Anyone buying GM Stock in IPO?

[Berean]

Originally Posted by ViperTomcat

Anyone remember this?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20625.html

More facts. Thanks for the post.

I'm sure this will be explained as non-proof because it happened before the Government owned the company. After the government took ownership and appointed the board, we're to believe that Obama no longer makes these types of decisions, regarding who the CEO will be.

[Eagleone]

I find it hard to believe that GM would still be going if the government was calling all the shots. Seriously, the aveo would be the only car that GM would be selling right now.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Berean

More facts. Thanks for the post.

I'm sure this will be explained as non-proof because it happened before the Government owned the company. After the government took ownership and appointed the board, we're to believe that Obama no longer makes these types of decisions, regarding who the CEO will be.

Or the fact he fired the CEO of the old GM, which is not related to the GM that emerged after bankruptcy.

[Berean]

Here are more interesting FACTS.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aPr5RdYjlRlQ

Here's an excerpt:

"Members of President Barack Obama’s auto task force recruited Whitacre and Kidder for their new posts. Ron Bloom, an administration adviser, reached out to Kidder, while Whitacre said he spoke with the administration’s Steven Rattner"

And this?

"Obama’s task force is replacing six directors on GM’s 13-member board, which was criticized by U.S. lawmakers last year for being too easy on company executives."

[FenwickHockey65]

This thread is epic troll bait.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Berean

Here are more interesting FACTS.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aPr5RdYjlRlQ

Here's an excerpt:

"Members of President Barack Obama’s auto task force recruited Whitacre and Kidder for their new posts. Ron Bloom, an administration adviser, reached out to Kidder, while Whitacre said he spoke with the administration’s Steven Rattner"

And this?

"Obama’s task force is replacing six directors on GM’s 13-member board, which was criticized by U.S. lawmakers last year for being too easy on company executives."

While it is true that the Automotive Task Force did appoint most of the current directors, that seems to be the extent of their control. It was simply trying to pick the best people for the job, like most investors do. However, the appointed members are the ones who really decide what GM is going to do. The government was simply used as an investor who had loads of cash to keep the company's head above water. They do not exert control over day to day operations, or any business matter that involves product portfolio.

[ViperTomcat]

Direct control? maybe not.

Indirect control? sure as hell they do. Obama and the government may not sit on the board or sign paychecks, but they sure as hell are holding a gun to GM's head, and their board's head.

If GM made a decision that the current administration or car tsar didnt like..it wouldnt happen. If wouldnt be open, but it would just "not happen" for "market reasons".

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by 1bad65

Thank you. But even well put like this he just keeps going on and on and on like a broken Energizer Bunny.

Lets try it another way. Alright
The CEO runs the company. yes
The CEO is Appointed by the Board of Directors. yes
The entire Board of Directors was appointed by the Government. yes, appointed by the majority shareholder
So in short, the power structure at GM looks like this: CEO<Board<Government nope, because once the shareholders have appointed the board, they have no power. Unless you meant that the government is all powerful and trumps any company, in which case you are correct

So the Government is running/controlling GM. Still don't see it

Get it now?
Not yet. Maybe I just have a thick head and don't listen well or understand how these things work

reply in bold

Originally Posted by Berean

He's not going to get it, because he doesn't want to.

I don't get it because it makes no sense and I see no evidence of it, let alone any proof.

Originally Posted by Berean

Even if his argument was as simple as - I know the Obama administration appointed the board of directors, but I believe they are all acting independently and Obama has zero oversight or influence on the directors, - The argument still has zero credibility in light of the fact that Obama forced GM to keep their headquarters in Detroit for political reasons, rather than in the best interest of the business.

First, I feel obligated to remind you that you are referencing an opinion piece. The specific intent of which is get you to believe that Obama is running things.

Second, how is selling a property for a loss of millions a good business move or even remotely political?

Originally Posted by Berean

Obama may not be writing marching orders and handing them to the directors, but make no mistake, everyone on the board is politically aligned with the Obama administration, and will shape the company as he wants it shaped, rather than deciding what's best for GM as a first priority.

Well, at least I've gotten you to admit that he may not be writing the marching orders. As for the board members themselves, how do you know what their priorities are?

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by ViperTomcat

Direct control? maybe not.

Indirect control? sure as hell they do. Obama and the government may not sit on the board or sign paychecks, but they sure as hell are holding a gun to GM's head, and their board's head.

If GM made a decision that the current administration or car tsar didnt like..it wouldnt happen. If wouldnt be open, but it would just "not happen" for "market reasons".

The concept of indirect control is obviously true. That goes for any company that's in business in the United States.

[ViperTomcat]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Second, how is selling a property for a loss of millions a good business move or even remotely political?

Because if you keep the headquarters there, you keep employees there. If the employees are beholden to the government or are democrat in nature, they help support local politicians who are also Democrats.

Democrats vote for a Democrat governor (the POS Granholm) and thus keep Michigan blue.

It was about keeping votes in Michigan, specifically the Southeast section of Michigan. Same with the UAW, it doesnt matter two dead ducks about "profit" and "financial sense"...its all about votes. A politician wont cut a fart if it doesnt gain them votes or money.

[Berean]

Originally Posted by a_Username

While it is true that the Automotive Task Force did appoint most of the current directors, that seems to be the extent of their control. It was simply trying to pick the best people for the job, like most investors do. However, the appointed members are the ones who really decide what GM is going to do. The government was simply used as an investor who had loads of cash to keep the company's head above water. They do not exert control over day to day operations, or any business matter that involves product portfolio.

That's a fair assessment.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Berean

I'll answer your questions more directly though than setting up straw men like DG.

I thought I was being direct and responding to most of the issues being presented. Never did I think I had substituted or distorted the arguments to make them easier to question.

Originally Posted by ViperTomcat

Because if you keep the headquarters there, you keep employees there. If the employees are beholden to the government or are democrat in nature, they help support local politicians who are also Democrats.

Democrats vote for a Democrat governor (the POS Granholm) and thus keep Michigan blue.

It was about keeping votes in Michigan, specifically the Southeast section of Michigan. Same with the UAW, it doesnt matter two dead ducks about "profit" and "financial sense"...its all about votes. A politician wont cut a fart if it doesnt gain them votes or money.

It was about moving GM from Detroit MI to Warren MI, about 10 miles away

[Berean]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I thought I was being direct and responding to most of the issues being presented. Never did I think I had substituted or distorted the arguments to make them easier to question.

You kept saying that because the board appointees weren't government employees, then the government therefore couldn't possibly control the company.

That argument doesn't follow any logic, so it can't be "disproven". That's a straw man.

Anyway, the point is, the government did appoint the board, and as a result, I think the administration controls the company. Anyone can be a political puppet, they don't have to come from government.

If you feel otherwise, fine, but I think the (few) actual facts we have, would lead an objective person to conclude that the administration is exercising some degree of control over the company.

I think a logical debate would be about the degree of control, not whether it exists.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Berean

You kept saying that because the board appointees weren't government employees, then the government therefore couldn't possibly control the company.

That argument doesn't follow any logic, so it can't be "disproven". That's a straw man.

Anyway, the point is, the government did appoint the board, and as a result, I think the administration controls the company. Anyone can be a political puppet, they don't have to come from government.

If you feel otherwise, fine, but I think the (few) actual facts we have, would lead an objective person to conclude that the administration is exercising some degree of control over the company.

I think a logical debate would be about the degree of control, not whether it exists.

QFT. All companies involved in business in the U.S. are indirectly controlled, in a sense, by governmental interference. The extent is rather its complete control or control through restrictions detailed by legislation and regulations.