3 ms·

Another way of describing that story is they held the bonds into bankruptcy and didn't come out on top of the legal/political battle. This battle was always go

Another way of describing that story is they held the bonds into bankruptcy and didn't come out on top of the legal/political battle. This battle was always going to happen! They just thought they had the better legal arrangement and would instead stick it to the pensioners. I have no sympathy.

gruez 5y ago
>They just thought they had the better legal arrangement and would instead stick it to the pensioners. I have no sympathy No sympathy why? Because they're greedy investors and on the other side are hard working honest pensioners?
- refenestrator 5y ago
  That's an oversimplification, but it doesn't hurt as far as sympathies. My actual issue is more along the lines of caveat emptor. People bought junk bonds in a company that then went bankrupt. That means they're going to be in court trying to recover money, and there's a lot of risk there about what they might or might not recover. To the extent that the legal resolution was unprecedented... so was the top carmaker entering bankruptcy with all of those employees and pensions on their books. Biggest bankruptcy of that sort since the depression. Precedent isn't a suicide pact, when things get weird then people can adapt.
  - opo 5y ago
    >..so was the top carmaker entering bankruptcy with all of those employees and pensions on their books. Biggest bankruptcy of that sort since the depression. Precedent isn't a suicide pact, when things get weird then people can adapt. The example I quoted was about Chrysler. The actual largest bankruptcy was Lehman Brothers not Chrysler (or GM) The Lehman Brothers bankruptcy was about 15 times larger larger than Chrysler. If the government wanted to save the pension, then the government should have increased the bailout to pay for it. This would have been better than breaking the rule of law just because the non-secured creditors have more political pull.

gruez 5y ago

>They just thought they had the better legal arrangement and would instead stick it to the pensioners. I have no sympathy No sympathy why? Because they're greedy investors and on the other side are hard working honest pensioners?

refenestrator 5y ago
That's an oversimplification, but it doesn't hurt as far as sympathies. My actual issue is more along the lines of caveat emptor. People bought junk bonds in a company that then went bankrupt. That means they're going to be in court trying to recover money, and there's a lot of risk there about what they might or might not recover. To the extent that the legal resolution was unprecedented... so was the top carmaker entering bankruptcy with all of those employees and pensions on their books. Biggest bankruptcy of that sort since the depression. Precedent isn't a suicide pact, when things get weird then people can adapt.
- opo 5y ago
  >..so was the top carmaker entering bankruptcy with all of those employees and pensions on their books. Biggest bankruptcy of that sort since the depression. Precedent isn't a suicide pact, when things get weird then people can adapt. The example I quoted was about Chrysler. The actual largest bankruptcy was Lehman Brothers not Chrysler (or GM) The Lehman Brothers bankruptcy was about 15 times larger larger than Chrysler. If the government wanted to save the pension, then the government should have increased the bailout to pay for it. This would have been better than breaking the rule of law just because the non-secured creditors have more political pull.