By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
You mean that the pension that Wagoner legally earned ( right or wrong ) under GM's rules during his 33 years rthere was somehow a gift and somewhow Obama had anything to do with it. Actually since Wagoner earned the greatest part of it as CEO, under the Bush Administration, it's all Bush's fault. If Bush hadn't been President, both Wagoner and GM wouldn't have failed so this wouldn't even be an issue....sheesh. ( MSNBC version of same subject ).
You are getting wilder and wilder in your accusations and more full of hate every day. Don't you see how silly you sound?
The government banned executive severance payments at GM as a condition of the cash infusion the company got from the Treasury.
My question? Did Obama promise Wagoner he would make sure he got his PENSION, if he left gracefully?
General Motors has no employment contract with boss Rick Wagoner, who has been pushed out by the White House. At least there wasn't one as of the company's last proxy statement. Thus there appears to be no automatic pinata of goodies set to rain down as Wagoner leaves.
From GM's proxy statement:
We do not have any employment agreements with Messrs. Wagoner, Henderson, Cowger, or Stephens that provide them with special compensation arrangements.
In addition, GM does not maintain any plan providing benefits tied to a change-in-control of the Corporation, although each of our incentive plans does contain change-in-control provisions that provide for protection and acceleration of incentive payments under certain conditions as disclosed in the “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control” section beginning on page 47.
More from CNS right after this. :shades:
He was legally entitled to it whether Bush remained President for the next 20 yrs, whether Obama won, whether Pelosi or Palin become President soon. Those were the rules GM had in place all during his tenure.
As I understand it from posts over at GMI from actual UAW members the UAW contract is one situation ( if BK occurs the underfunding is covered by the PBGC ) but, I'm not positive about this, the Executive pension fund is fully funded ( wow surprise here :surprise: and it's insured ) so Wagoner's money is protected. But the BK court will have to decide.
This by the way has nothing to do with Obama...or Bush to be fair.
My reference to Obama was not political in nature. It was questioning how he got Wagoner to step down without a battle. I would have questioned and still question the legality of a President getting involved in the executive affairs of a Private company. Same would have been if McCain were President or Ronald Reagan. To me it is the Presidency over stepping their Constitutional bounds.
"If GM files for bankruptcy, Wagoner could lose most of his pension."
Wagoner has financial stake in GM's future (Detroit News).
The Wall St. Journal says he'll likely get it.
That's arguable. The Office of the President invested money in this company on behalf of the taxpayer. That gives the sitting President the same rights and responsibilities as any major investor in a company.
And besides, it scared companies into not wanting to take TARP funds anymore, and try to give them back ASAP, and I'm all for that. :shades:
They should pay him in stock right now and put limits on when he can sell it.
That way he is tied to GM's future as it should be.
I'm certain that Wagoner, unless he was really asleep at the switch, knew that when he went to Washington it was to be fired. The Bush Administration threw him a lifeline in December but it had strings attached. The plan had to be acceptable or the loans were to be repaid on March 31st.
When the plans submitted by GM were both incomplete and poorly designed then by the Bush rules the loans had to be repaid on the 31st. That meant on April 1st GM went to BK court. Wagoner has always been against BK.
First he didn't follow the Bush rules, then he didn't provide the plan needed. He knew he was a dead man walking.
This is our money that GM had. If GM didn't have our money at risk then the President would have had no say in the matter, whether Obama or Bush. When GM and Chrysler came begging at the public teat they made the President and his team their superiors.
Chrysler Likely Broken Up...GM bondholders may come out smelling like roses
I agree with most of your posts but I don't understand this. GM would already be bankrupt if the US Govt had not gotten involved (via Bush). It's our tax dollars. If you accept that the govt is already in the mix (which none of us like) then I have no problem with the govt starting to pull some strings. We all agree Wagoner had to go. I see Obama as trying to do some fiduciary duty with our tax dollars. Obama did not decide to get involved, that was Bush. He's just taken the baton and is trying to due some due diligence.
Wagoner would not even say the word bankruptcy. He was hoping for more tax money.
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/230368/GM-Bankruptcy-Government-&-B- ondholders-Playing-'Chicken'-as-Deadline-Looms?tickers=GM,AIG,TM,HMC,F,GT,AXL?sec=topStories&pos=9&- asset=TBD&ccode=TBD
I assume like you did until I read this article.
Long term GM could be much better after bankruptcy. I'm looking it from an investor point of view.
Chrysler is cooked.
I posted that article to back my statement in a previous post that the UAW contracts would not simply disappear with a chapter 11 filing. But it would give GM the leverage to force negotiations with the UAW.
This whole thing is a big mess. I read an interesting one on one interview with Fritz Henderson (AutoNews). Very honest and candid. Two things that struck me from the interview is his candid response about GM accepting the money from the government and discussing their debt problems. I came away thinking if he had been CEO sooner, GM would be in much better shape and could have avoided this mess.
Here's a link to the interview. Hopefully you can read it: http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090413/ANA02/904109943/1178-
Yep, I'm not a business tycoon, but as I posted months ago here, I could see GM was moving at a snail's pace, trying to do the minimum amount of change. They were playing the card that the government could not possibly let GM go bankrupt, trying to force additional loans, while maintaining the status-quo.
I always say that most of our leaders are either corrupt, fools, or both. Wagoner and the Board I would place in the fools-category. Economic-Darwinism caught up with the woolly mammoth that could not change/adapt.
That's why I figured they'd get away with it...I didn't figure the lobbyist army in Washington would allow ANYONE there to actually drop the hammer on GM...but Obama pulled it off.
Still can't get over the irony of the free market president giving them a handout, and then the socialist-leaning president pulling it out from under them and letting the free market work by sending them into bankruptcy. :shades:
It has often begin said and I personally have seen it happen way too many times for it only to be a half truth, but it often takes the opposite party to do the so called "unthink able. "
So for example if Bush did EXACTLY what Obama has just done in his short time as President (i.e., GM example) , the very same demos who say little to nothing in public would be SCREAMING at the top of their lungs for Bush's resignation to impeachment, Barring that, the very least they would let it be known there WILL be reprisals.
Politicians...doing what's best for the country.....hmmm.....
Naah, it's more likely that aliens have secretly taken over the country and are terraforming it while using TV signals to keep people hypnotized.
And I'm all out of bubblegum. :shades:
I think Bush handed GM a lifeline as a courtesy to Obama. I am not displeased that Obama canned Wagoner. The BOD are ultimately responsible for the mess at GM, and should have dumped him a decade ago. My only concern is the precedent and legality. Will Wagoner sue and get a big settlement from the US tax payers. I don't consider our $16B as the major owner. Though that may have been written into the loan agreement with GM. Personally I hope they do not drag their feet in the bankruptcy. Get it done. Look at the mess with Delphi and C11. Four years and still flailing around in the courts.
Two or three of the strongest GM brands are sold to us the taxpayers under a 363 provision, they exit from BK fairly quickly and then are resold via an IPO to new owners. Life goes on with them being debt free.
The rest of the 'toxic brands' remain in BK court and are wound down to pay off the creditors. This means that a lot of workers still lose their jobs, maybe as much as 50%. But a lot still keep theirs and a new company is reborn..Phoenix Motors?
Shareholders lose everything, as they should.
The BoD are kicked out because the old GM is killed off in BK court.
The US taxpayers get their loan money back with interest.
The bondholders lose a little, breakeven or make a small profit on their speculation.
The unsecured lenders and vendors to the old GM lose out....but likely recoup some of their losses via Credit Insurance claims and/or the IRS.
Washington's Turnaround Artists
AC Delco ( Delphi ) can't get out of BK because it's incompetent. With its major customer shrinking by as much as 50% it may have to liquidate or go through the same process that GM is considering; i.e. spinning off the best parts of the company to remain in existence as part of a much smaller company....then get rid of the rest of the dead wood in a massive bonfire.
I am in shock!
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
It could have been done nicely and properly by telling Wagoner to go back to the BoD and to tell them that the major owner ( US ) had no confidence in him ( Wagoner ) any longer and that the BoD should replace him on the spot. If not the Bush bridge loans were due for repayment in 8 days.
The Board certainly would have replaced him on the spot. Or, to shorten the embarrassment Wagoner could just retire on the spot in Washington. Good for them.
It was done with AIG. It will be done again when any company comes begging to suckle at the public teat and doesn't meet the stipulations.
The "Board" has been MIA for the past decade. The aforementioned Waggoner was chairman of the aforementioned board anyway. Which means he wasn't going to wake them up so they could fire him.
Though it might be worth the cost just to see Waggoner in the unemployment line, haha!
I bet that's the case also. The executive pension fund is separate from that of the rank and file worker, and, like you said, I'm sure the executive fund is fully funded. So, Wagoner earned it (the pension not being tied to performance in any way), and it's his, so long as it's fully funded.
That's not the case for the UAW pensions which I guess is underfunded or else filled with worthless GM stock,
In my mind, that separation between govt and private companies was broached when GM was given the handout from the taxpayers. If you want to argue that the government (Bush & Obama) has been overstepping constitutional bounds by throwing money at banks and car companies, by all means have at it. Just don't try and tell us that the bailouts were legit but then asking for a change in management at one of the companies receiving those funds is not.
I wonder what the differences are investment-wise between the pension funds. I also wonder if just the fact that there ARE separate pension funds is a violation of workplace equal treatment laws...discrimination against blue-collar types or those below a certain pay grade. Then again, the executives aren't UAW members, and therefore may need to have a separate pension from one mandated by contract with the UAW. Still might be a case if they intentionally borked the UAW-level pension fund with common shares while loading up the executive fund with bonds and preferred equity.
A BK court might be able to look at the two separate pension funds, and decide that the executive fund should be used to make up the shortfall in the "peon" fund.
I bet not. Senior executives usually have a completely different benefit package than 1) what's negotiated by a union, where one exists, and 2) what's given to other, non-represented workers such as engineers.
While I am no expert on labor law, I bet there is nothing illegal about this. To give you an example, at my company managers and upper level technical professionals used to have a perk called a management physical, where the company would pay, ouside of any insurance benefit, to give those people a full-up physical once a year. Well the company, without much notice, quietly canceled that benefit for professions. I do not know if it still exists for lower level managers such as first line supervisors or not.
Point here is that absent an employment or negotiated contract, the company is free to do pretty much anything it wants.
Yes, most companies have an executive plans for those who make higher wages.
I don't remember the numbers, but due to tax incentives for retirement contributions and IRS rules on income and retirement plans etc, there are limits on how much can be contributed and income limits. Many companies will have an executive type plan for those who are considered "highly compensated". It is complicated to understand. I think a "highly compensated employee" currently is anything over like $105k. Income above that level would be eligible for an executive retirement plant.
IRS pension plan limitations Here is some dry reading. Basically, Wagoner's income was to high to participate in the same plan as UAW members.
We have a court system to handle companies in need of financial help. It is called bankruptcy Court. They need to just get it done.
Everyone else is doing it.
Auto supplier Noble seeks bankruptcy protection (Reuters)
My latest example. A friend was remodeling a church. They decided to rearrange the toilets in the restrooms. It has taken over a year to get approval from the county of San Diego. Including environmental impact studies. I would never try to build anything here again. We have come to a screeching halt and no one is able to move.
"Noble's European, Asian and Mexican affiliates are excluded from the bankruptcy."
It's hard for me to believe that they have cheaper labor and "government" expenses in the EU. The company blamed "frozen credit markets and diminished volumes."
SD's permit process looks typical to me. SD County's process looks typical too.Rearranging the toilets? Something tells me there's more to the story.