Bondholder furious over GM bankruptcy

Status
Not open for further replies.

axxomarketing

New member
Aug 21, 2007
553
5
0
Bondholder furious over GM bankruptcy – amFIX - CNN.com Blogs


General Motors turns to bankruptcy today in the hopes of finding a new start. The move comes after a majority of those holding $27 billion in GM bonds agreed to swap that debt for a stake in the new General Motors.

Debra June is a small bondholder who six years ago invested $70,000 in GM bonds. She predicts that investment is now worth less than $200. She spoke to John Roberts on CNN’s “American Morning” Monday.

John Roberts: You invested $70,000 in GM bonds some six years ago. As a result of this deal, that is going to be converted to equity shares. What’s that investment worth now?

Debra June: Well, what happened, John, I got this booklet at the original thing. This is a 200-page booklet and they sent this in the mail and the offering was two shares of stock for every $1,000. That’s 140 shares of stock. They said originally in the booklet it was going to be 225 shares, but as you kept reading the booklet it said they were going to convert that to 101 reverse-split, which would be two shares of stock. $70,000 for 140 shares of stock.

There was no way I was going to take the deal. Then they came out and they sweetened the deal. And I tried to contact General Motors. I left a message with the people I called up. I talked to the people on the phone. I e-mailed two e-mails, “Please let me know what the deal is.” I’m with GM Bondholders Unite, the 60-plus group and also the Main Street Bondholders. What they’re doing to the people is ridiculous. It’s horrible. You’re wiping out common people that saved money. I’m not a corporation.

Roberts: No, you’re a school teacher, we should point out. So $70,000 is a huge amount of money to you.

June: It is. It is. And it’s a shame. I mean what they’re doing, they’re saying 10% and this and that. I don’t know what they’re doing. People out there have saved their money. We’ve done the right thing. I pay my bills and here all of a sudden, they want to give me two shares. 140 shares of stock.

Roberts: And that stock, all in total is worth about what, $200?

June: I believe so right now.

Roberts: Maybe less than that.

June: Even less. When they regroup, even if the stock was $10. That’s unbelievable. I mean I can’t imagine someone doing something like that.

Roberts: So Debra, what was your reaction when you heard General Motors was going to go into bankruptcy? You said you resisted this plan, you didn’t agree with this. The major bondholders were the ones who said go ahead and do this debt for equity swap. What did you think when you heard they were going into bankruptcy and that was the deal?

June: Well, I’m in shock. When I bought into GM, I thought it’s a safe thing. I bought six years ago. I always thought it was safe even when the government came in. I was so excited, I said “Well they’re going to take over.” But Obama’s task force, these people came in, they didn’t negotiate. We had no say. The private investor had no say in the matter. They dealt with the big corporations. Obama is for the people, he said. How can you be for the people? How can he do this?

Roberts: So do you blame the task force? Do you blame the company, the unions? Who do you blame for getting in this situation?

June: I blame, originally, GM, for letting it go like this. It’s like Bernie Madoff was their bookkeeper. It’s ridiculous, but also for the task force to come in and not let anyone from the main sector, just a representative to go in there and try to negotiate. They never let us do that. I would have given…I’m not joking on this, I would have said to GM, “Here don’t give me any interest, just take that.” That would help them immensely… I mean to send this booklet out, the task force actually did this?

Roberts: So do you have any hope of recouping your investment? If this company gets lean and mean and agile, do you have any hope you can recoup that $70,000 and beyond that if the price of the stock goes up?

June: Nothing. Right now, I’m not even in on the new deal, the sweetened deal, I couldn’t even get in on it. And that’s — and it’s in the paper. They didn’t care about the people. It’s in the paper.

Roberts: So you really feel robbed, do you?

June: I feel robbed. I know that there’s an attorney out there for the GM bondholders Unite. That’s the gentleman Thomas Lauria and he’s supposed to represent the small people. I hope and pray the judge, whoever gets this, is going to say “Wait, this isn’t right what’s happening to the people, it’s not right what’s happening to the workers.” The dealerships are going to close. It’s going to be a trickle down effect but they’re taking income from me and thousands and thousands of other people who are in worse shape than I am and it’s not right.

Roberts: We’ll keep following this and maybe we can stay in touch with you and keep checking back.

June: Please, please people out there – contact your congressman. Do something. Say it’s not right. I remember Michelle Obama said she was not proud of her country until her husband was in office. I’m a school teacher. If I was teaching her children, would she say she was proud that this is happening to a common person like myself? I mean you can’t, you can’t do it.
 


Seems like this person learned the basics of investing the hard way.

- Don't invest in things you don't understand

- Don't put all or many eggs in one basket
 
This is what diversification is for, if you have 70k in bonds of one company that better me a small fraction of your total savings. If it is not and the company goes under how can anyone really feel sorry for you? I love talking to people about investing and pretty much I've found out everyone knows they "should" diversify but they don't because of either greed or laziness. In this case it was obviously both, she wanted one place to plop all her money but didn't want the lower rate a diversified corporate bond fund would have. She went after the higher rate and lost big time.
 
I don't believe what they did to that Lady and the other Bondholders is legal. They should have been first in line to be paid, now after the government gets involved, the bondholders are last.

In this new situation, Obama and the Union have more say and a sweeter piece of the pie than the bondholders - but.... we all know Obama looks after the Unions ( they helped get him elected after all...)

The government walked all over the folks and changed the rules - not fair, and I say not legal. Didn't even give the folks a say.... yep, that Lady just found out how much Obama is "for the People". That was just campaign talk to get in power. Now that he is there, he is Big Government/Union all the way. He doesn't care about private investors - never did.
 
Dear sirs talking about "diversification".
You are missing the larger issue here. Which is "governments interfering with private corporations is a dangerous precedent"

The problem is the government is supposed to be responsive(in large part) to the people.
At the same time, you cannot run a corporation by essentially doing a raise of hands amongst it's customers(and non-customers for that matter).

So the government has to do one of 2 things.
  1. Not represent the people that elected them(and the people that financed the entire thing with their taxes) and let the company do it's own thing.
  2. Support the people that elected them and do what they want, even though it will make a company no longer financially viable. And the debt back to the people will then never be repaid.
Neither one of those solutions are an ok way to run the country, and I think this is a fantastic example of why. Not because they made the "wrong" decision(I'm not going to even get into that), but because there was no "right" decision.
It's kind of like the movie "War Games"...the only way to win is to not play in the first place.
 
I feel sorry for anyone that loses their life savings, but it is entirely her own fault. Stupid is everywhere.
 
I hope to God she is not an economics or finance teacher because, as already mentioned, she not only has no idea how the stock market works, but also does not have any financial common sense (i.e. diversification).
 
This bankruptcy - and to a smaller extent, Chrysler's - has me completely mystified. I'm sure I missed something. I've scanned the public reports (no time to read them thoroughly) and I'm still confused.

Why is the UAW getting an ownership stake? Did they agree to concessions (i.e. pension benefits, retirees' health coverage, etc.) for a secured position?

And just for chuckles...

"Let me be clear. The United States government has no interest in running GM. We have no intention of running GM." - Obama

Source: Obama Says He Has 'No Intention' of Running General Motors - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com

* Yes, I know... FOX News. Shame on me, but a quote's a quote.
 
It really sounds like that lady has no idea how stocks and bonds work.

Maybe I'm also one of those people that don't know how stocks and bonds work but my understanding is if you are a bondholder than you are guaranteed to get your money no matter what. Bondholders unlike stockholders are the first ones to get paid if something should happen. Correct?
 
Maybe I'm also one of those people that don't know how stocks and bonds work but my understanding is if you are a bondholder than you are guaranteed to get your money no matter what. Bondholders unlike stockholders are the first ones to get paid if something should happen. Correct?

No, your investment is not guaranteed. But, yes, you are positioned in front of common stock shareholders. The amount you receive depends on the company's assets and liabilities as well as how much money can be raised from the sale of assets.
 
Maybe I'm also one of those people that don't know how stocks and bonds work but my understanding is if you are a bondholder than you are guaranteed to get your money no matter what. Bondholders unlike stockholders are the first ones to get paid if something should happen. Correct?

Hello friend,

I no expert finance but think it depend if you bondholder secure or no bondholder secure.

If bondholder secure get money ahead others if company have.

If no bondholder secure then have wait after those secure.

Those who own stock get money last. Usual it almost nothing because if have enough money no need for bankruptcy.

Good luck bro
 
It's a hard thing to see people figure out things the hard way - especially those who can't overly afford it to begin with.

Maybe I'm also one of those people that don't know how stocks and bonds work but my understanding is if you are a bondholder than you are guaranteed to get your money no matter what. Bondholders unlike stockholders are the first ones to get paid if something should happen. Correct?

No, your investment is not guaranteed. But, yes, you are positioned in front of common stock shareholders. The amount you receive depends on the company's assets and liabilities as well as how much money can be raised from the sale of assets.

Feel free to correct me as I'm not sure I can remember that far back - the only really guaranteed bonds are t-bills?
 
Why is the UAW getting an ownership stake? Did they agree to concessions (i.e. pension benefits, retirees' health coverage, etc.) for a secured position?

Not sure if this is a full explanation of their stake in the company but at least part of it:


"General Motors Corp. plans to give the United Auto Workers union 17.5 percent of its common stock, $6.5 billion of preferred shares and a $2.5 billion note to fund a trust that will take over retiree health care costs starting next year."

GM Agrees To UAW Ownership Stake, Buyouts : NPR
 
Chrysler's bankruptcy was a tragedy. Without a doubt the fact that the Union (unsecured creditholder) got money in advance of the secured credit holder's, is a huge breach of contract law. What Obama and his administration did was essentially say we're going to ignore the fundamentals of contract law because it doesn't suit the situation.

That said, the majority of secured creditholders were bullied into this because they ran their institutions into the ground and allowed the government to take significant stakes in most of them. Had they not been fucking retards the last several years perhaps it'd be different.

Still the Union walkin away with such sweet deals while other investors get screwed is certainly a wake up call.
 
Not sure if this is a full explanation of their stake in the company but at least part of it:


"General Motors Corp. plans to give the United Auto Workers union 17.5 percent of its common stock, $6.5 billion of preferred shares and a $2.5 billion note to fund a trust that will take over retiree health care costs starting next year."

GM Agrees To UAW Ownership Stake, Buyouts : NPR

Thanks for the source, LF. I'm assuming because the UAW did not have a secured position, their stake is being underwritten by the taxpayers (i.e. the government's position). In a "real" BK, the retiree health care coverage would go *poof.*

Remind me to never take a common (or any) position in a company with a union presence. If anything, this will just increase the cost of borrowing for public companies.

What a mess.
 
I want you to hear what some of those Bondholders are saying:


  • 50.
    May 2nd,
    2009
    5:36 am
    I bought these bonds to fund my 10% of my retirement, The money from the bonds went to the Unions.
    The bonds are Senior Secured despite what Obama claims. He doesn’t understand what bonds are. He is ignorant of our financial system and our bankruptcy laws.
    Now Obama is trying with all his power to screw me and steal my property and then give it to the Union in exchange for their votes.
    Even if Obama is successful in his theft neither I nor my family members will ever buy a GM product and this unconstitutional farce will inevitably fail.
    — Posted by Roger Smith


  • 51.
    May 2nd,
    2009
    2:30 pm
    I too am a small bondholder, facing the loss of the value of the bond, and the income. Since I am retired, I depend on this LOAN I made to GM for income, just like the retired GM workers depend on their pensions. That means we should be treated fairly; at minimum, the same. Since we are owed more than the government, why shouldn’t we get more?
    What really worries me is the precedent it would set in our legal system to defy our bankruptcy laws. If the government gets it’s way, it will take away all incentive for people to fund their retirements with corporate bonds. What once used to look like a conservative, almost risk-free vehicle for retirees, now becomes speculative, and unprotected by the courts. When that happens, and Safeway, or UPS, or CBS or any other US corporation needs to borrow money, the public investor won’t want to buy their bonds. So, who will? The Government? We will then truly be a socialist economy.
    — Posted by Nancy Eggert
these were comments under a New York Times articlehttp://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/30/gm-bondholders-seek-majority-stake-in-counterproposal/

Like I said, this does not seem legal to me. And WHY is CANADA a bigger shareholder than the Bond Holders? :eek7:Obama's team is changing the rules here - it is not right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.