• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

King Obama's heavy hand

Sandhusker

Well-known member
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--President Barack Obama's scolding of hedge funds sparked an immediate backlash from fund managers who resent what they see as an increasingly heavy-handed approach from Washington.

Obama, during remarks about Chrysler LLC's bankruptcy, said a group of investment firms and hedge funds held out for "an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout," hoping they could avoid the sacrifices that other stakeholders had made. "I don't stand with those who held out when everybody else is making sacrifices," he said.

The comments, which came after an unnamed administration official went so far as to say the holdouts weren't acting in the national interest, overshadowed some of the details of the historic Chapter 11 filing and news of Chrysler's alliance with Fiat SpA (FIATY). The fact that Obama expressed his displeasure more than once during his remarks seemed to indicate he was picking a fight with hedge funds, and it didn't play well with many on Wall Street.

"So what?" said Phil Goldstein, who runs Bulldog Investors, referring to the decision by some funds to hold out. "Aren't you entitled to reject a deal?" said Goldstein, who has railed against hedge-fund regulation in the past.

Henry Bregstein, who is co-managing partner at law firm Katten Muchin Rosenman and represents hedge funds, said it's possible that accepting the government's offer could have theoretically exposed the funds that Obama criticized to lawsuits from investors.

"The managers of those investment firms and hedge funds have fiduciary responsibilities to their investors," Bregstein said.

A call to the White House press office seeking comment on whether Obama was criticizing hedge funds to send a message beyond the Chrysler negotiations wasn't immediately returned.

In speaking specifically about Chrysler, Obama was singling out three institutions - hedge-fund managers Perella Weinberg Partners LP and Stairway Capital Advisors LLC, and mutual-fund operator Oppenheimer Funds - which are publicly known to have been part of the group that rejected the Treasury Department's $2 billion debt reduction deal.

While Perella Weinberg and Stairway didn't immediately return calls seeking comment, the group of 20 creditors to which they belong, calling themselves the "non-TARP Chrysler lenders," told their side of the story in a press release. The group refers to themselves as non-TARP to distinguish themselves from the large banks that have received government bailout funds and agreed to the Chrysler debt restructuring terms.

The group said it offered to take a 40% haircut on its investment, even though some groups down the legal priority chain were "being given recoveries of up to 50% or more and being allowed to take out billions of dollars." The group said its proposals were rejected or ignored.

"The government has risked overturning the rule of law and practices that have governed our world-leading bankruptcy code for decades," the statement said. The group says it has a fiduciary obligation to its investors, naming specifically "many of the country's teachers unions, major pension and retirement plans and school endowments" that invest with those creditors. The group invests in $1 billion worth of Chrysler loans. Oppenheimer put out a statement echoing many of the same things said by the group.

Other hedge-fund companies owning Chrysler loans, including Elliott Management Corp., took the government's deal.

A person at a hedge-fund firm that owns Chrysler loans, speaking anonymously, told Dow Jones Newswires that the difference between what loanholders would get in bankruptcy and out of bankruptcy wasn't that much, meaning the non-TARP lenders are making a political statement more than anything.

"Are they taking reputational risk for pennies?" asked the person. "Do the math on the recovery levels. It doesn't make sense for them to have held out for purely economic value."
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
Not everyone endorses Obama's plan and he is shocked. Maybe he should get in touch.

He's furious that people would stand up to him and tell him "No Deal". Narcissists don't take well to that.
 

jigs

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
Not everyone endorses Obama's plan and he is shocked. Maybe he should get in touch.

I would like to get in touch with him...... tell the bastard what I think of his ideas and his commie bullshit !
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
And now he's going to pout, stump his feet, name call and target them.

How many other Presidents have called out individual citizens for doing what is in their right to do, and in this case, their fudiciary responsibility? Other than God, who does this guy think he is?
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Let me guess here Husker. Since you are no longer a ' banker' and say you trade ' off the board' I believe you stated.....I bet you had some $$$$$ riding in this deal.

Now you're out and you're pizzed!!!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Let me guess here Husker. Since you are no longer a ' banker' and say you trade ' off the board' I believe you stated.....I bet you had some $$$$$ riding in this deal.

Now you're out and you're pizzed!!!

I' pizzed at a man that is clearly overstepping his bounds and pizzing on the Constitution, and I'm pizzed at people that have such low regard for this country that they allow him to do it.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
kolanuraven said:
Let me guess here Husker. Since you are no longer a ' banker' and say you trade ' off the board' I believe you stated.....I bet you had some $$$$$ riding in this deal.

Now you're out and you're pizzed!!!

I' pizzed at a man that is clearly overstepping his bounds and pizzing on the Constitution, and I'm pizzed at people that have such low regard for this country that they allow him to do it.


Yep...you had money in the pot and lost out!!!! :wink:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Sandhusker said:
kolanuraven said:
Let me guess here Husker. Since you are no longer a ' banker' and say you trade ' off the board' I believe you stated.....I bet you had some $$$$$ riding in this deal.

Now you're out and you're pizzed!!!

I' pizzed at a man that is clearly overstepping his bounds and pizzing on the Constitution, and I'm pizzed at people that have such low regard for this country that they allow him to do it.


Yep...you had money in the pot and lost out!!!! :wink:

Wrong. Didn't lose a nickel. Sorry to disappoint you.

Now, back to the adult's table; How many other Presidents have called out individual citizens for doing what is in their right to do, and in this case, their fudiciary responsibility? Can you think of any Kola? Do you think this is how Obama is to use the office of President?
 

don

Well-known member
i guess what the conservatives are eventually going to have to accept is that eight years of dubya and his band of neocons created the perfect environment to elect a black liberal. rotflmao. he doesn't have to be a good president; he succeeded the biggest dud you ever had.
 

burnt

Well-known member
don said:
i guess what the conservatives are eventually going to have to accept is that eight years of dubya and his band of neocons created the perfect environment to elect a black liberal. rotflmao. he doesn't have to be a good president; he succeeded the biggest dud you ever had.

jeepers don, that was all around derogatory!! :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :nod:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
don said:
i guess what the conservatives are eventually going to have to accept is that eight years of dubya and his band of neocons created the perfect environment to elect a black liberal. rotflmao. he doesn't have to be a good president; he succeeded the biggest dud you ever had.

You're halfway right, don. However, this only works when people don't use logic and reasoning. Bush was no prize, and the election became a mandate on the economy and the economy was in the crapper primarily because of the housing fiasco which was created by the liberals. They refused to recognize the roots of the problem and called it a "Bush bust". Then they ran so hard away from him that they didn't look where they were running TO - and you can't blame anybody but yourself when you check the box for somebody of Maobama's ilk.

If you think Bush was the biggest dud, go back and take a look at Carter.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
don said:
i guess what the conservatives are eventually going to have to accept is that eight years of dubya and his band of neocons created the perfect environment to elect a black liberal. rotflmao. he doesn't have to be a good president; he succeeded the biggest dud you ever had.

Yep-- and right now when Americans want movement and change in the country- and we have a President/Administration/Congress that is/has been promising that- is the most important time to have an opposition party with enough strength to guarantee a balanced direction- and prevent overreaction, which usually occurs in response to past bad direction...

But instead we have an opposition party that is lost wandering the wilderness- with no new ideas or direction- more concerned about their extremist social issues than the country (which is tearing their own party apart)- and only a antiquated attitude/platform which isn't going to/didn't carry any weight with voters and will only sink them deeper into the quagmire....They are going to sometime have to accept that the 8 years of Dumya and the neocons got them kicked out of power- and they no longer rule the roost- and need to work bipartisanly now for the good of the country- instead of just saying "no" or pouting when they don't get their way.....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Change to what?

Reader just stated in another post, that we should leave it the way the founders created it.

Before you vote for change, you better figure out what that change is going to entail.

What he meant by change, was that he was going to CHANGE his mind routinely.

Did you think Obama was going to change back to pre-Bush? Worthy goal, except that his previous actions, associations, and experience showed how he would expand on those "unconstitutional" powers.

you better HOPE for some more CHANGE, and in a hurry!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
don said:
i guess what the conservatives are eventually going to have to accept is that eight years of dubya and his band of neocons created the perfect environment to elect a black liberal. rotflmao. he doesn't have to be a good president; he succeeded the biggest dud you ever had.

Yep-- and right now when Americans want movement and change in the country- and we have a President/Administration/Congress that is/has been promising that- is the most important time to have an opposition party with enough strength to guarantee a balanced direction- and prevent overreaction, which usually occurs in response to past bad direction...

But instead we have an opposition party that is lost wandering the wilderness- with no new ideas or direction- more concerned about their extremist social issues than the country (which is tearing their own party apart)- and only a antiquated attitude/platform which isn't going to/didn't carry any weight with voters and will only sink them deeper into the quagmire....They are going to sometime have to accept that the 8 years of Dumya and the neocons got them kicked out of power- and they no longer rule the roost- and need to work bipartisanly now for the good of the country- instead of just saying "no" or pouting when they don't get their way.....

You're still telling us that it's somebody else's fault that people didn't properly vet Obama and instead voted for a buzzword that is turning into a nightmare. I don't buy that. I believe in personal responsibilty. If you voted for Obama, that's on you, not the Republicans, not Bush, not anybody else but YOU.

Now you want to say the Republicans need to work bipartisanly? Good grief, OT, have you noticed which party is running roughshod over the other?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
don said:
i guess what the conservatives are eventually going to have to accept is that eight years of dubya and his band of neocons created the perfect environment to elect a black liberal. rotflmao. he doesn't have to be a good president; he succeeded the biggest dud you ever had.

Yep-- and right now when Americans want movement and change in the country- and we have a President/Administration/Congress that is/has been promising that- is the most important time to have an opposition party with enough strength to guarantee a balanced direction- and prevent overreaction, which usually occurs in response to past bad direction...

But instead we have an opposition party that is lost wandering the wilderness- with no new ideas or direction- more concerned about their extremist social issues than the country (which is tearing their own party apart)- and only a antiquated attitude/platform which isn't going to/didn't carry any weight with voters and will only sink them deeper into the quagmire....They are going to sometime have to accept that the 8 years of Dumya and the neocons got them kicked out of power- and they no longer rule the roost- and need to work bipartisanly now for the good of the country- instead of just saying "no" or pouting when they don't get their way.....

You're still telling us that it's somebody else's fault that people didn't properly vet Obama and instead voted for a buzzword that is turning into a nightmare. I don't buy that. I believe in personal responsibilty. If you voted for Obama, that's on you, not the Republicans, not Bush, not anybody else but YOU.

Now you want to say the Republicans need to work bipartisanly? Good grief, OT, have you noticed which party is running roughshod over the other?

I think the Presidential candidates were vetted more than any time prior in history-- and the folks made an informed choice...They did not want 8 more years of the Bush/neocon direction...

And you have to come up with alternative plans besides taxcuts for the rich- and wide open unregulated free market- and the trickle down theory when these have been shown to be abysmal failures to the majority of the population....And the Repubs standing up yelling NO because they are "fiscal conservative" and "fiscal responsibility" after 8 years of Bush drunken sailor spending which these same Repub Congressmen did nothing to stop is a JOKE ....

ex. Americans have asked for help with HealthCare costs for 30+ years--Bush promised Health Care Reform- did nothing...Even many Repubs agree something has to be done- and NOW- and that one of the biggest problems of the Bush stagnated middle income earnings which unduly affected the economy came from Health Care costs... Now Obama and the Dems have said they will do something- and will---but instead of developing some plans on their own- most Repub politicians are just out there saying NO- or so divided they can't come up with a good alternative to the Dem/Obama plan...

Whats the Repub policy on energy independence? Drill, Drill, Drill... :???: Didn't work under the Bush/Cheney Oil Administration- and people know it...They need to move forward with some new differing ideas...Repubs need to work to include some drilling into a compromise bill- But they're so split- and so worried more about their social and bedroom agendas- that they can't even get together on a plan for that...

And if they just continue a "NO" attitude- much of which is opposite to the majority of the country- they are going to get steamrolled...

Like I've always said- government doesn't proact- they react- and they usually overreact....And 8 years of "DUH leadership" will lead to overreaction.....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"I think the Presidential candidates were vetted more than any time prior in history-..."

And that is how they elected a man who doesn't even meet the Constitutional requirements for the office?
 
Top