Solyndra-Gate
- Thread starter tivo
- Start date
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='UncleBob']http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8861441&postcount=16[/QUOTE]
...
[quote name='speedracer']If the people that did the restructured loan end up with a fat profit (the loan < accounts receivable + inventory on hand), then whoever made that decision for the government should be marched up the hill to explain why. Anyone lower than Chu and I'd just fire them straight away.
But that BI article I quoted yesterday said there was ~$55 million total (~$4mil AR and ~$50mil inventory) and only mentioned a $4mil bridge loan. Bob's article says the emergency loan was for $69 million. So it doesn't look like there will be a fat profit there. In fact it looks like a healthy loss, though I'm sure they'll find some way to cover. But that totally changes the game. Now it makes sense to form a company to hold your assets in escrow. The whole story I posted yesterday stops being criminal and starts being good business if Bob's link's loan amount is right. [/quote]
...
[quote name='speedracer']
And the rest sounds like politics.
This thing turns on whether the guys that make the loan make a shit ton of money. If they loan $70mil and walk away with $100mi+, yea, someone needs to get fired. Otherwise this is much ado about nothing. Crony capitalism doesn't work unless people are getting paid. If I was trying to hook up a contributor, I sure as
wouldn't leave it up to a bankruptcy judge to decide. [/quote]
And?
C'mon man. At least pretend to read the thread.
...
[quote name='speedracer']If the people that did the restructured loan end up with a fat profit (the loan < accounts receivable + inventory on hand), then whoever made that decision for the government should be marched up the hill to explain why. Anyone lower than Chu and I'd just fire them straight away.
But that BI article I quoted yesterday said there was ~$55 million total (~$4mil AR and ~$50mil inventory) and only mentioned a $4mil bridge loan. Bob's article says the emergency loan was for $69 million. So it doesn't look like there will be a fat profit there. In fact it looks like a healthy loss, though I'm sure they'll find some way to cover. But that totally changes the game. Now it makes sense to form a company to hold your assets in escrow. The whole story I posted yesterday stops being criminal and starts being good business if Bob's link's loan amount is right. [/quote]
...
[quote name='speedracer']
Well Rep. Griffith, they would have sold their inventory before declaring bankruptcy and used the money to extend operations. So actually what the DOE did was convince someone else to throw in good money. Giving up seniority in debt positioning isn't a problem WHEN THERE'S NO MONEY TO GET DUMBASS.
And the rest sounds like politics.
This thing turns on whether the guys that make the loan make a shit ton of money. If they loan $70mil and walk away with $100mi+, yea, someone needs to get fired. Otherwise this is much ado about nothing. Crony capitalism doesn't work unless people are getting paid. If I was trying to hook up a contributor, I sure as
wouldn't leave it up to a bankruptcy judge to decide. [/quote]And?
C'mon man. At least pretend to read the thread.
speedracer
Banned
And speaking of not news. Look who's probably going to be putting in a monstrous order for turbines:
Timely research indeed.
Okay, so this guy and his friends have a lot of money invested into a company.
The company gets $500 Million in government loans.
The company tries to get more loans and has no luck.
This guy and his friends then put some of their own money into the failing company.
The government then reworked the loan so that the guy and his friend's money gets paid back before taxpayers.
Company then waits until November 3rd (i.e.: day after elections) to announce layoffs.
Completely unrelated, guy happened to be a major donor to the President's campaign.
I can totally see how this is 100% on the up-and-up.
The company gets $500 Million in government loans.
The company tries to get more loans and has no luck.
This guy and his friends then put some of their own money into the failing company.
The government then reworked the loan so that the guy and his friend's money gets paid back before taxpayers.
Company then waits until November 3rd (i.e.: day after elections) to announce layoffs.
Completely unrelated, guy happened to be a major donor to the President's campaign.
I can totally see how this is 100% on the up-and-up.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='UncleBob']The government then reworked the loan so that the guy and his friend's money gets paid back before taxpayers.[/quote]
[quote name='speedracer']Giving up seniority in debt positioning isn't a problem WHEN THERE'S NO MONEY TO GET DUMBASS.[/quote]
...
[quote name='UncleBob']Company then waits until November 3rd (i.e.: day after elections) to announce layoffs.[/quote]
Politician does something politically expedient. News at 11.
...
[quote name='UncleBob']Completely unrelated, guy happened to be a major donor to the President's campaign.[/quote]
[quote name='speedracer']If I was trying to hook up a contributor, I sure as wouldn't leave it up to a bankruptcy judge to decide. [/quote]
[quote name='speedracer']Giving up seniority in debt positioning isn't a problem WHEN THERE'S NO MONEY TO GET DUMBASS.[/quote]
...
[quote name='UncleBob']Company then waits until November 3rd (i.e.: day after elections) to announce layoffs.[/quote]
Politician does something politically expedient. News at 11.
...
[quote name='UncleBob']Completely unrelated, guy happened to be a major donor to the President's campaign.[/quote]
[quote name='speedracer']If I was trying to hook up a contributor, I sure as
wouldn't leave it up to a bankruptcy judge to decide. [/quote]speedracer
Banned
[quote name='UncleBob']So... how much is going to come from selling off Solydra assets?[/QUOTE]
[quote name='speedracer']If the people that did the restructured loan end up with a fat profit (the loan < accounts receivable + inventory on hand), then whoever made that decision for the government should be marched up the hill to explain why. Anyone lower than Chu and I'd just fire them straight away.
But that BI article I quoted yesterday said there was ~$55 million total (~$4mil AR and ~$50mil inventory) and only mentioned a $4mil bridge loan. Bob's article says the emergency loan was for $69 million. So it doesn't look like there will be a fat profit there. In fact it looks like a healthy loss, though I'm sure they'll find some way to cover. But that totally changes the game. Now it makes sense to form a company to hold your assets in escrow. The whole story I posted yesterday stops being criminal and starts being good business if Bob's link's loan amount is right.
This thing turns on whether the guys that make the loan make a shit ton of money. If they loan $70mil and walk away with $100mi+, yea, someone needs to get fired. Otherwise this is much ado about nothing. Crony capitalism doesn't work unless people are getting paid. If I was trying to hook up a contributor, I sure as wouldn't leave it up to a bankruptcy judge to decide. [/QUOTE]
[quote name='speedracer']If the people that did the restructured loan end up with a fat profit (the loan < accounts receivable + inventory on hand), then whoever made that decision for the government should be marched up the hill to explain why. Anyone lower than Chu and I'd just fire them straight away.
But that BI article I quoted yesterday said there was ~$55 million total (~$4mil AR and ~$50mil inventory) and only mentioned a $4mil bridge loan. Bob's article says the emergency loan was for $69 million. So it doesn't look like there will be a fat profit there. In fact it looks like a healthy loss, though I'm sure they'll find some way to cover. But that totally changes the game. Now it makes sense to form a company to hold your assets in escrow. The whole story I posted yesterday stops being criminal and starts being good business if Bob's link's loan amount is right.
This thing turns on whether the guys that make the loan make a shit ton of money. If they loan $70mil and walk away with $100mi+, yea, someone needs to get fired. Otherwise this is much ado about nothing. Crony capitalism doesn't work unless people are getting paid. If I was trying to hook up a contributor, I sure as
wouldn't leave it up to a bankruptcy judge to decide. [/QUOTE]I see a lot of speculation in that post - but not a lot of actual numbers.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=49&articleid=20111108_49_E2_Solynd662822
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=49&articleid=20111108_49_E2_Solynd662822
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='UncleBob']I see a lot of speculation in that post - but not a lot of actual numbers.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=49&articleid=20111108_49_E2_Solynd662822[/QUOTE]
Yer killin me smalls.
The "new" loan was secured with accounts receivable (AR) and inventory. Nothing else matters because they become unsecured creditors beyond that point and would take a junior position to bond holders. Your link says they have $850m in assets but that's costed as if they were "true" assets, not bankruptcy assets. Assets in bankruptcy go for 40-50 cents on the dollar at best. So we can reasonably assume their bankruptcy assets will be in the neighborhood of ~$425m, against ~$875m in debt. They loaned Solyndra (based on your link earlier) ~$70m and secured it with ~$55m in assets. They will have ~$15m debt outstanding and be an unsecured creditor with a senior position only against government claims. In real terms, they will be fighting bond holders with senior position over the bankruptcy leftovers.
As an unsecured creditor to another party, I can tell you that unsecured creditors get paid roughly never.
You're trying to make the case that an Obama supporter got hooked up, but the data just doesn't bear that out.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=49&articleid=20111108_49_E2_Solynd662822[/QUOTE]
Yer killin me smalls.
The "new" loan was secured with accounts receivable (AR) and inventory. Nothing else matters because they become unsecured creditors beyond that point and would take a junior position to bond holders. Your link says they have $850m in assets but that's costed as if they were "true" assets, not bankruptcy assets. Assets in bankruptcy go for 40-50 cents on the dollar at best. So we can reasonably assume their bankruptcy assets will be in the neighborhood of ~$425m, against ~$875m in debt. They loaned Solyndra (based on your link earlier) ~$70m and secured it with ~$55m in assets. They will have ~$15m debt outstanding and be an unsecured creditor with a senior position only against government claims. In real terms, they will be fighting bond holders with senior position over the bankruptcy leftovers.
As an unsecured creditor to another party, I can tell you that unsecured creditors get paid roughly never.
You're trying to make the case that an Obama supporter got hooked up, but the data just doesn't bear that out.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='Clak']How does rotting vegetation releasing methane have any effect on whether hydro-electric power is cleaner or not?[/QUOTE]
They use a total life cycle cost accounting which includes all externalities. Rotting vegetation occurs that would not occur if they had not put in a dam, therefore it must be accounted for.
I dream of a world where everyone uses full externality cost accounting, but then capitalism as we know it would cease to exist because all the money is in externalities. Oil/coal based production would cease to exist the next day, literally, because it would no longer be profitable. The best (ie most profitable) businesses are the ones where you can offload your costs on others, like smoke wafting away from a smokestack or oil spills into a large body of water where no one will find it.
They use a total life cycle cost accounting which includes all externalities. Rotting vegetation occurs that would not occur if they had not put in a dam, therefore it must be accounted for.
I dream of a world where everyone uses full externality cost accounting, but then capitalism as we know it would cease to exist because all the money is in externalities. Oil/coal based production would cease to exist the next day, literally, because it would no longer be profitable. The best (ie most profitable) businesses are the ones where you can offload your costs on others, like smoke wafting away from a smokestack or oil spills into a large body of water where no one will find it.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='Clak']I wish I understood accounting better, but that shit makes my head hurt. I could seriously have an easier time studying physics.[/QUOTE]
It's super intimidating but ridiculously easy. Just leave the math to the actuarial mathematicians and let's just assume we already know all the numbers, because we do. For example, we already know that it costs $X in health care per person in surrounding communities for every coal burning plant because the health insurance companies need to know it as a matter of existing. They'll lose money on that community otherwise, right?
So every function has an output. A coal factory burns coal and outputs smoke and power. They love power because they can sell it but they hate smoke because it costs money to clean up. If they were to pay out of pocket to cover the "cost" of the smoke, the total (or fully "accounting" for the cost) would almost certainly be more than the money they make off the power. What's a coal company to do?
They just ignore then cost of the smoke and offload that cost to those around them. Or in accounting terms, they don't cost the externalities.
Or an oil company drills for oil in the gulf. They have a *potential* external liability (externality cost) if their oil rig burns up and the well leaks a bazillion gallons. Rather than accounting for that potential cost they just ignore it. Since the catastrophe potential, the externality potential is so huge, no right minded person accounting for that would ever let it happen. But there's money to be made, so they just ignore it.
Externalities aren't just negative though. Vaccinations have a positive externality effect due to the "herd" being protected. So when I vaccinate my little spawn, I decrease the chance that disease will take hold in my community. Therefore there is a net positive greater than the protection of my individual brat.
Hope that helped and I'm not just rambling.
I had a professor in college whose research was in the total life cycle cost of doing business. Naturally, he wasn't garnering much interest from private sources for funding.
To bring this all back around, the government (according to liberals like myself) has a duty to impose costs on those that produce negative externalities and to support those that produce positive externalities because the market specifically doesn't. If the market forced coal to pay for itself, there would be no coal. But since it doesn't, coal has a built in subsidy, a price it doesn't have to pay because it's not forced to. It's worth probably hundreds of billions of dollars a year or more to energy companies. Therefore, the government says hey, let's put some money towards those with positive externalities to help offset what the market cannot do itself because the market here is not fair.
So the government starts a clean energy loan guarantee program. And a half bil goes to shit and Republicans freak out and pretend its a big deal. And everyone pretends the dirty energy negative cost externalities don't exist, which is an underhanded way of giving them 100s of times the amount of money Solyndra screwed up. And then they bleat about the free market as if dirty energy is a free and fully costed market. And I read it or listen to it and make this face.
And I make threads called: The libertarian's guide to externality costing. What do we do about the oil spill?
edit: Oh look. Externalities.
It's super intimidating but ridiculously easy. Just leave the math to the actuarial mathematicians and let's just assume we already know all the numbers, because we do. For example, we already know that it costs $X in health care per person in surrounding communities for every coal burning plant because the health insurance companies need to know it as a matter of existing. They'll lose money on that community otherwise, right?
So every function has an output. A coal factory burns coal and outputs smoke and power. They love power because they can sell it but they hate smoke because it costs money to clean up. If they were to pay out of pocket to cover the "cost" of the smoke, the total (or fully "accounting" for the cost) would almost certainly be more than the money they make off the power. What's a coal company to do?
They just ignore then cost of the smoke and offload that cost to those around them. Or in accounting terms, they don't cost the externalities.
Or an oil company drills for oil in the gulf. They have a *potential* external liability (externality cost) if their oil rig burns up and the well leaks a bazillion gallons. Rather than accounting for that potential cost they just ignore it. Since the catastrophe potential, the externality potential is so huge, no right minded person accounting for that would ever let it happen. But there's money to be made, so they just ignore it.
Externalities aren't just negative though. Vaccinations have a positive externality effect due to the "herd" being protected. So when I vaccinate my little spawn, I decrease the chance that disease will take hold in my community. Therefore there is a net positive greater than the protection of my individual brat.
Hope that helped and I'm not just rambling.
I had a professor in college whose research was in the total life cycle cost of doing business. Naturally, he wasn't garnering much interest from private sources for funding.
To bring this all back around, the government (according to liberals like myself) has a duty to impose costs on those that produce negative externalities and to support those that produce positive externalities because the market specifically doesn't. If the market forced coal to pay for itself, there would be no coal. But since it doesn't, coal has a built in subsidy, a price it doesn't have to pay because it's not forced to. It's worth probably hundreds of billions of dollars a year or more to energy companies. Therefore, the government says hey, let's put some money towards those with positive externalities to help offset what the market cannot do itself because the market here is not fair.
So the government starts a clean energy loan guarantee program. And a half bil goes to shit and Republicans freak out and pretend its a big deal. And everyone pretends the dirty energy negative cost externalities don't exist, which is an underhanded way of giving them 100s of times the amount of money Solyndra screwed up. And then they bleat about the free market as if dirty energy is a free and fully costed market. And I read it or listen to it and make this face.
And I make threads called: The libertarian's guide to externality costing. What do we do about the oil spill?
edit: Oh look. Externalities.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='speedracer']It's super intimidating but ridiculously easy. Just leave the math to the actuarial mathematicians and let's just assume we already know all the numbers, because we do. For example, we already know that it costs $X in health care per person in surrounding communities for every coal burning plant because the health insurance companies need to know it as a matter of existing. They'll lose money on that community otherwise, right?
So every function has an output. A coal factory burns coal and outputs smoke and power. They love power because they can sell it but they hate smoke because it costs money to clean up. If they were to pay out of pocket to cover the "cost" of the smoke, the total (or fully "accounting" for the cost) would almost certainly be more than the money they make off the power. What's a coal company to do?
They just ignore then cost of the smoke and offload that cost to those around them. Or in accounting terms, they don't cost the externalities.
Or an oil company drills for oil in the gulf. They have a *potential* external liability (externality cost) if their oil rig burns up and the well leaks a bazillion gallons. Rather than accounting for that potential cost they just ignore it. Since the catastrophe potential, the externality potential is so huge, no right minded person accounting for that would ever let it happen. But there's money to be made, so they just ignore it.
Externalities aren't just negative though. Vaccinations have a positive externality effect due to the "herd" being protected. So when I vaccinate my little spawn, I decrease the chance that disease will take hold in my community. Therefore there is a net positive greater than the protection of my individual brat.
Hope that helped and I'm not just rambling.
I had a professor in college whose research was in the total life cycle cost of doing business. Naturally, he wasn't garnering much interest from private sources for funding.
To bring this all back around, the government (according to liberals like myself) has a duty to impose costs on those that produce negative externalities and to support those that produce positive externalities because the market specifically doesn't. If the market forced coal to pay for itself, there would be no coal. But since it doesn't, coal has a built in subsidy, a price it doesn't have to pay because it's not forced to. It's worth probably hundreds of billions of dollars a year or more to energy companies. Therefore, the government says hey, let's put some money towards those with positive externalities to help offset what the market cannot do itself because the market here is not fair.
So the government starts a clean energy loan guarantee program. And a half bil goes to shit and Republicans freak out and pretend its a big deal. And everyone pretends the dirty energy negative cost externalities don't exist, which is an underhanded way of giving them 100s of times the amount of money Solyndra screwed up. And then they bleat about the free market as if dirty energy is a free and fully costed market. And I read it or listen to it and make this face.
And I make threads called: The libertarian's guide to externality costing. What do we do about the oil spill?
edit: Oh look. Externalities.[/QUOTE]
I actually understand externalities, I was actually referring to the post before that one you made. When you start getting into assets and liabilities and different account types, my eyes just cross. And I had two basic accounting classes in college, needless to say I didn't enjoy them.
So every function has an output. A coal factory burns coal and outputs smoke and power. They love power because they can sell it but they hate smoke because it costs money to clean up. If they were to pay out of pocket to cover the "cost" of the smoke, the total (or fully "accounting" for the cost) would almost certainly be more than the money they make off the power. What's a coal company to do?
They just ignore then cost of the smoke and offload that cost to those around them. Or in accounting terms, they don't cost the externalities.
Or an oil company drills for oil in the gulf. They have a *potential* external liability (externality cost) if their oil rig burns up and the well leaks a bazillion gallons. Rather than accounting for that potential cost they just ignore it. Since the catastrophe potential, the externality potential is so huge, no right minded person accounting for that would ever let it happen. But there's money to be made, so they just ignore it.
Externalities aren't just negative though. Vaccinations have a positive externality effect due to the "herd" being protected. So when I vaccinate my little spawn, I decrease the chance that disease will take hold in my community. Therefore there is a net positive greater than the protection of my individual brat.
Hope that helped and I'm not just rambling.
I had a professor in college whose research was in the total life cycle cost of doing business. Naturally, he wasn't garnering much interest from private sources for funding.
To bring this all back around, the government (according to liberals like myself) has a duty to impose costs on those that produce negative externalities and to support those that produce positive externalities because the market specifically doesn't. If the market forced coal to pay for itself, there would be no coal. But since it doesn't, coal has a built in subsidy, a price it doesn't have to pay because it's not forced to. It's worth probably hundreds of billions of dollars a year or more to energy companies. Therefore, the government says hey, let's put some money towards those with positive externalities to help offset what the market cannot do itself because the market here is not fair.
So the government starts a clean energy loan guarantee program. And a half bil goes to shit and Republicans freak out and pretend its a big deal. And everyone pretends the dirty energy negative cost externalities don't exist, which is an underhanded way of giving them 100s of times the amount of money Solyndra screwed up. And then they bleat about the free market as if dirty energy is a free and fully costed market. And I read it or listen to it and make this face.
And I make threads called: The libertarian's guide to externality costing. What do we do about the oil spill?
edit: Oh look. Externalities.[/QUOTE]
I actually understand externalities, I was actually referring to the post before that one you made. When you start getting into assets and liabilities and different account types, my eyes just cross. And I had two basic accounting classes in college, needless to say I didn't enjoy them.
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='speedracer']
[/QUOTE]
I don't get it, why did you post a picture of David Silverman?
I don't get it, why did you post a picture of David Silverman?
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='cindersphere']I don't get it, why did you post a picture of David Silverman?[/QUOTE]
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/are-you-serious-face-seriously
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/are-you-serious-face-seriously
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='The Crotch']http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/are-you-serious-face-seriously[/QUOTE]
How far I am behind the internet memes.
How far I am behind the internet memes.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='Msut77']Because we really needed the photo of the great Hambino to realize it was him.[/QUOTE]
We seriously need to have a beer sometime.
Oh, and there's this: Clean Energy: Best Documented Rate of Return of ANY Federal Program
The GAO actually went after the Acadamy of Sciences over the number (Republicans were in charge of Congress) and tried to prove they were lying. They sent the number back for independent verification. Guess how that turned out?
So the government funds the breakthrough then gives away the standard, insuring maximum usage by private industry. No messy IP battles.
You have to be insane to argue against this. I don't get it. at. all.
edit: The stupid will never end.
We seriously need to have a beer sometime.
Oh, and there's this: Clean Energy: Best Documented Rate of Return of ANY Federal Program
And they're screaming about 1/2 of 1 billion.
The GAO actually went after the Acadamy of Sciences over the number (Republicans were in charge of Congress) and tried to prove they were lying. They sent the number back for independent verification. Guess how that turned out?
It wasn't worth $30 bil. It was worth $40 bil. Oh, and those number don't include costing the use of these technologies against negative externalities. So my fridge that uses less power was accounted for, but not the negative externality of the coal not burned to power it.
So the government funds the breakthrough then gives away the standard, insuring maximum usage by private industry. No messy IP battles.
You have to be insane to argue against this. I don't get it. at. all.
edit: The stupid will never end.
Joe Barton. The one that apologized to BP. Jesus.
Last edited by a moderator:
speedracer
Banned
Reactions from media in the room during the Solyndra hearing:
Fortune Magazine:
Scientific American:
Fortune Magazine:
Scientific American:
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='nasum']and rebuild it with Rearden Metal![/QUOTE]
i lol'd
i lol'd
[quote name='nasum']and rebuild it with Rearden Metal!
then again that would be infrastructure investment which is bad so they'll just let it smolder apparently?[/QUOTE]
That and it would be a huge paradox for them. They'd want to hire cheap foreign labor from south of the border to rebuild, but then the ratio of brown to white people in the U.S. would be too off for them to handle it.
then again that would be infrastructure investment which is bad so they'll just let it smolder apparently?[/QUOTE]
That and it would be a huge paradox for them. They'd want to hire cheap foreign labor from south of the border to rebuild, but then the ratio of brown to white people in the U.S. would be too off for them to handle it.
bread's done