Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (482760)	5/22/2009 1:25:06 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573967

Could it be that the gov't's agreement was the fairest and best agreement all around? It could have been but it wasn't. Why do you say that? The gov't is just one more creditor whose claims have to be dealt with. The government isn't just one more creditor. It also took control over the "votes" of many of the other creditors who it has provided bailout money to, either based on their dependency on the government, or through intimidation. You seem to think that senior creditors should get 100% of their investment back. I never said, implied, or suggested such a thing. They should however get a larger share of their money back than the junior creditors. Often if there isn't enough to pay back the senior creditors the junior creditors don't get much, sometimes they get nothing. I'm not necessarily calling for nothing here, since they can negotiate with the senior creditors for something in exchange for not delaying the proceedings, but the negotiation should be a real negotiation, not the government setting the conditions, and riding roughshod over the idea that the senior creditors have a senior claim.