Unsigned wivers to blame for rejection of gov cash

Messages
16,163
Location
Silicon Valley
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/21/report-unsigned-waivers-to-blame-for-chrysler-financial-rejecti/
 Quote:
Over the past two days, we've told you what we've heard about the latest short-term federal aid coming to Chrysler and GM. According to the latest reports, it will be $5B to the latter and $500M to the former. We also mentioned it had been reported that Chrysler Financial had inexplicably turned down an additional $750M in government aid during this most recent round of handouts. It had been speculated that it was because of a refusal by CF execs to sign off on executive compensation limits in the terms of the government agreement. Although CF denied it, the fact that they appeared to be going elsewhere for additional loan money seemed to confirm that they might not have been entirely happy with the terms of the government handout. Well, The Detroit Free Press is now reporting that a recently released report by the special inspector general's office confirms that unsigned waivers were the real reason behind the rejection. The Freep is reporting that at least some of the top 25 executives at CF "refused to sign waivers releasing the Treasury Department and the company from legal responsibility for placing strict limits on executive compensation." Even without the three-quarter-billion-dollar handout to CF, a total of $13.4B has been given to GM and Chrysler out off the $17.4B in loans President George W. Bush authorized back in December. Meanwhile, President Obama has continued to add restrictions to these handouts, rejecting the initial restructuring plans from both companies, essentially firing Rick Wagoner and telling Chrysler to make a deal with Fiat. While Chrysler has until next Wednesday to finish that deal, CF has apparently turned down the funding over the waiver issue, which had been added early this month.
Yet another proof that the top guys are there for themselves instead of the company.
 
Messages
5,153
Location
MW
Well, Chrysler is private equity owned so the execs are concerned about the size of their yachts. You would be amazed but the executives in the publicly owned companies are more responsible than these guys.
 

pbm

Messages
8,749
Location
New York
 Quote:
Yet another proof that the top guys are there for themselves instead of the company.
Do you think 'our' politicians are there for themselves or their country (or countrymen) ????
 
Messages
5,153
Location
MW
 Originally Posted By: pbm
 Quote:
Yet another proof that the top guys are there for themselves instead of the company.
Do you think 'our' politicians are there for themselves or their country (or countrymen) ????
Usually these are not bad guys. It's just that there are quite a few 'stakeholders' that they have to find a balance on what to do. But that's not relevant to the OP.
 
Messages
5,153
Location
MW
 Originally Posted By: Tempest
Are you willing to sign a salary cap, and have the cap be set by the government?
Is your salary uncapped?
 
Messages
4,838
Location
Kansas
 Originally Posted By: Tempest
Are you willing to sign a salary cap, and have the cap be set by the government?
I'm waiting for the government to take a salary cap or a pay cut. I don't believe they've done such a stellar job, but yet they sure throw the jabs at everybody that takes questions before them. While we're at it, instead of their government pension, they can go on social security like everybody else and they can pay for their own medical insurance. No, I'm not holding my breath.
 
Messages
5,153
Location
MW
 Originally Posted By: Kruse
 Originally Posted By: Tempest
Are you willing to sign a salary cap, and have the cap be set by the government?
I'm waiting for the government to take a salary cap or a pay cut. I don't believe they've done such a stellar job, but yet they sure throw the jabs at everybody that takes questions before them. While we're at it, instead of their government pension, they can go on social security like everybody else and they can pay for their own medical insurance. No, I'm not holding my breath.
FYI.
 
Messages
10,611
Location
Las Vegas NV
 Originally Posted By: CivicFan
 Originally Posted By: Tempest
Are you willing to sign a salary cap, and have the cap be set by the government?
Is your salary uncapped?
Yes. And I have signed nothing that caps it.
 
Messages
10,611
Location
Las Vegas NV
 Originally Posted By: CivicFan
 Originally Posted By: Kruse
 Originally Posted By: Tempest
Are you willing to sign a salary cap, and have the cap be set by the government?
I'm waiting for the government to take a salary cap or a pay cut. I don't believe they've done such a stellar job, but yet they sure throw the jabs at everybody that takes questions before them. While we're at it, instead of their government pension, they can go on social security like everybody else and they can pay for their own medical insurance. No, I'm not holding my breath.
FYI.
FYI #1 FYI #2
 
Messages
14,013
Location
Retired | Wausau, WI
 Originally Posted By: GrampsintheSand
Nope. Not this Government for sure.
Well, we are kind of like a board of directors. We put the suckers in there and we can take them out and put in a fresh bunch. I kind of like the old saying "out with the old, in with the new".
 
Messages
5,153
Location
MW
 Originally Posted By: Tempest
 Originally Posted By: CivicFan
 Originally Posted By: Tempest
Are you willing to sign a salary cap, and have the cap be set by the government?
Is your salary uncapped?
Yes. And I have signed nothing that caps it.
:) So why don't you ask to get paid, say, twice more? Every position in an organization has a range of pay - low end and the high end (the cap). So every position has a capped salary. You don't have to sign anything that acknowledges that. But you may try to ask your manager an see what the cap is for your job.
 

PandaBear

Thread starter
Messages
16,163
Location
Silicon Valley
 Originally Posted By: Tempest
Are you willing to sign a salary cap, and have the cap be set by the government?
Yes, when I was working for a struggling company I was accepting a paycut.
 
Messages
10,611
Location
Las Vegas NV
 Originally Posted By: CivicFan
 Originally Posted By: Tempest
 Originally Posted By: CivicFan
 Originally Posted By: Tempest
Are you willing to sign a salary cap, and have the cap be set by the government?
Is your salary uncapped?
Yes. And I have signed nothing that caps it.
:) So why don't you ask to get paid, say, twice more? Every position in an organization has a range of pay - low end and the high end (the cap). So every position has a capped salary. You don't have to sign anything that acknowledges that. But you may try to ask your manager an see what the cap is for your job.
That is the free market at work. I get paid by my value, both by how my employer values me, and how I value myself. Government setting an arbitrary dollar value is not a free market solution. The people that refused this money don't want arbitrary caps.
 

PandaBear

Thread starter
Messages
16,163
Location
Silicon Valley
 Originally Posted By: Tempest
Government setting an arbitrary dollar value is not a free market solution. The people that refused this money don't want arbitrary caps.
You are missing the point here. It is the best interest of the share holder that the executives need to protect, not themselves. Of course, maybe they are looking to be fired so they can collect the golden parachute.
 
Messages
10,611
Location
Las Vegas NV
 Quote:
You are missing the point here. It is the best interest of the share holder that the executives need to protect, not themselves.
So having more of their company nationalized by the Government is in the best interest of their stock holders? They have seen what is going on with GM (including gov. wanting to take equity) and want to minimize their exposure.
 

PandaBear

Thread starter
Messages
16,163
Location
Silicon Valley
 Originally Posted By: Tempest
So having more of their company nationalized by the Government is in the best interest of their stock holders? They have seen what is going on with GM (including gov. wanting to take equity) and want to minimize their exposure.
You are still missing the point. The article said the main reason they were rejecting the TARP money is not because it is not a good deal for the share holder (Chrysler may go bankrupt), but because the top executives refuse to sign the waivers.
 
Messages
39,806
Location
Pottstown, PA
 Originally Posted By: Tempest
Are you willing to sign a salary cap, and have the cap be set by the government?
If I'm on the public dole ...DARN RIGHT. Sorry ..beggars need to sing for their supper.
 
Messages
10,611
Location
Las Vegas NV
 Originally Posted By: PandaBear
 Originally Posted By: Tempest
So having more of their company nationalized by the Government is in the best interest of their stock holders? They have seen what is going on with GM (including gov. wanting to take equity) and want to minimize their exposure.
You are still missing the point. The article said the main reason they were rejecting the TARP money is not because it is not a good deal for the share holder (Chrysler may go bankrupt), but because the top executives refuse to sign the waivers.
If Chrysler goes under, the exec's loose ALL of their pay. They appear to believe they can make it without gov. help. With the gov. refusing to take bank money back in order keep control of them, any company that takes gov. money is nuts or in bed with them. Notice the removal of the GM CEO and their new willingness to accept a debt for equity deal...
 
Top