Various Topics on Chrysler

..d ..ttelstae..

"who" <i@notaspammer.net> wrote in message
news:i-EE3AE6.00583615082007@news.telus.net...
> In article <h665c319n8eq6o8fap48nnreu5e37ulcaa@4ax.com>,
> Doug <sparks06524nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > No, they are taking the company stockholders to the cleaners...
> > I'm increasingly surprised that there are not more stockholder revolts
> > at annual meetings.
> Correct, but after the board approves of the stealing.
> >
> > I suppose the only reason why there are not more stockholder revolts
> > is that the majority of shares in many companies are owned by mutual
> > funds or pension trusts.
> True and many individual shareholders wouldn't find it an effective use
> of their time and money to go to the shareholder meetings launching a
> protest that would be ignored anyway.

Unfortunately, very few of the stockholders these days care who the
hell is running the company and WTF they are doing, as long as the
stock price keeps going up. And equally unfortunately, stock prices
on many companies these days have very little relation to the actual
health of the company.

Since Nardelli is known as a ball-breaker they probably think the
market will ***ume he will gut the company to make the profits look
high, and the stock price will rise in anticipation.

Then a couple years from now when the current holders have all
sold their stock holdings and made a buck, the stockholders then
will figure out the company was gutted and the stock price will
plummet. That's the time for shareholder protests and the like.
Of course it will be too late then.

Ted

..o..

On Aug 16, 5:03 am, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <t...@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
> "who" <i...@notaspammer.net> wrote in message
>
> news:i-EE3AE6.00583615082007@news.telus.net...
>
> > In article <h665c319n8eq6o8fap48nnreu5e37ul...@4ax.com>,
> > Doug <sparks06524nos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > No, they are taking the company stockholders to the cleaners...
> > > I'm increasingly surprised that there are not more stockholder revolts
> > > at annual meetings.
> > Correct, but after the board approves of the stealing.
>
> > > I suppose the only reason why there are not more stockholder revolts
> > > is that the majority of shares in many companies are owned by mutual
> > > funds or pension trusts.
> > True and many individual shareholders wouldn't find it an effective use
> > of their time and money to go to the shareholder meetings launching a
> > protest that would be ignored anyway.
>
> Unfortunately, very few of the stockholders these days care who the
> hell is running the company and WTF they are doing, as long as the
> stock price keeps going up. And equally unfortunately, stock prices
> on many companies these days have very little relation to the actual
> health of the company.
>
> Since Nardelli is known as a ball-breaker they probably think the
> market will ***ume he will gut the company to make the profits look
> high, and the stock price will rise in anticipation.
>
> Then a couple years from now when the current holders have all
> sold their stock holdings and made a buck, the stockholders then
> will figure out the company was gutted and the stock price will
> plummet. That's the time for shareholder protests and the like.
> Of course it will be too late then.
>
> Ted

Of course, Chrysler has no stockholders any more, just investors in a
private company. That means we may never hear again how Chrysler is
doing financially, as they are under no obligation to make anything
public.

..e

"who" <i@notaspammer.net> wrote in message
news:i-EC6BBC.21561514082007@news.telus.net...
> In article <39vwi.300$n_1.58@newsfe12.lga>, "Joe" <Joe@dontspam.net>
> wrote:
>
>> I've always thought that. Any institution would find it hard to keep me
>> on
>> the job for $10 million a month. After a month I'd be so gone they'd
>> never
>> find me. It just goes to show that American CEO's are all insane, or
>> else I
>> am.
>
> Why are they insane, when they reap such unjustified rewards.
> I'd say they are very smart and are taking the company boards to the
> cleaners.

Well, if you say so, I must be the insane one. I can tell you if I had 100
million dollars, you wouldn't catch me going to work every day trying to get
a 2nd 100 million. They have to set an alarm clock just like I do.

..d ..ttelstae..

"Lloyd" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:1187286163.738156.140590@a39g2000hsc.googlegr oups.com...
> On Aug 16, 5:03 am, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <t...@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
> > "who" <i...@notaspammer.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:i-EE3AE6.00583615082007@news.telus.net...
> >
> > > In article <h665c319n8eq6o8fap48nnreu5e37ul...@4ax.com>,
> > > Doug <sparks06524nos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > No, they are taking the company stockholders to the cleaners...
> > > > I'm increasingly surprised that there are not more stockholder
revolts
> > > > at annual meetings.
> > > Correct, but after the board approves of the stealing.
> >
> > > > I suppose the only reason why there are not more stockholder revolts
> > > > is that the majority of shares in many companies are owned by mutual
> > > > funds or pension trusts.
> > > True and many individual shareholders wouldn't find it an effective
use
> > > of their time and money to go to the shareholder meetings launching a
> > > protest that would be ignored anyway.
> >
> > Unfortunately, very few of the stockholders these days care who the
> > hell is running the company and WTF they are doing, as long as the
> > stock price keeps going up. And equally unfortunately, stock prices
> > on many companies these days have very little relation to the actual
> > health of the company.
> >
> > Since Nardelli is known as a ball-breaker they probably think the
> > market will ***ume he will gut the company to make the profits look
> > high, and the stock price will rise in anticipation.
> >
> > Then a couple years from now when the current holders have all
> > sold their stock holdings and made a buck, the stockholders then
> > will figure out the company was gutted and the stock price will
> > plummet. That's the time for shareholder protests and the like.
> > Of course it will be too late then.
> >
> > Ted
>
> Of course, Chrysler has no stockholders any more, just investors in a
> private company. That means we may never hear again how Chrysler is
> doing financially, as they are under no obligation to make anything
> public.
>

The investors in Chrysler bought it to turn it around and sell it. That is
how investment houses like them operate. It is on a large scale
fundamentally the same thing as when an individual buys a run down
home and fixes it up for a quick sale. They call it "flipping houses"
in the trade. This is simply "flipping a company"

If the Dow hadn't crashed they would be planning the IPO in 2
years I'd bet. But I suspect that right now they are going to hold
on to Chrysler for a number of years until the stock market improves.
That is a shame as Chrysler will not have any kind of visionary
leader until the bankers are gone and out of the picture, and we
probably will see a series of boring prefunctory cars from them
for a while.

Ted

..d ..ttelstae..

"Joe" <Joe@dontspam.net> wrote in message
news:186xi.41$Re6.37@newsfe12.lga...
>
> "who" <i@notaspammer.net> wrote in message
> news:i-EC6BBC.21561514082007@news.telus.net...
> > In article <39vwi.300$n_1.58@newsfe12.lga>, "Joe" <Joe@dontspam.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I've always thought that. Any institution would find it hard to keep
me
> >> on
> >> the job for $10 million a month. After a month I'd be so gone they'd
> >> never
> >> find me. It just goes to show that American CEO's are all insane, or
> >> else I
> >> am.
> >
> > Why are they insane, when they reap such unjustified rewards.
> > I'd say they are very smart and are taking the company boards to the
> > cleaners.
>
> Well, if you say so, I must be the insane one. I can tell you if I had
100
> million dollars, you wouldn't catch me going to work every day trying to
get
> a 2nd 100 million. They have to set an alarm clock just like I do.
>

The problem is that in order to get the job that pays 100 million you have
to be the type that would NEVER be satisfied just sitting back and living
off the money. It's one of those cruel jokes the Universe plays on us poor
humans. The poor people like us aren't content unless we had the 100
million and
the rich people who have the 100 million aren't content unless they have 200
million.

Ted

..e ..eiff..

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> writes:

> "Lloyd" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
> news:1187286163.738156.140590@a39g2000hsc.googlegr oups.com...
> > On Aug 16, 5:03 am, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <t...@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
> > > "who" <i...@notaspammer.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > > news:i-EE3AE6.00583615082007@news.telus.net...
> > >
> > > > In article <h665c319n8eq6o8fap48nnreu5e37ul...@4ax.com>,
> > > > Doug <sparks06524nos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > No, they are taking the company stockholders to the cleaners...
> > > > > I'm increasingly surprised that there are not more stockholder
> revolts
> > > > > at annual meetings.
> > > > Correct, but after the board approves of the stealing.
> > >
> > > > > I suppose the only reason why there are not more stockholder revolts
> > > > > is that the majority of shares in many companies are owned by mutual
> > > > > funds or pension trusts.
> > > > True and many individual shareholders wouldn't find it an effective
> use
> > > > of their time and money to go to the shareholder meetings launching a
> > > > protest that would be ignored anyway.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, very few of the stockholders these days care who the
> > > hell is running the company and WTF they are doing, as long as the
> > > stock price keeps going up. And equally unfortunately, stock prices
> > > on many companies these days have very little relation to the actual
> > > health of the company.
> > >
> > > Since Nardelli is known as a ball-breaker they probably think the
> > > market will ***ume he will gut the company to make the profits look
> > > high, and the stock price will rise in anticipation.
> > >
> > > Then a couple years from now when the current holders have all
> > > sold their stock holdings and made a buck, the stockholders then
> > > will figure out the company was gutted and the stock price will
> > > plummet. That's the time for shareholder protests and the like.
> > > Of course it will be too late then.
> > >
> > > Ted
> >
> > Of course, Chrysler has no stockholders any more, just investors in a
> > private company. That means we may never hear again how Chrysler is
> > doing financially, as they are under no obligation to make anything
> > public.
> >
>
> The investors in Chrysler bought it to turn it around and sell it. That is
> how investment houses like them operate. It is on a large scale
> fundamentally the same thing as when an individual buys a run down
> home and fixes it up for a quick sale. They call it "flipping houses"
> in the trade. This is simply "flipping a company"

I've been wandering around looking at Cerberus, and while I can find a
lot of companies they've bought, I can't find any they've sold. While
they seem to operate by raising profits through cost-cutting and
selling unprofitable ***ets, they seem to be more long-term than just
flipping companies (if you've found a source that points to Cerberus
as flipping companies, rather than a generic statement that it's how
private investment firms operate, I'd be happy to hear it. Well, not
happy, since I'd like Chrysler to succeed, but you know what I mean).

..e

"who" <i@notaspammer.net> wrote in message
news:i-EE3AE6.00583615082007@news.telus.net...
> In article <h665c319n8eq6o8fap48nnreu5e37ulcaa@4ax.com>,
> Doug <sparks06524nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> No, they are taking the company stockholders to the cleaners...
>> I'm increasingly surprised that there are not more stockholder revolts
>> at annual meetings.
> Correct, but after the board approves of the stealing.
>>
>> I suppose the only reason why there are not more stockholder revolts
>> is that the majority of shares in many companies are owned by mutual
>> funds or pension trusts.
..

That's no explanation. Wouldn't pension trusts and mutual fund companies be
well organized, and able to control a comany effectively?

I can tell you that at my company, our big investors can easily get what
they want when they stand their ground. If the board wants to do something
stupid, the board gets a talking to from these people, and the board has to
give in. I've seen them do it. Yet these "accountability sessions" don't
seem to extend to the issue of executive giveaways.

..e

> I've been wandering around looking at Cerberus, and while I can find a
> lot of companies they've bought, I can't find any they've sold. While
> they seem to operate by raising profits through cost-cutting and
> selling unprofitable ***ets, they seem to be more long-term than just
> flipping companies (if you've found a source that points to Cerberus
> as flipping companies, rather than a generic statement that it's how
> private investment firms operate, I'd be happy to hear it. Well, not
> happy, since I'd like Chrysler to succeed, but you know what I mean).

It'll be fun to watch what they do. Product-wise, I am concerned. They
won't be taking Mercedes old platforms, and I don't suppose there's much
chance of Nardelli being a product man. Maybe they'll fool me.

..o..

On Aug 17, 5:15 pm, "Joe" <J...@dontspam.net> wrote:
> > I've been wandering around looking at Cerberus, and while I can find a
> > lot of companies they've bought, I can't find any they've sold. While
> > they seem to operate by raising profits through cost-cutting and
> > selling unprofitable ***ets, they seem to be more long-term than just
> > flipping companies (if you've found a source that points to Cerberus
> > as flipping companies, rather than a generic statement that it's how
> > private investment firms operate, I'd be happy to hear it. Well, not
> > happy, since I'd like Chrysler to succeed, but you know what I mean).
>
> It'll be fun to watch what they do. Product-wise, I am concerned. They
> won't be taking Mercedes old platforms, and I don't suppose there's much
> chance of Nardelli being a product man. Maybe they'll fool me.

There's a good article in Fortune magazine about Cerberus, on-line
here:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/03/news...ion=2007080523

..e ..eiff..

Lloyd <lparker@emory.edu> writes:
>
> There's a good article in Fortune magazine about Cerberus, on-line
> here:
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/03/news...ion=2007080523

Interesting article, particularly on Steinberg's style. But it
doesn't seem to address my question, which is to what extent Cerberus
had chopped up companies and sold the remains (so far, I haven't seen
any reports that they have behaved that way, which is really unusual
given their love of buying companies on the verge of failure).