't take away anything that was legally obligated and IMO morally & ethically obligated as well (once it was agreed upon in good faith).

But then again, as a nation we seem to be generally okay with people defaulting on their obligations to lenders and to companies doing likewise to their creditors so I guess this would be logically okay too.

and creditors defaulting on their fiduciary responsibilities, disclosures responsibilities, underwriting responsibilities, as well.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

and creditors defaulting on their fiduciary responsibilities, disclosures responsibilities, underwriting responsibilities, as well.

As those change, I find them to be far less of an ethical and/or moral compulsion than the most basic notion of I borrow it then I pay you back.

I'm not talking about straight up thefts like Madoff or now Stanford apparently. But the arcane minutia of the letter of the law in this area can be technically violated even with the best of intentions.

[Flasch186]

Banking giant UBS to pay $780 million in tax case

WASHINGTON – Swiss-based banking giant UBS has agreed to pay $780 million to settle allegations it conspired to defraud the U.S. government of taxes owed by big clients.

As part of the deal struck in federal court in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., UBS has made the unprecedented step of agreeing to immediately turn over to the U.S. government account information for their U.S. customers of the bank's cross-border business.

That means federal authorities have struck a big crack in Switzerland's vaunted bank secrecy laws.

UBS will pay $780 million in fines, penalties, interest and restitution for conspiring to create sham accounts to hide the assets of United States clients from the U.S. government.

youre right. best intentions.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

youre right. best intentions.

Is that what you're down to, cherry picking examples just like the ones I specifically said weren't what I was referring to?

If it helps, I'm talking about situations where there's no intent to defraud anybody, there's legitimate confusion/misunderstanding or simple human error. That's the sort of thing I see every time I hear about an audit on a day to day local on-site level. They don't make the news, but they happen, particularly when something like Sarbanes-Oxley was first introduced and virtually no one who had to deal with it on the ground floor understood it. It seems to have improved over time as people got more familiar with it (as I don't hear nearly as much gnashing of teeth & hair pulling going on) but that's the sort of thing I was talking about.

[Flasch186]

it wasn't cherry picking but simply timely since it literally just came out, maybe even simultaneously with your post and my point is that you nor I can judge what the financiers best intentions were however we can judge them by their actions and one thing has been consistent in this mess and that is that the people at the top had no problem throwing morals AND ethics down the toilet in these times leading up to and continuing on today.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Banking giant UBS to pay $780 million in tax case



youre right. best intentions.

Who's that?

I still don't understand why UBS has to admit or pay for anything and turn over any info. Doesn't the US government have to go after the Swiss government first, before it goes after Swiss banks (such as the secrecy laws and the fact that tax evasion is not a crime in Switzerland). Wouldn't UBS be violating it's country's banking laws? I would inspect the Swiss government to be fighting this.

[Galaxy]

Dola...

Any change would have to voted on by the Swiss citizens.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

It's one thing to argue that you should let them go into bankruptcy and restructure, and sell off assets and continue to make cars - I'm actually okay with that. In fact that might be healthy, just like the airlines do.

It's another thing to suggest that we just allow the domestic auto-making industry to dissapear.

If our auto industry is incapable of competing with the rest of the world, then why not let it disappear? Yes jobs will be lost and yes there will be pain, but in the long term it's better to shift our economy to areas that we do well instead of propping up failing businesses with bad executives.

[Buccaneer]

SI, I would agree only to a small extent. Non-union auto companies have proven that they can be more adaptable to market changes, be competitive and build better cars here in the US. Other unionized labor forces, like plumbers and electricians, have been and will always be in demand and such a model works. But a better model exists for auto companies and I would love to see US-headquartered companies become like them - and that means moving away from an archaic, obsolete business model (along with a culture shift among management).

[JPhillips]

So a few years ago when American automakers were on top it was in spite of unions, but now that they're in trouble it's largely due to unions? Union members don't decide what cars get built or how they're sold.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

but in the long term it's better to shift our economy to areas that we do well.

Flipping burgers and health care?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by stevew

Flipping burgers and health care?

Looks that way these days.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by stevew

Flipping burgers and health care?

Looks that way these days.

Dang it, since the other post got deleted, mine now makes no sense.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So a few years ago when American automakers were on top it was in spite of unions, but now that they're in trouble it's largely due to unions? Union members don't decide what cars get built or how they're sold.

The unions are a great scapegoat. Blame American workers for the failures of executives to innovate and make smart business decisions. People forget that the executives cut these deals with the unions.

If GM was making a car that got 75 MPG, they would not be in this situation right now.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by stevew

Flipping burgers and health care?

Video games are doing pretty good as well

[stevew]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I think I've also posted the example of the Amiga retail outlet I used to work for in college. Sales dropped, but foot traffic stayed the same as everyone came in to pick our brains for advice, then bought mail order, then wondered where the store went...

This happens all the time at sears as well. Pick your brain for 20 mins then buy off Amazon. Its actually a brilliant system for amazon. Little risk, controlled inventory and small work force.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I still don't understand why UBS has to admit or pay for anything and turn over any info. Doesn't the US government have to go after the Swiss government first, before it goes after Swiss banks (such as the secrecy laws and the fact that tax evasion is not a crime in Switzerland).

I read two different versions of the story a total of three times trying to figure out pretty much the same thing you're asking here. I gave up when I realized that ultimately it didn't make much difference in my life since I can't even buy Swiss chocolate these days much less have a Swiss account.

The decision by the bank still all sounds very strange to me but I can't lose sleep over that any more than I can lose sleep trying to figure out why certain songs are popular or why some NBA coaches choose the rotations they they do.

[cartman]

Basically what UBS admitted to was running certain banking practices in the US without first getting approval from the banking regulatory agencies, and also creating shell companies and using the Swiss banking secrecy to move money and circumvent US tax laws.

I have a small account open at UBS from when I was living in Italy, and I got a letter last week telling me it was going to be closed at the end of March.

[RainMaker]

UBS is actually getting off easy by not facing criminal prosecution. They are also not going to have to pay extra penalties regular companies would have to.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by cartman

Looks that way these days.

Dang it, since the other post got deleted, mine now makes no sense.

My phone loves to triple dola itself in low coverage areas.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by stevew

My phone loves to triple dola itself in low coverage areas.

We have a bug incident open with RIM for our product doing something similar in low coverage areas.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by cartman

Basically what UBS admitted to was running certain banking practices in the US without first getting approval from the banking regulatory agencies, and also creating shell companies and using the Swiss banking secrecy to move money and circumvent US tax laws.

I have a small account open at UBS from when I was living in Italy, and I got a letter last week telling me it was going to be closed at the end of March.

So we aren't actually talking about Swiss bank accounts, correct, but wealth management accounts?

So is UBS basically say that US citizens cannot open Swiss bank accounts anymore (even if you go to Switzerland to open it)?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

UBS is actually getting off easy by not facing criminal prosecution. They are also not going to have to pay extra penalties regular companies would have to.

I think it would be very tough to prosecute a foreign bank like a Swiss one (where you need the support of the Swiss government).

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I think it would be very tough to prosecute a foreign bank like a Swiss one (where you need the support of the Swiss government).

There are international treaties covering this kind of stuff. UBS just isn't going to let the IRS or SEC see anything they want. But since UBS has a very large presence in the US, they are most certainly prosecutable for their actions here. Here's a decent post I found detailing the situation:

Is Offshore or Swiss Banking Dead? No way! | Protect Wealth, Wealth Creation, International Living | Q EXPERTS' BLOG

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by cartman

There are international treaties covering this kind of stuff. UBS just isn't going to let the IRS or SEC see anything they want. But since UBS has a very large presence in the US, they are most certainly prosecutable for their actions here. Here's a decent post I found detailing the situation:

Is Offshore or Swiss Banking Dead? No way! | Protect Wealth, Wealth Creation, International Living | Q EXPERTS' BLOG

I'm guess I'm just confused about the charges and what UBS did. Does UBS actually have branches in the US (which would make them US accounts)?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Does UBS actually have branches in the US (which would make them US accounts)?

Yep, they have a pretty large US operation.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by cartman

Yep, they have a pretty large US operation.

So the US is only targeting US-opened accounts correct (they would be unable to ? If I got on a plane and flew to Switzerland and opened an account (even as a US citizen), you would be protected by Swiss laws and the US couldn't do a damn thing.

Sorry for the multiple questions. I'm just trying get a clear picture on what happened (and how the US "cracked" the Swiss privacy laws).

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

So the US is only targeting US-opened accounts correct (they would be unable to ? If I got on a plane and flew to Switzerland and opened an account (even as a US citizen), you would be protected by Swiss laws and the US couldn't do a damn thing.

Sorry for the multiple questions. I'm just trying get a clear picture on what happened (and how the US "cracked" the Swiss privacy laws).

Not necessarily. You still are supposed to report any income you get off of those account. I got a form I have to file on the $12.83 I earned on the account last year. But if there were any US laws broken, for example, the illegal sheltering of income, then even though the account was in Zurich, the US could petition for investigative access.

What UBS is basically saying is that "yes, we screwed up by doing certain types of banking transactions that we were not authorized to practice in the US market, as well as helping certain individuals shelter funds that should have been reported as US income. We will cooperate with your investigations based on the info you give us, but we will not simply give you the list of names of all of our US customers."

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I think it would be very tough to prosecute a foreign bank like a Swiss one (where you need the support of the Swiss government).

I don't know how it works. But UBS is paying a large fine and selling out thousands of their top U.S. account holders to the government. You don't do that unless the other side has some leverage on you.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by cartman

Not necessarily. You still are supposed to report any income you get off of those account. I got a form I have to file on the $12.83 I earned on the account last year. But if there were any US laws broken, for example, the illegal sheltering of income, then even though the account was in Zurich, the US could petition for investigative access.

What UBS is basically saying is that "yes, we screwed up by doing certain types of banking transactions that we were not authorized to practice in the US market, as well as helping certain individuals shelter funds that should have been reported as US income. We will cooperate with your investigations based on the info you give us, but we will not simply give you the list of names of all of our US customers."

Wouldn't the Swiss government have to give the OK for Swiss banks to hand over any information? I guess the point is don't Swiss laws collide with US laws?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Wouldn't the Swiss government have to give the OK for Swiss banks to hand over any information? I guess the point is don't Swiss laws collide with US laws?

That's why there are international treaties, to handle these kinds of issues. There will be a base amount of info that UBS will have to turn over, and if the US wants more than that, it will be dealt with on a case by case basis, under the provisions of the treaty. One of the provisions of the treaty calls for joint cooperation where income tax fraud is suspected.

[SportsDino]

Getting back to GM, the reason that they had money back in the day and didn't do something to avoid this situation is why I'm hating so much on management.

The car company executives floated on money and skimmed as much off the top for themselves as they could instead of investing that money into further growth, or reduction in costs, or dealing with their union problem (that is not the cause of the company's collapse... although bad decisions in regards to unions are a major component).

A barrier to entry into the market does not have to be a law saying: "oh ya, only GM can work here". Subsidies of giant companies that are not accessible by new entrants can be just as effective a barrier an entry. It means new companies, with more costs per unit and less market share... need to make payments that the giants do not, further increasing their difficulty in competing.

If GM had to compete against something like itself when it started, it would never have survived. We need to stop the processes which create companies too big too fail, and reward transparent, aggressively competitive companies that push forward economic growth, technology, and product quality. More entrants in the market means more jobs and less profit margins for the kingpins... and our politicians know it and have been actively supporting those corporate kings of mediocrity.

[digamma]

GM launched an exchange offer today to restructure their existing debt. If you haven't followed, they have about $27B in outstanding bonds to go along with about $20B in various obligations to their various VEBA and about $10B in government debt.

The exchange offer would give bondholders 225 shares of common stock in GM for every $1,000 in GM bonds owned. The math works out to the bondholders ending up with about 10% of the equity in GM going forward.

By contrast, the UAW VEBA plans would get 50% of their debt reinstated or paid in cash and an equity stake of about 39% of the company.

Uncle Sam would own about 50% of GM going forward in exchange for wiping out GM's bailout loans.

Current common equity holders would end up with about 1% of the equity in the company.

The exchange offer is doomed to fail, as it requires 90% of bondholders to consent to be effective. That just isn't going to happen.

After the inevitable rejection of the deal, GM will either have to make a new offer or head for Chapter 11.

[flere-imsaho]

Do the bondholders really think they'll get more in Chapter 11?