Tesla fired up to 700ppl this week.
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: Tesla fired up to 700ppl this week.
I know that at SpaceX they do evaluations and the top 10% get great raises, including cash bonuses and stock grants, the middle 80% COLA and the bottom 10% get let go. There is such a high demand from potential employees to work there that they don't need to keep the under performers. I expect he's doing the same thing at Tesla.
Re: Tesla fired up to 700ppl this week.
Honestly, organizations should turnover their staff by 5-10% each year or so. Enabling deadbeats is more costly than the cost to replace those employees.133743Hokie wrote:I know that at SpaceX they do evaluations and the top 10% get great raises, including cash bonuses and stock grants, the middle 80% COLA and the bottom 10% get let go. There is such a high demand from potential employees to work there that they don't need to keep the under performers. I expect he's doing the same thing at Tesla.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
Re: Tesla fired up to 700ppl this week.
133743Hokie wrote:I know that at SpaceX they do evaluations and the top 10% get great raises, including cash bonuses and stock grants, the middle 80% COLA and the bottom 10% get let go. There is such a high demand from potential employees to work there that they don't need to keep the under performers. I expect he's doing the same thing at Tesla.
I like that model where possible, but it seems odd as they should be ramping up production for their new car this summer. Curious where the layoffs are and how this compares with previous years. Related to an acquisition?
-
- Posts: 3192
- Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:27 pm
Re: Tesla fired up to 700ppl this week.
CLEAR sign of white privilege. Whites aren't held to standards at work, they keep their jobs simply because they are white. Tesla firing 700- mostly white- people is an anomaly and not indicative of privileged white america
Re: Tesla fired up to 700ppl this week.
I highly recommend the biography of musk. It's damn good reading. Musk is notorious for being a tough employer. He has the top choice of the brightest engineers and business people in the world desperate to work for him. He has long rewarded brilliant top performers and fired the average. He's done it going back several companies.
I think he has surpassed Jobs as the most impressive American* busInessman in recent decades. Like jobs, he would be a nightmare to work for. He is so demanding and brilliant, it's tough to keep up. I think all the real deal conservatives on here would admire his management style, it's a meritocracy with no political correctness.
With the entire global auto industry moving to electrics, he is going to have massive competition in the next phase of his business.
He won the philosophical war to establish electric cars as the dominant form all car companies and buyers are moving towards. Then he open sourced all Tesla's patents. Now he has to fight much larger companies, many of whom like GM take massive government gifts of cash or like Volvo have the government of the largest auto market tipping the scales in their favor. Musk is a capitalist fighting with the equity of his shareholders against all the government backed companies. That will be tough.
I think he has surpassed Jobs as the most impressive American* busInessman in recent decades. Like jobs, he would be a nightmare to work for. He is so demanding and brilliant, it's tough to keep up. I think all the real deal conservatives on here would admire his management style, it's a meritocracy with no political correctness.
With the entire global auto industry moving to electrics, he is going to have massive competition in the next phase of his business.
He won the philosophical war to establish electric cars as the dominant form all car companies and buyers are moving towards. Then he open sourced all Tesla's patents. Now he has to fight much larger companies, many of whom like GM take massive government gifts of cash or like Volvo have the government of the largest auto market tipping the scales in their favor. Musk is a capitalist fighting with the equity of his shareholders against all the government backed companies. That will be tough.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Tesla fired up to 700ppl this week.
I went trolling yesterday too, only I nailed a trophy fish in the process.fatman wrote:I highly recommend the biography of musk. It's damn good reading. Musk is notorious for being a tough employer. He has the top choice of the brightest engineers and business people in the world desperate to work for him. He has long rewarded brilliant top performers and fired the average. He's done it going back several companies.
I think he has surpassed Jobs as the most impressive American* busInessman in recent decades. Like jobs, he would be a nightmare to work for. He is so demanding and brilliant, it's tough to keep up. I think all the real deal conservatives on here would admire his management style, it's a meritocracy with no political correctness.
With the entire global auto industry moving to electrics, he is going to have massive competition in the next phase of his business.
He won the philosophical war to establish electric cars as the dominant form all car companies and buyers are moving towards. Then he open sourced all Tesla's patents. Now he has to fight much larger companies, many of whom like GM take massive government gifts of cash or like Volvo have the government of the largest auto market tipping the scales in their favor. Musk is a capitalist fighting with the equity of his shareholders against all the government backed companies. That will be tough.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: Tesla fired up to 700ppl this week.
you have seen the data showing that if we were to go to all electric vehicle fleet that we would need to build many many power plants? And that to convert or build all the charging stations that would be necessary would mean millions to individual service stations? And that even the fastest charge times means you will have long lines and waiting to get more juice for the vehicles? But the problem remains, the power grid is struggling now at peak times, so what are you using to make the massive amount of power needed to charge all the cars if the rest of the car makers pull the moronic move of going all electric?fatman wrote:I highly recommend the biography of musk. It's damn good reading. Musk is notorious for being a tough employer. He has the top choice of the brightest engineers and business people in the world desperate to work for him. He has long rewarded brilliant top performers and fired the average. He's done it going back several companies.
I think he has surpassed Jobs as the most impressive American* busInessman in recent decades. Like jobs, he would be a nightmare to work for. He is so demanding and brilliant, it's tough to keep up. I think all the real deal conservatives on here would admire his management style, it's a meritocracy with no political correctness.
With the entire global auto industry moving to electrics, he is going to have massive competition in the next phase of his business.
He won the philosophical war to establish electric cars as the dominant form all car companies and buyers are moving towards. Then he open sourced all Tesla's patents. Now he has to fight much larger companies, many of whom like GM take massive government gifts of cash or like Volvo have the government of the largest auto market tipping the scales in their favor. Musk is a capitalist fighting with the equity of his shareholders against all the government backed companies. That will be tough.
-
- Posts: 1479
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm
Re: Tesla fired up to 700ppl this week.
You mean except for the almost $5B in grants he's taken from the government to fight the government backed companies?
fatman wrote:I highly recommend the biography of musk. It's damn good reading. Musk is notorious for being a tough employer. He has the top choice of the brightest engineers and business people in the world desperate to work for him. He has long rewarded brilliant top performers and fired the average. He's done it going back several companies.
I think he has surpassed Jobs as the most impressive American* busInessman in recent decades. Like jobs, he would be a nightmare to work for. He is so demanding and brilliant, it's tough to keep up. I think all the real deal conservatives on here would admire his management style, it's a meritocracy with no political correctness.
With the entire global auto industry moving to electrics, he is going to have massive competition in the next phase of his business.
He won the philosophical war to establish electric cars as the dominant form all car companies and buyers are moving towards. Then he open sourced all Tesla's patents. Now he has to fight much larger companies, many of whom like GM take massive government gifts of cash or like Volvo have the government of the largest auto market tipping the scales in their favor. Musk is a capitalist fighting with the equity of his shareholders against all the government backed companies. That will be tough.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: Tesla fired up to 700ppl this week.
that ruins the whole scenario, just forget the $5 bil, or that Ford is a public company and took nothing from the gov or that GM paid back all that they borrowed from the gov years agoMcl3 Hokie wrote:You mean except for the almost $5B in grants he's taken from the government to fight the government backed companies?
fatman wrote:I highly recommend the biography of musk. It's damn good reading. Musk is notorious for being a tough employer. He has the top choice of the brightest engineers and business people in the world desperate to work for him. He has long rewarded brilliant top performers and fired the average. He's done it going back several companies.
I think he has surpassed Jobs as the most impressive American* busInessman in recent decades. Like jobs, he would be a nightmare to work for. He is so demanding and brilliant, it's tough to keep up. I think all the real deal conservatives on here would admire his management style, it's a meritocracy with no political correctness.
With the entire global auto industry moving to electrics, he is going to have massive competition in the next phase of his business.
He won the philosophical war to establish electric cars as the dominant form all car companies and buyers are moving towards. Then he open sourced all Tesla's patents. Now he has to fight much larger companies, many of whom like GM take massive government gifts of cash or like Volvo have the government of the largest auto market tipping the scales in their favor. Musk is a capitalist fighting with the equity of his shareholders against all the government backed companies. That will be tough.
Or that anyone that buys an electric vehicle from any mfr gets a whole bunch of tax dollars for doing that, when I bought my chevy this Jan I got zippo
Re: Tesla fired up to 700ppl this week.
[quote="cwtcr hokie"]that ruins the whole scenario, just forget the $5 bil, or that Ford is a public company and took nothing from the gov or that GM paid back all that they borrowed from the gov years ago/quote]
Are you sure about that?
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/general-motors-debt/
Are you sure about that?
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/general-motors-debt/
We lived through Obama, you'll live through Trump
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: Tesla fired up to 700ppl this week.
Did you even read your own link? You may want to, as per YOUR link they did repay the LOAN funds in full. And gave back any loan funds not ever used. I do not believe that the fed gov still owns any GM stock but taking stock was a dumb idea to start with but if they did hold it until say today they prob. could have made a gain on it.RWNJ wrote:cwtcr hokie wrote:that ruins the whole scenario, just forget the $5 bil, or that Ford is a public company and took nothing from the gov or that GM paid back all that they borrowed from the gov years ago/quote]
Are you sure about that?
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/general-motors-debt/
So yes, my post was 100% correct
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: Tesla fired up to 700ppl this week.
Yes, GM paid back their loan. But the government crushed the shareholders; a move that was illegal.cwtcr hokie wrote:Did you even read your own link? You may want to, as per YOUR link they did repay the LOAN funds in full. And gave back any loan funds not ever used. I do not believe that the fed gov still owns any GM stock but taking stock was a dumb idea to start with but if they did hold it until say today they prob. could have made a gain on it.RWNJ wrote:cwtcr hokie wrote:that ruins the whole scenario, just forget the $5 bil, or that Ford is a public company and took nothing from the gov or that GM paid back all that they borrowed from the gov years ago/quote]
Are you sure about that?
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/general-motors-debt/
So yes, my post was 100% correct
Re: Tesla fired up to 700ppl this week.
Well, call me a skeptic, but there is much more to the story about GM repaying all the money borrowed. Repaying the Govt with Govt funds is not the same as repaying from earnings.cwtcr hokie wrote:Did you even read your own link? You may want to, as per YOUR link they did repay the LOAN funds in full. And gave back any loan funds not ever used. I do not believe that the fed gov still owns any GM stock but taking stock was a dumb idea to start with but if they did hold it until say today they prob. could have made a gain on it.RWNJ wrote:cwtcr hokie wrote:that ruins the whole scenario, just forget the $5 bil, or that Ford is a public company and took nothing from the gov or that GM paid back all that they borrowed from the gov years ago/quote]
Are you sure about that?
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/general-motors-debt/
So yes, my post was 100% correct
http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth ... 266330.php
We lived through Obama, you'll live through Trump
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: Tesla fired up to 700ppl this week.
what are you talking about, all of the tarp funds were not spent, the cash was sitting in an escrow account, GM just gave it back, that is not repaying a loan with a loan or else the new loan would be on their balance sheet, its not. A loan was repaid and an escrow acct on the asset side of the balance sheet was closed. FYI, cash in a business is cash, its not identified so it does not matter the source of the funds, if it is from operations then it comes out of cash flow, if it is with new debt or equity it is shown on the liablity side of the balance sheetRWNJ wrote:Well, call me a skeptic, but there is much more to the story about GM repaying all the money borrowed. Repaying the Govt with Govt funds is not the same as repaying from earnings.cwtcr hokie wrote:Did you even read your own link? You may want to, as per YOUR link they did repay the LOAN funds in full. And gave back any loan funds not ever used. I do not believe that the fed gov still owns any GM stock but taking stock was a dumb idea to start with but if they did hold it until say today they prob. could have made a gain on it.RWNJ wrote:cwtcr hokie wrote:that ruins the whole scenario, just forget the $5 bil, or that Ford is a public company and took nothing from the gov or that GM paid back all that they borrowed from the gov years ago/quote]
Are you sure about that?
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/general-motors-debt/
So yes, my post was 100% correct
http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth ... 266330.php
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: Tesla fired up to 700ppl this week.
The government and GM screwed their bondholders and protected the UAW, it's that simple.cwtcr hokie wrote:what are you talking about, all of the tarp funds were not spent, the cash was sitting in an escrow account, GM just gave it back, that is not repaying a loan with a loan or else the new loan would be on their balance sheet, its not. A loan was repaid and an escrow acct on the asset side of the balance sheet was closed. FYI, cash in a business is cash, its not identified so it does not matter the source of the funds, if it is from operations then it comes out of cash flow, if it is with new debt or equity it is shown on the liablity side of the balance sheetRWNJ wrote:Well, call me a skeptic, but there is much more to the story about GM repaying all the money borrowed. Repaying the Govt with Govt funds is not the same as repaying from earnings.cwtcr hokie wrote:Did you even read your own link? You may want to, as per YOUR link they did repay the LOAN funds in full. And gave back any loan funds not ever used. I do not believe that the fed gov still owns any GM stock but taking stock was a dumb idea to start with but if they did hold it until say today they prob. could have made a gain on it.RWNJ wrote:cwtcr hokie wrote:that ruins the whole scenario, just forget the $5 bil, or that Ford is a public company and took nothing from the gov or that GM paid back all that they borrowed from the gov years ago/quote]
Are you sure about that?
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/general-motors-debt/
So yes, my post was 100% correct
http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth ... 266330.php
-
- Posts: 1479
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm
Re: Tesla fired up to 700ppl this week.
Bingo. The fix was in on this one. The labor unions pensions got funded, but white color workers got the shaft.
133743Hokie wrote:The government and GM screwed their bondholders and protected the UAW, it's that simple.cwtcr hokie wrote:what are you talking about, all of the tarp funds were not spent, the cash was sitting in an escrow account, GM just gave it back, that is not repaying a loan with a loan or else the new loan would be on their balance sheet, its not. A loan was repaid and an escrow acct on the asset side of the balance sheet was closed. FYI, cash in a business is cash, its not identified so it does not matter the source of the funds, if it is from operations then it comes out of cash flow, if it is with new debt or equity it is shown on the liablity side of the balance sheetRWNJ wrote:Well, call me a skeptic, but there is much more to the story about GM repaying all the money borrowed. Repaying the Govt with Govt funds is not the same as repaying from earnings.cwtcr hokie wrote:Did you even read your own link? You may want to, as per YOUR link they did repay the LOAN funds in full. And gave back any loan funds not ever used. I do not believe that the fed gov still owns any GM stock but taking stock was a dumb idea to start with but if they did hold it until say today they prob. could have made a gain on it.RWNJ wrote:cwtcr hokie wrote:that ruins the whole scenario, just forget the $5 bil, or that Ford is a public company and took nothing from the gov or that GM paid back all that they borrowed from the gov years ago/quote]
Are you sure about that?
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/general-motors-debt/
So yes, my post was 100% correct
http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth ... 266330.php
Re: Tesla fired up to 700ppl this week.
Yup.133743Hokie wrote:Yes, GM paid back their loan. But the government crushed the shareholders; a move that was illegal.cwtcr hokie wrote:Did you even read your own link? You may want to, as per YOUR link they did repay the LOAN funds in full. And gave back any loan funds not ever used. I do not believe that the fed gov still owns any GM stock but taking stock was a dumb idea to start with but if they did hold it until say today they prob. could have made a gain on it.RWNJ wrote:cwtcr hokie wrote:that ruins the whole scenario, just forget the $5 bil, or that Ford is a public company and took nothing from the gov or that GM paid back all that they borrowed from the gov years ago/quote]
Are you sure about that?
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/general-motors-debt/
So yes, my post was 100% correct
Re: Tesla fired up to 700ppl this week.
133743Hokie wrote:The government and GM screwed their bondholders and protected the UAW, it's that simple.cwtcr hokie wrote:what are you talking about, all of the tarp funds were not spent, the cash was sitting in an escrow account, GM just gave it back, that is not repaying a loan with a loan or else the new loan would be on their balance sheet, its not. A loan was repaid and an escrow acct on the asset side of the balance sheet was closed. FYI, cash in a business is cash, its not identified so it does not matter the source of the funds, if it is from operations then it comes out of cash flow, if it is with new debt or equity it is shown on the liablity side of the balance sheetRWNJ wrote:Well, call me a skeptic, but there is much more to the story about GM repaying all the money borrowed. Repaying the Govt with Govt funds is not the same as repaying from earnings.cwtcr hokie wrote:Did you even read your own link? You may want to, as per YOUR link they did repay the LOAN funds in full. And gave back any loan funds not ever used. I do not believe that the fed gov still owns any GM stock but taking stock was a dumb idea to start with but if they did hold it until say today they prob. could have made a gain on it.RWNJ wrote:cwtcr hokie wrote:that ruins the whole scenario, just forget the $5 bil, or that Ford is a public company and took nothing from the gov or that GM paid back all that they borrowed from the gov years ago/quote]
Are you sure about that?
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/general-motors-debt/
So yes, my post was 100% correct
http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth ... 266330.php
...and yup.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: Tesla fired up to 700ppl this week.
Yes Bankruptcy sucks, been thru one at a company I was the controller of, it sucks out loud. The only people not screwed in the fiasco was the lawyers, they made out like bandits, all of them.133743Hokie wrote:The government and GM screwed their bondholders and protected the UAW, it's that simple.cwtcr hokie wrote:what are you talking about, all of the tarp funds were not spent, the cash was sitting in an escrow account, GM just gave it back, that is not repaying a loan with a loan or else the new loan would be on their balance sheet, its not. A loan was repaid and an escrow acct on the asset side of the balance sheet was closed. FYI, cash in a business is cash, its not identified so it does not matter the source of the funds, if it is from operations then it comes out of cash flow, if it is with new debt or equity it is shown on the liablity side of the balance sheetRWNJ wrote:Well, call me a skeptic, but there is much more to the story about GM repaying all the money borrowed. Repaying the Govt with Govt funds is not the same as repaying from earnings.cwtcr hokie wrote:Did you even read your own link? You may want to, as per YOUR link they did repay the LOAN funds in full. And gave back any loan funds not ever used. I do not believe that the fed gov still owns any GM stock but taking stock was a dumb idea to start with but if they did hold it until say today they prob. could have made a gain on it.RWNJ wrote:cwtcr hokie wrote:that ruins the whole scenario, just forget the $5 bil, or that Ford is a public company and took nothing from the gov or that GM paid back all that they borrowed from the gov years ago/quote]
Are you sure about that?
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/general-motors-debt/
So yes, my post was 100% correct
http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth ... 266330.php
But the GM bankruptcy was necessary as if GM had stopped making payments to the thousands of part suppliers in the US it would have been devastating to many and most of the companies would have folded quickly. I know, one of my previous jobs was a controller for a company that sold parts to GM. But yes, everyone except the lawyers get screwed in a bankruptcy
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: Tesla fired up to 700ppl this week.
The problem is that GM DIDN'T go thru bankruptcy. If it had then the bondholders would have been paid out. They went thru a government directed restructuring. The USG took 50% ownership for a $20B loan, the UAW got a 39% stake for restructuring $10B in long term obligations, and the bondholders (first in line thru legal bankruptcy proceeding) only received a 10% ownership stake for their $27B. Seems just a little slanted towards the union don't you think? The USG went outside normal law and screwed the bondholders to benefit the union workers.cwtcr hokie wrote:Yes Bankruptcy sucks, been thru one at a company I was the controller of, it sucks out loud. The only people not screwed in the fiasco was the lawyers, they made out like bandits, all of them.133743Hokie wrote:The government and GM screwed their bondholders and protected the UAW, it's that simple.cwtcr hokie wrote:what are you talking about, all of the tarp funds were not spent, the cash was sitting in an escrow account, GM just gave it back, that is not repaying a loan with a loan or else the new loan would be on their balance sheet, its not. A loan was repaid and an escrow acct on the asset side of the balance sheet was closed. FYI, cash in a business is cash, its not identified so it does not matter the source of the funds, if it is from operations then it comes out of cash flow, if it is with new debt or equity it is shown on the liablity side of the balance sheetRWNJ wrote:Well, call me a skeptic, but there is much more to the story about GM repaying all the money borrowed. Repaying the Govt with Govt funds is not the same as repaying from earnings.cwtcr hokie wrote:Did you even read your own link? You may want to, as per YOUR link they did repay the LOAN funds in full. And gave back any loan funds not ever used. I do not believe that the fed gov still owns any GM stock but taking stock was a dumb idea to start with but if they did hold it until say today they prob. could have made a gain on it.RWNJ wrote:
So yes, my post was 100% correct
http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth ... 266330.php
But the GM bankruptcy was necessary as if GM had stopped making payments to the thousands of part suppliers in the US it would have been devastating to many and most of the companies would have folded quickly. I know, one of my previous jobs was a controller for a company that sold parts to GM. But yes, everyone except the lawyers get screwed in a bankruptcy
I had no problem with GM "failing". That's what bad businesses do.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: Tesla fired up to 700ppl this week.
quote="cwtcr hokie"]
But the GM bankruptcy was necessary as if GM had stopped making payments to the thousands of part suppliers in the US it would have been devastating to many and most of the companies would have folded quickly. I know, one of my previous jobs was a controller for a company that sold parts to GM. But yes, everyone except the lawyers get screwed in a bankruptcy[/quote]
The problem is that GM DIDN'T go thru bankruptcy. If it had then the bondholders would have been paid out. They went thru a government directed restructuring. The USG took 50% ownership for a $20B loan, the UAW got a 39% stake for restructuring $10B in long term obligations, and the bondholders (first in line thru legal bankruptcy proceeding) only received a 10% ownership stake for their $27B. Seems just a little slanted towards the union don't you think? The USG went outside normal law and screwed the bondholders to benefit the union workers.
I had no problem with GM "failing". That's what bad businesses do.[/quote]
You should have a big problem with GM failing, it would have been disastrous for the economy at the time, there are literally thousands of part suppliers that would have ceased operations if the accounts payable was not paid, if any interruption in those payments occurred. I know, I was the financial guy at one of those exact companies and I saw the GM mess coming and left before it occurred. Thank god it was not a normal bankruptcy as in a normal one any bills not paid on the date the bankruptcy is declared do not get paid until the case is settled which can be years down the road. In any bankruptcy someone is taking a hair cut, just not the lawyers
Yes Bankruptcy sucks, been thru one at a company I was the controller of, it sucks out loud. The only people not screwed in the fiasco was the lawyers, they made out like bandits, all of them.133743Hokie wrote:The government and GM screwed their bondholders and protected the UAW, it's that simple.cwtcr hokie wrote:what are you talking about, all of the tarp funds were not spent, the cash was sitting in an escrow account, GM just gave it back, that is not repaying a loan with a loan or else the new loan would be on their balance sheet, its not. A loan was repaid and an escrow acct on the asset side of the balance sheet was closed. FYI, cash in a business is cash, its not identified so it does not matter the source of the funds, if it is from operations then it comes out of cash flow, if it is with new debt or equity it is shown on the liablity side of the balance sheetRWNJ wrote:Well, call me a skeptic, but there is much more to the story about GM repaying all the money borrowed. Repaying the Govt with Govt funds is not the same as repaying from earnings.cwtcr hokie wrote:Did you even read your own link? You may want to, as per YOUR link they did repay the LOAN funds in full. And gave back any loan funds not ever used. I do not believe that the fed gov still owns any GM stock but taking stock was a dumb idea to start with but if they did hold it until say today they prob. could have made a gain on it.RWNJ wrote:
So yes, my post was 100% correct
http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth ... 266330.php
But the GM bankruptcy was necessary as if GM had stopped making payments to the thousands of part suppliers in the US it would have been devastating to many and most of the companies would have folded quickly. I know, one of my previous jobs was a controller for a company that sold parts to GM. But yes, everyone except the lawyers get screwed in a bankruptcy[/quote]
The problem is that GM DIDN'T go thru bankruptcy. If it had then the bondholders would have been paid out. They went thru a government directed restructuring. The USG took 50% ownership for a $20B loan, the UAW got a 39% stake for restructuring $10B in long term obligations, and the bondholders (first in line thru legal bankruptcy proceeding) only received a 10% ownership stake for their $27B. Seems just a little slanted towards the union don't you think? The USG went outside normal law and screwed the bondholders to benefit the union workers.
I had no problem with GM "failing". That's what bad businesses do.[/quote]
You should have a big problem with GM failing, it would have been disastrous for the economy at the time, there are literally thousands of part suppliers that would have ceased operations if the accounts payable was not paid, if any interruption in those payments occurred. I know, I was the financial guy at one of those exact companies and I saw the GM mess coming and left before it occurred. Thank god it was not a normal bankruptcy as in a normal one any bills not paid on the date the bankruptcy is declared do not get paid until the case is settled which can be years down the road. In any bankruptcy someone is taking a hair cut, just not the lawyers
-
- Posts: 18547
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm
Re: Tesla fired up to 700ppl this week.
The problem is that GM DIDN'T go thru bankruptcy. If it had then the bondholders would have been paid out. They went thru a government directed restructuring. The USG took 50% ownership for a $20B loan, the UAW got a 39% stake for restructuring $10B in long term obligations, and the bondholders (first in line thru legal bankruptcy proceeding) only received a 10% ownership stake for their $27B. Seems just a little slanted towards the union don't you think? The USG went outside normal law and screwed the bondholders to benefit the union workers.cwtcr hokie wrote:quote="cwtcr hokie"]Yes Bankruptcy sucks, been thru one at a company I was the controller of, it sucks out loud. The only people not screwed in the fiasco was the lawyers, they made out like bandits, all of them.133743Hokie wrote:The government and GM screwed their bondholders and protected the UAW, it's that simple.cwtcr hokie wrote:what are you talking about, all of the tarp funds were not spent, the cash was sitting in an escrow account, GM just gave it back, that is not repaying a loan with a loan or else the new loan would be on their balance sheet, its not. A loan was repaid and an escrow acct on the asset side of the balance sheet was closed. FYI, cash in a business is cash, its not identified so it does not matter the source of the funds, if it is from operations then it comes out of cash flow, if it is with new debt or equity it is shown on the liablity side of the balance sheetRWNJ wrote:Well, call me a skeptic, but there is much more to the story about GM repaying all the money borrowed. Repaying the Govt with Govt funds is not the same as repaying from earnings.cwtcr hokie wrote:Did you even read your own link? You may want to, as per YOUR link they did repay the LOAN funds in full. And gave back any loan funds not ever used. I do not believe that the fed gov still owns any GM stock but taking stock was a dumb idea to start with but if they did hold it until say today they prob. could have made a gain on it.RWNJ wrote:
So yes, my post was 100% correct
http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth ... 266330.php
But the GM bankruptcy was necessary as if GM had stopped making payments to the thousands of part suppliers in the US it would have been devastating to many and most of the companies would have folded quickly. I know, one of my previous jobs was a controller for a company that sold parts to GM. But yes, everyone except the lawyers get screwed in a bankruptcy
I had no problem with GM "failing". That's what bad businesses do.[/quote]
You should have a big problem with GM failing, it would have been disastrous for the economy at the time, there are literally thousands of part suppliers that would have ceased operations if the accounts payable was not paid, if any interruption in those payments occurred. I know, I was the financial guy at one of those exact companies and I saw the GM mess coming and left before it occurred. Thank god it was not a normal bankruptcy as in a normal one any bills not paid on the date the bankruptcy is declared do not get paid until the case is settled which can be years down the road. In any bankruptcy someone is taking a hair cut, just not the lawyers[/quote]
The bottom line is that GM got a huge benefit from government interference, money, and influence. GM is a very poor example when it comes to being financially self sustaining.
Re: Tesla fired up to 700ppl this week.
1) The government could not allow GM to go out of business, period. The ripple effect thru tiered suppliers would've devastated the economy.
2) GM is also a strategic asset in the event war occurs, so no, going out of business was not an option.
3) UAW members should've taken a bigger haircut because their bloated contracts played a VERY large role in why GM was 'restructured'.
2) GM is also a strategic asset in the event war occurs, so no, going out of business was not an option.
3) UAW members should've taken a bigger haircut because their bloated contracts played a VERY large role in why GM was 'restructured'.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: Tesla fired up to 700ppl this week.
GM bankruptcy would not have devastated the economy any more than failing banks or mortgage lenders did. Your personal closeness to this has clouded your view. I suggest you read any of the many papers and books written on this matter and you'll see things differently.HokieJoe wrote:1) The government could not allow GM to go out of business, period. The ripple effect thru tiered suppliers would've devastated the economy.
2) GM is also a strategic asset in the event war occurs, so no, going out of business was not an option.
3) UAW members should've taken a bigger haircut because their bloated contracts played a VERY large role in why GM was 'restructured'.
GM isn't any more "strategic" than dozens of other businesses. Given how wars are now fought they would be a minor player at best, and even then only in a holocaustic type of war.