Letter From Those Who Voted No On Chrysler Deal

WSJ:

April 30, 2009 -- As of last night's deadline, we were part of a group of approximately 20 relatively small organizations; we represent many of the country's teachers unions, major pension and retirement plans and school endowments who have invested through us in senior secured loans to Chrysler. Combined, these loans total about $1 billion. None of us have taken a dime in TARP money.

As much as anyone, we want to see Chrysler emerge from its current situation as a viable American company, and we are committed to doing what we can to help. Indeed, we have made significant concessions toward this end -- although we have been systematically precluded from engaging in direct discussions or negotiations with the government; instead, we have been forced to communicate through an obviously conflicted intermediary: a group of banks that have received billions of TARP funds.

Read the whole story: WSJ

Comments

[Skaperen]

I want to know just who these "approximately 20" non-TARP investors really are, and exactly what kind of stake, and for how much, they have in this. Short of this kind of transparency, I'll side with our President. If necessary, I'll even support completely dissolving Chrysler with a newly created corporation using all new funding from the government buying up all the assets from Chrysler, and immediately resuming production. The government can then slowly sell off that new corporation through a graduated IPO.

[BlueTide]

Are you sure that you are acting in the best interest of your hedge fund investors? Everyone else, even the great majority of other hedge fund investors in Chrysler decided that it was in their best interest to make sacrifices in to finalize a deal. Many Americans believe that unregulated hedge funds like yours is a big reason for the collapse of the world's financial system, and now you are the ones that could send thousands and even millions of Americans to the unemployment lines. Your action should set an example why your industry should be regulated. I hope Congress and the President sees this example. I hope your example will cause you to be regulated.

[Dolmance]

If putting more millions of Americans out of work during the worst economic crisis in nearly a century is acceptable to you, then you go to hell.

[vagabondvet]

People lose jobs during a recession; many of them wouldn't have been employed during the boom if it weren't for the expansion of credit that caused the bubble in the first place.

[SteelerPink]

If they stand behind their statement why wont they give their name?