|
Re: GM's Butt buddies
GM will be DEAD and BURIED before xmas 2006 - to be ressurected
as a division of Honda in 2007 albeit MUCH smaller and non-union. Should be fun! "Wagonwheel" <Wagonwheel_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:e1evgf05e3@drn.newsguy.com... > GM's top brass confirmed Wagoneers position by assuring stockholders that "Rick > ain't a dick" when it comes to managing GM's losses. The same boneheads keep > giving him a raise. An old man's cluster of old farts and assholes who keep > their jobs by voting themselves a pay raise. I thought Kerkorian was smarter > than these clowns. They just keep pulling the condom over his head. A good jap > or china man running GM would shake the out of these old farts! > > > -- > NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth > |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
> On 4/12/2006 12:44 AM ... Saint Electrolux 59 wrote:
> GM will be DEAD and BURIED before xmas 2006 - to be ressurected > as a division of Honda in 2007 albeit MUCH smaller and non-union. > > Should be fun! > > "Wagonwheel" <Wagonwheel_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message > news:e1evgf05e3@drn.newsguy.com... >> GM's top brass confirmed Wagoneers position by assuring stockholders that > "Rick >> ain't a dick" when it comes to managing GM's losses. The same boneheads > keep >> giving him a raise. An old man's cluster of old farts and assholes > who keep >> their jobs by voting themselves a pay raise. I thought Kerkorian was > smarter >> than these clowns. They just keep pulling the condom over his head. A > good jap >> or china man running GM would shake the out of these old farts! >> >> >> -- >> NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth >> > Na! With recent sales of assets, they now have enough cash now to get them through xmas. Problem is that what they've been selling are the larger money-makers for them, so once the cash runs out and absent any more fire sales OR some other way to make up the income loss...who knows! |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
> On 4/12/2006 12:44 AM ... Saint Electrolux 59 wrote:
> GM will be DEAD and BURIED before xmas 2006 - to be ressurected > as a division of Honda in 2007 albeit MUCH smaller and non-union. > > Should be fun! > > "Wagonwheel" <Wagonwheel_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message > news:e1evgf05e3@drn.newsguy.com... >> GM's top brass confirmed Wagoneers position by assuring stockholders that > "Rick >> ain't a dick" when it comes to managing GM's losses. The same boneheads > keep >> giving him a raise. An old man's cluster of old farts and assholes > who keep >> their jobs by voting themselves a pay raise. I thought Kerkorian was > smarter >> than these clowns. They just keep pulling the condom over his head. A > good jap >> or china man running GM would shake the out of these old farts! >> >> >> -- >> NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth >> > Na! With recent sales of assets, they now have enough cash now to get them through xmas. Problem is that what they've been selling are the larger money-makers for them, so once the cash runs out and absent any more fire sales OR some other way to make up the income loss...who knows! |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
"Saint Electrolux 59" <combiner@3domingorf.com> wrote in message news:4c3e0$443c85b7$d1cc7ae7$32211@snip.allthenews groups.com... > GM will be DEAD and BURIED before xmas 2006 - to be ressurected > as a division of Honda in 2007 albeit MUCH smaller and non-union. > > Should be fun! I would think that GM has the resources to buy Honda. Hmm 51% of GMAC, remaining 49%... Of course they should buy Honda and let their management run the show. Give all of the GM managers early outs. |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
"Saint Electrolux 59" <combiner@3domingorf.com> wrote in message news:4c3e0$443c85b7$d1cc7ae7$32211@snip.allthenews groups.com... > GM will be DEAD and BURIED before xmas 2006 - to be ressurected > as a division of Honda in 2007 albeit MUCH smaller and non-union. > > Should be fun! I would think that GM has the resources to buy Honda. Hmm 51% of GMAC, remaining 49%... Of course they should buy Honda and let their management run the show. Give all of the GM managers early outs. |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
"Charles" <h90943@hotmail.commie> writes:
> > GM will be DEAD and BURIED before xmas 2006 - to be ressurected > > as a division of Honda in 2007 albeit MUCH smaller and non-union. > > I would think that GM has the resources to buy Honda. Hmm 51% of GMAC, > remaining 49%... I don't think so: GM market cap is $11B, HMC market cap is $59B. The market has spoken... Dale Worley -- Warn me before sending HTML e-mail, or it will be deleted as spam. -- And one of cyberspace's main properties is trying to pretend the real world doesn't exist, or that magically it can force the real world to rethink reality to fit what cyberspace's belief that reality ought to be. -- Chuq Von Rospach |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
"Charles" <h90943@hotmail.commie> writes:
> > GM will be DEAD and BURIED before xmas 2006 - to be ressurected > > as a division of Honda in 2007 albeit MUCH smaller and non-union. > > I would think that GM has the resources to buy Honda. Hmm 51% of GMAC, > remaining 49%... I don't think so: GM market cap is $11B, HMC market cap is $59B. The market has spoken... Dale Worley -- Warn me before sending HTML e-mail, or it will be deleted as spam. -- And one of cyberspace's main properties is trying to pretend the real world doesn't exist, or that magically it can force the real world to rethink reality to fit what cyberspace's belief that reality ought to be. -- Chuq Von Rospach |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
In article <1240hi3hitvds1a@corp.supernews.com>, "Charles"
<h90943@hotmail.commie> wrote: > "Saint Electrolux 59" <combiner@3domingorf.com> wrote in message > news:4c3e0$443c85b7$d1cc7ae7$32211@snip.allthenews groups.com... > > GM will be DEAD and BURIED before xmas 2006 - to be ressurected > > as a division of Honda in 2007 albeit MUCH smaller and non-union. > > > > Should be fun! > > I would think that GM has the resources to buy Honda. Hmm 51% of GMAC, > remaining 49%... > Of course they should buy Honda and let their management run the show. Give > all of the GM managers early outs. It would be more likely that Honda would buy GM instead of GM buying Honda. Please remember the situation involving Chrysler and Mercedes-Benz. However, I doubt that Honda would want the problems connected to taking over a company that has the debt burden (eg paying for the retirement and related health care costs of thousands of GM employees) if GM. Jason -- NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
In article <1240hi3hitvds1a@corp.supernews.com>, "Charles"
<h90943@hotmail.commie> wrote: > "Saint Electrolux 59" <combiner@3domingorf.com> wrote in message > news:4c3e0$443c85b7$d1cc7ae7$32211@snip.allthenews groups.com... > > GM will be DEAD and BURIED before xmas 2006 - to be ressurected > > as a division of Honda in 2007 albeit MUCH smaller and non-union. > > > > Should be fun! > > I would think that GM has the resources to buy Honda. Hmm 51% of GMAC, > remaining 49%... > Of course they should buy Honda and let their management run the show. Give > all of the GM managers early outs. It would be more likely that Honda would buy GM instead of GM buying Honda. Please remember the situation involving Chrysler and Mercedes-Benz. However, I doubt that Honda would want the problems connected to taking over a company that has the debt burden (eg paying for the retirement and related health care costs of thousands of GM employees) if GM. Jason -- NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
Dale Worley wrote:
> "Charles" <h90943@hotmail.commie> writes: > > > GM will be DEAD and BURIED before xmas 2006 - to be ressurected > > > as a division of Honda in 2007 albeit MUCH smaller and non-union. > > > > I would think that GM has the resources to buy Honda. Hmm 51% of GMAC, > > remaining 49%... > > I don't think so: GM market cap is $11B, HMC market cap is $59B. The > market has spoken... While I have no desire to take sides in this discussion, I have to take exception with your comment Dale. You can't buy diddley with "market cap". You need cash! ;-) |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
Dale Worley wrote:
> "Charles" <h90943@hotmail.commie> writes: > > > GM will be DEAD and BURIED before xmas 2006 - to be ressurected > > > as a division of Honda in 2007 albeit MUCH smaller and non-union. > > > > I would think that GM has the resources to buy Honda. Hmm 51% of GMAC, > > remaining 49%... > > I don't think so: GM market cap is $11B, HMC market cap is $59B. The > market has spoken... While I have no desire to take sides in this discussion, I have to take exception with your comment Dale. You can't buy diddley with "market cap". You need cash! ;-) |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
Market cap does not equate to cash reserves. However, I do not think that
they could come up with 59B and certainly could not utilize the purchase to their advantage. "Dale Worley" <worley@dragon.ariadne.com> wrote in message news:87psjjv948.fsf@newsgroups.comcast.net... > "Charles" <h90943@hotmail.commie> writes: > > > GM will be DEAD and BURIED before xmas 2006 - to be ressurected > > > as a division of Honda in 2007 albeit MUCH smaller and non-union. > > > > I would think that GM has the resources to buy Honda. Hmm 51% of GMAC, > > remaining 49%... > > I don't think so: GM market cap is $11B, HMC market cap is $59B. The > market has spoken... > > Dale Worley > -- > Warn me before sending HTML e-mail, or it will be deleted as spam. > -- > And one of cyberspace's main properties is trying to pretend the real > world doesn't exist, or that magically it can force the real world to > rethink reality to fit what cyberspace's belief that reality ought to > be. -- Chuq Von Rospach |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
Market cap does not equate to cash reserves. However, I do not think that
they could come up with 59B and certainly could not utilize the purchase to their advantage. "Dale Worley" <worley@dragon.ariadne.com> wrote in message news:87psjjv948.fsf@newsgroups.comcast.net... > "Charles" <h90943@hotmail.commie> writes: > > > GM will be DEAD and BURIED before xmas 2006 - to be ressurected > > > as a division of Honda in 2007 albeit MUCH smaller and non-union. > > > > I would think that GM has the resources to buy Honda. Hmm 51% of GMAC, > > remaining 49%... > > I don't think so: GM market cap is $11B, HMC market cap is $59B. The > market has spoken... > > Dale Worley > -- > Warn me before sending HTML e-mail, or it will be deleted as spam. > -- > And one of cyberspace's main properties is trying to pretend the real > world doesn't exist, or that magically it can force the real world to > rethink reality to fit what cyberspace's belief that reality ought to > be. -- Chuq Von Rospach |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
> On 4/15/2006 11:42 AM ... Jason wrote:
> In article <1240hi3hitvds1a@corp.supernews.com>, "Charles" > <h90943@hotmail.commie> wrote: > >> "Saint Electrolux 59" <combiner@3domingorf.com> wrote in message >> news:4c3e0$443c85b7$d1cc7ae7$32211@snip.allthenews groups.com... >>> GM will be DEAD and BURIED before xmas 2006 - to be ressurected >>> as a division of Honda in 2007 albeit MUCH smaller and non-union. >>> >>> Should be fun! >> I would think that GM has the resources to buy Honda. Hmm 51% of GMAC, >> remaining 49%... >> Of course they should buy Honda and let their management run the show. Give >> all of the GM managers early outs. > > It would be more likely that Honda would buy GM instead of GM buying Honda. > Please remember the situation involving Chrysler and Mercedes-Benz. > > However, I doubt that Honda would want the problems connected to taking > over a company that has the debt burden (eg paying for the retirement and > related health care costs of thousands of GM employees) if GM. > Jason > ....unless the government made a deal to accept some of the debt themselves so that Honda's buyout at least kept some of the debt and kept people working (and tax-payers). Interesting idea! |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
> On 4/15/2006 11:42 AM ... Jason wrote:
> In article <1240hi3hitvds1a@corp.supernews.com>, "Charles" > <h90943@hotmail.commie> wrote: > >> "Saint Electrolux 59" <combiner@3domingorf.com> wrote in message >> news:4c3e0$443c85b7$d1cc7ae7$32211@snip.allthenews groups.com... >>> GM will be DEAD and BURIED before xmas 2006 - to be ressurected >>> as a division of Honda in 2007 albeit MUCH smaller and non-union. >>> >>> Should be fun! >> I would think that GM has the resources to buy Honda. Hmm 51% of GMAC, >> remaining 49%... >> Of course they should buy Honda and let their management run the show. Give >> all of the GM managers early outs. > > It would be more likely that Honda would buy GM instead of GM buying Honda. > Please remember the situation involving Chrysler and Mercedes-Benz. > > However, I doubt that Honda would want the problems connected to taking > over a company that has the debt burden (eg paying for the retirement and > related health care costs of thousands of GM employees) if GM. > Jason > ....unless the government made a deal to accept some of the debt themselves so that Honda's buyout at least kept some of the debt and kept people working (and tax-payers). Interesting idea! |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
On 15 Apr 2006 09:27:53 -0700, "Cool Jet" <pkelly49@hotmail.com>
wrote: >Dale Worley wrote: >> "Charles" <h90943@hotmail.commie> writes: >> > > GM will be DEAD and BURIED before xmas 2006 - to be ressurected >> > > as a division of Honda in 2007 albeit MUCH smaller and non-union. >> > >> > I would think that GM has the resources to buy Honda. Hmm 51% of GMAC, >> > remaining 49%... >> >> I don't think so: GM market cap is $11B, HMC market cap is $59B. The >> market has spoken... > >While I have no desire to take sides in this discussion, I have to take >exception with your comment Dale. You can't buy diddley with "market >cap". You need cash! ;-) Sure you can. Companies do it all the time by bidding to exchange shares of the acquiring company for shares in the target company. GM shareholders would end up with shares in Honda, Honda would own all of GM's assets (and liabilities) and Honda share value is not diluted because the increase in shares outstanding is offset by increased value of the company after the acquisition. Of course this is all hypothetical when no one would pay $11B for GM at this point. |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
On 15 Apr 2006 09:27:53 -0700, "Cool Jet" <pkelly49@hotmail.com>
wrote: >Dale Worley wrote: >> "Charles" <h90943@hotmail.commie> writes: >> > > GM will be DEAD and BURIED before xmas 2006 - to be ressurected >> > > as a division of Honda in 2007 albeit MUCH smaller and non-union. >> > >> > I would think that GM has the resources to buy Honda. Hmm 51% of GMAC, >> > remaining 49%... >> >> I don't think so: GM market cap is $11B, HMC market cap is $59B. The >> market has spoken... > >While I have no desire to take sides in this discussion, I have to take >exception with your comment Dale. You can't buy diddley with "market >cap". You need cash! ;-) Sure you can. Companies do it all the time by bidding to exchange shares of the acquiring company for shares in the target company. GM shareholders would end up with shares in Honda, Honda would own all of GM's assets (and liabilities) and Honda share value is not diluted because the increase in shares outstanding is offset by increased value of the company after the acquisition. Of course this is all hypothetical when no one would pay $11B for GM at this point. |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
In article <ididnRDT75p-JNzZnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, jcr
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote: > > On 4/15/2006 11:42 AM ... Jason wrote: > > In article <1240hi3hitvds1a@corp.supernews.com>, "Charles" > > <h90943@hotmail.commie> wrote: > > > >> "Saint Electrolux 59" <combiner@3domingorf.com> wrote in message > >> news:4c3e0$443c85b7$d1cc7ae7$32211@snip.allthenews groups.com... > >>> GM will be DEAD and BURIED before xmas 2006 - to be ressurected > >>> as a division of Honda in 2007 albeit MUCH smaller and non-union. > >>> > >>> Should be fun! > >> I would think that GM has the resources to buy Honda. Hmm 51% of GMAC, > >> remaining 49%... > >> Of course they should buy Honda and let their management run the show. Give > >> all of the GM managers early outs. > > > > It would be more likely that Honda would buy GM instead of GM buying Honda. > > Please remember the situation involving Chrysler and Mercedes-Benz. > > > > However, I doubt that Honda would want the problems connected to taking > > over a company that has the debt burden (eg paying for the retirement and > > related health care costs of thousands of GM employees) if GM. > > Jason > > > ...unless the government made a deal to accept some of the debt > themselves so that Honda's buyout at least kept some of the debt and > kept people working (and tax-payers). Interesting idea! Great point. However, I doubt that Honda or any other foreign car company would want all of the problems connected with owning and running GM. It's my guess that the owners of Mercedes now reqret taking over Chrysler. I read one article in a car magazine indicating that the automotive engineers from Mercedes gave up on trying to fix the design problems related to some of the engines that were used in Chrysler vehicles. They solved the problem by placing Mercedes engines in those vehicles. Jason -- NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
In article <ididnRDT75p-JNzZnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, jcr
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote: > > On 4/15/2006 11:42 AM ... Jason wrote: > > In article <1240hi3hitvds1a@corp.supernews.com>, "Charles" > > <h90943@hotmail.commie> wrote: > > > >> "Saint Electrolux 59" <combiner@3domingorf.com> wrote in message > >> news:4c3e0$443c85b7$d1cc7ae7$32211@snip.allthenews groups.com... > >>> GM will be DEAD and BURIED before xmas 2006 - to be ressurected > >>> as a division of Honda in 2007 albeit MUCH smaller and non-union. > >>> > >>> Should be fun! > >> I would think that GM has the resources to buy Honda. Hmm 51% of GMAC, > >> remaining 49%... > >> Of course they should buy Honda and let their management run the show. Give > >> all of the GM managers early outs. > > > > It would be more likely that Honda would buy GM instead of GM buying Honda. > > Please remember the situation involving Chrysler and Mercedes-Benz. > > > > However, I doubt that Honda would want the problems connected to taking > > over a company that has the debt burden (eg paying for the retirement and > > related health care costs of thousands of GM employees) if GM. > > Jason > > > ...unless the government made a deal to accept some of the debt > themselves so that Honda's buyout at least kept some of the debt and > kept people working (and tax-payers). Interesting idea! Great point. However, I doubt that Honda or any other foreign car company would want all of the problems connected with owning and running GM. It's my guess that the owners of Mercedes now reqret taking over Chrysler. I read one article in a car magazine indicating that the automotive engineers from Mercedes gave up on trying to fix the design problems related to some of the engines that were used in Chrysler vehicles. They solved the problem by placing Mercedes engines in those vehicles. Jason -- NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
On the chance that you all don't realize you're cross-posting, you
are...to the Subaru board. |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
On the chance that you all don't realize you're cross-posting, you
are...to the Subaru board. |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On 15 Apr 2006 09:27:53 -0700, "Cool Jet" <pkel...49@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >While I have no desire to take sides in this discussion, I have to take > >exception with your comment Dale. You can't buy diddley with "market > >cap". You need cash! ;-) > > > Sure you can. Companies do it all the time by bidding to exchange > shares of the acquiring company for shares in the target company. snip I repeat: "You can't buy diddley with "market cap". You need cash! ;-)" Gordon, if you are the knowledgeable person you purport to be, you would know that share exchanges require the "crossing" of cheques to effect the purchase or exchange. i.e. cash! ;-) |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On 15 Apr 2006 09:27:53 -0700, "Cool Jet" <pkel...49@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >While I have no desire to take sides in this discussion, I have to take > >exception with your comment Dale. You can't buy diddley with "market > >cap". You need cash! ;-) > > > Sure you can. Companies do it all the time by bidding to exchange > shares of the acquiring company for shares in the target company. snip I repeat: "You can't buy diddley with "market cap". You need cash! ;-)" Gordon, if you are the knowledgeable person you purport to be, you would know that share exchanges require the "crossing" of cheques to effect the purchase or exchange. i.e. cash! ;-) |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
In article
<jason-1504060842090001@66-52-22-113.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > It would be more likely that Honda would buy GM instead of GM buying Honda. > Please remember the situation involving Chrysler and Mercedes-Benz. > > However, I doubt that Honda would want the problems connected to taking > over a company that has the debt burden (eg paying for the retirement and > related health care costs of thousands of GM employees) if GM. As you point out Honda isn't that stupid. IMO GM will have to face a major restructuring and the sooner they get on with it the better for all. As they are now going they are just stressing the employees more and more, with the real possibility of losing their jobs hanging over their heard. Not the best environment to build quality vehicles. |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
In article
<jason-1504060842090001@66-52-22-113.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > It would be more likely that Honda would buy GM instead of GM buying Honda. > Please remember the situation involving Chrysler and Mercedes-Benz. > > However, I doubt that Honda would want the problems connected to taking > over a company that has the debt burden (eg paying for the retirement and > related health care costs of thousands of GM employees) if GM. As you point out Honda isn't that stupid. IMO GM will have to face a major restructuring and the sooner they get on with it the better for all. As they are now going they are just stressing the employees more and more, with the real possibility of losing their jobs hanging over their heard. Not the best environment to build quality vehicles. |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
So GM can come up with 59 billion in cash? REally?
Honda could issue new shares for cash. |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
So GM can come up with 59 billion in cash? REally?
Honda could issue new shares for cash. |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
You don't know what the hell you're talking about!
Share for share purchases done all the time. And no, you don't have to "cross cheques". YOu just made that gibberish up! Shares are issued, simple as that. Don't have to have 100 billion in cash to issue 100 billion in shares. Idiot. |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
You don't know what the hell you're talking about!
Share for share purchases done all the time. And no, you don't have to "cross cheques". YOu just made that gibberish up! Shares are issued, simple as that. Don't have to have 100 billion in cash to issue 100 billion in shares. Idiot. |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
In article
<jason-1604061041030001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Great point. However, I doubt that Honda or any other foreign car company > would want all of the problems connected with owning and running GM. It's > my guess that the owners of Mercedes now reqret taking over Chrysler. I > read one article in a car magazine indicating that the automotive > engineers from Mercedes gave up on trying to fix the design problems > related to some of the engines that were used in Chrysler vehicles. They > solved the problem by placing Mercedes engines in those vehicles. I read the opposite, it's Chrysler engines in the Mercedes and Mercedes transmissions and outward in the RWD Chryslers. To be specific he Chrysler hemi V8 and 3.5L V6 are used by Mercedes. With the FWD Chrysler Caliber and the Mercedes B-200 they obviously use the same complete drive train, tuned up a bit for the market each is in. The 4 cyl engine and CV transmission have design involvement by a number of other companies. |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
In article
<jason-1604061041030001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Great point. However, I doubt that Honda or any other foreign car company > would want all of the problems connected with owning and running GM. It's > my guess that the owners of Mercedes now reqret taking over Chrysler. I > read one article in a car magazine indicating that the automotive > engineers from Mercedes gave up on trying to fix the design problems > related to some of the engines that were used in Chrysler vehicles. They > solved the problem by placing Mercedes engines in those vehicles. I read the opposite, it's Chrysler engines in the Mercedes and Mercedes transmissions and outward in the RWD Chryslers. To be specific he Chrysler hemi V8 and 3.5L V6 are used by Mercedes. With the FWD Chrysler Caliber and the Mercedes B-200 they obviously use the same complete drive train, tuned up a bit for the market each is in. The 4 cyl engine and CV transmission have design involvement by a number of other companies. |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
st-bum wrote:
> You don't know what the hell you're talking about! > > Share for share purchases done all the time. And no, you don't have to > "cross cheques". YOu just made that gibberish up! Shares are issued, > simple as that. Don't have to have 100 billion in cash to issue 100 > billion in shares. > > Idiot. My dear street-bum, you had better go back and read my post. Then review your basic accounting text, for Accounting 101. Then admit yourself to the local psychiatric ward for assessment. I repeat: "You can't buy diddley with "market cap". You need cash! ;-)" Except perhaps AFLAC customers out of Columbus, GA. Fool! |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
st-bum wrote:
> You don't know what the hell you're talking about! > > Share for share purchases done all the time. And no, you don't have to > "cross cheques". YOu just made that gibberish up! Shares are issued, > simple as that. Don't have to have 100 billion in cash to issue 100 > billion in shares. > > Idiot. My dear street-bum, you had better go back and read my post. Then review your basic accounting text, for Accounting 101. Then admit yourself to the local psychiatric ward for assessment. I repeat: "You can't buy diddley with "market cap". You need cash! ;-)" Except perhaps AFLAC customers out of Columbus, GA. Fool! |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
Ba ha ha paranoid loser.
You issue stock for stock. You don't need cash and you don't need to "exchange cheques". Did Time Warner have 100 billion or so when it bought AOL? Did they say..."hold on we'll issue stock but first we need to raise 100 billion in cash to facilitate 'exchanging cheques'". Or did it just issue stock? LOL. Yeah they "exchange cheques". Why try to be an expert in something when you're not? Do you like being a phony? You need neither market value nor cash actually. Small companies can issue stock for larger ones if buyers will take it. You are laughable, but I like calling out blowhards. You're trying to come accross as a know it all, but you know nothing. |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
Ba ha ha paranoid loser.
You issue stock for stock. You don't need cash and you don't need to "exchange cheques". Did Time Warner have 100 billion or so when it bought AOL? Did they say..."hold on we'll issue stock but first we need to raise 100 billion in cash to facilitate 'exchanging cheques'". Or did it just issue stock? LOL. Yeah they "exchange cheques". Why try to be an expert in something when you're not? Do you like being a phony? You need neither market value nor cash actually. Small companies can issue stock for larger ones if buyers will take it. You are laughable, but I like calling out blowhards. You're trying to come accross as a know it all, but you know nothing. |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
In article <iHate-84AF41.10450818042006@news.telus.net>, Spam Hater
<iHate@spam.net> wrote: > In article > <jason-1604061041030001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > Great point. However, I doubt that Honda or any other foreign car company > > would want all of the problems connected with owning and running GM. It's > > my guess that the owners of Mercedes now reqret taking over Chrysler. I > > read one article in a car magazine indicating that the automotive > > engineers from Mercedes gave up on trying to fix the design problems > > related to some of the engines that were used in Chrysler vehicles. They > > solved the problem by placing Mercedes engines in those vehicles. > > I read the opposite, it's Chrysler engines in the Mercedes and Mercedes > transmissions and outward in the RWD Chryslers. > > To be specific he Chrysler hemi V8 and 3.5L V6 are used by Mercedes. > > With the FWD Chrysler Caliber and the Mercedes B-200 they obviously use > the same complete drive train, tuned up a bit for the market each is in. > The 4 cyl engine and CV transmission have design involvement by a number > of other companies. I no longer have the magazine that had the article in it. I was referring to the first one or two years after Mercedes took over the company. You must have read a more recent article. It's my guess that the automotive engineers from Mercedes have already made all of the needed design changes in the Chrysler motors and transmissions (and related parts). Jason -- NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
In article <iHate-84AF41.10450818042006@news.telus.net>, Spam Hater
<iHate@spam.net> wrote: > In article > <jason-1604061041030001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > Great point. However, I doubt that Honda or any other foreign car company > > would want all of the problems connected with owning and running GM. It's > > my guess that the owners of Mercedes now reqret taking over Chrysler. I > > read one article in a car magazine indicating that the automotive > > engineers from Mercedes gave up on trying to fix the design problems > > related to some of the engines that were used in Chrysler vehicles. They > > solved the problem by placing Mercedes engines in those vehicles. > > I read the opposite, it's Chrysler engines in the Mercedes and Mercedes > transmissions and outward in the RWD Chryslers. > > To be specific he Chrysler hemi V8 and 3.5L V6 are used by Mercedes. > > With the FWD Chrysler Caliber and the Mercedes B-200 they obviously use > the same complete drive train, tuned up a bit for the market each is in. > The 4 cyl engine and CV transmission have design involvement by a number > of other companies. I no longer have the magazine that had the article in it. I was referring to the first one or two years after Mercedes took over the company. You must have read a more recent article. It's my guess that the automotive engineers from Mercedes have already made all of the needed design changes in the Chrysler motors and transmissions (and related parts). Jason -- NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
street-bum kennykabukiATyahooDOTcom Ba ha ha paranoid loser. wrote: > You issue stock for stock. You don't need cash and you don't need to > "exchange cheques". Did Time Warner have 100 billion or so when it > bought AOL? Did they say..."hold on we'll issue stock but first we > need to raise 100 billion in cash to facilitate 'exchanging cheques'". > Or did it just issue stock? LOL. Yeah they "exchange cheques". Why > try to be an expert in something when you're not? Do you like being a > phony? You need neither market value nor cash actually. Small > companies can issue stock for larger ones if buyers will take it. First of all, you boorish little man, Time Warner did not buy AOL! In actual fact, AOL Inc. acquired Time Warner Inc. for roughly $182 billion in stock and debt. Bwa, Ha, Ha! If you check your Accounting 101 text, my intellectually challenged little man, you will find that even debt assumption requires the crossing of checks. The two companies for all intents and purposes merged. Interestingly, AOL's purchase of Time Warner in January 2001 came to symbolize the boom and bust of the Web bubble and the rise and fall of new media. > > You are laughable, but I like calling out blowhards. You're trying to > come accross as a know it all, but you know nothing. You would clearly know a blowhard when you saw one. ;-) There is great irony in your comment about calling out blowhards, because you have just been called out as one, who was way offbase on the Time Warner issue. For the hard-of-hearing, I repeat: "You can't buy diddley with "market cap". You need cash! ;-)" |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
street-bum kennykabukiATyahooDOTcom Ba ha ha paranoid loser. wrote: > You issue stock for stock. You don't need cash and you don't need to > "exchange cheques". Did Time Warner have 100 billion or so when it > bought AOL? Did they say..."hold on we'll issue stock but first we > need to raise 100 billion in cash to facilitate 'exchanging cheques'". > Or did it just issue stock? LOL. Yeah they "exchange cheques". Why > try to be an expert in something when you're not? Do you like being a > phony? You need neither market value nor cash actually. Small > companies can issue stock for larger ones if buyers will take it. First of all, you boorish little man, Time Warner did not buy AOL! In actual fact, AOL Inc. acquired Time Warner Inc. for roughly $182 billion in stock and debt. Bwa, Ha, Ha! If you check your Accounting 101 text, my intellectually challenged little man, you will find that even debt assumption requires the crossing of checks. The two companies for all intents and purposes merged. Interestingly, AOL's purchase of Time Warner in January 2001 came to symbolize the boom and bust of the Web bubble and the rise and fall of new media. > > You are laughable, but I like calling out blowhards. You're trying to > come accross as a know it all, but you know nothing. You would clearly know a blowhard when you saw one. ;-) There is great irony in your comment about calling out blowhards, because you have just been called out as one, who was way offbase on the Time Warner issue. For the hard-of-hearing, I repeat: "You can't buy diddley with "market cap". You need cash! ;-)" |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
street-bum kennykabukiATyahooDOTcom Ba ha ha paranoid loser. wrote: > You issue stock for stock. You don't need cash and you don't need to > "exchange cheques". Did Time Warner have 100 billion or so when it > bought AOL? Did they say..."hold on we'll issue stock but first we > need to raise 100 billion in cash to facilitate 'exchanging cheques'". > Or did it just issue stock? LOL. Yeah they "exchange cheques". Why > try to be an expert in something when you're not? Do you like being a > phony? You need neither market value nor cash actually. Small > companies can issue stock for larger ones if buyers will take it. First of all, you boorish little man, Time Warner did not buy AOL! In actual fact, AOL Inc. acquired Time Warner Inc. for roughly $182 billion in stock and debt. Bwa, Ha, Ha! If you check your Accounting 101 text, my intellectually challenged little man, you will find that even debt assumption requires the crossing of checks. The two companies for all intents and purposes merged. Interestingly, AOL's purchase of Time Warner in January 2001 came to symbolize the boom and bust of the Web bubble and the rise and fall of new media. > > You are laughable, but I like calling out blowhards. You're trying to > come accross as a know it all, but you know nothing. You would clearly know a blowhard when you saw one. ;-) There is great irony in your comment about calling out blowhards, because you have just been called out as one, who was way offbase on the Time Warner issue. For the hard-of-hearing, I repeat: "You can't buy diddley with "market cap". You need cash! ;-)" |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:16 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands