Question by cobra69_68467: What is the title of this song?
It is a rap song that has kids singing in it. The kids sing lyrics like “Do you chains hang low do they wouble to and throw.” or something like that. Its a new song that just came out i do beleive.
Best answer:
Answer by Rini Kyokotou
That song is called “Chain Hang Low” and it’s by Jibbs. My source is www.myspace.com/jibbs
Give your answer to this question below!
Lawrence Moepi was gunned down at the firm’s offices in Houghton, Johannesburg. He was declared dead at the scene. The motive for the killing is not but known.
Video Rating: / five
Cruse Associates News Info Reviews: Forensic audit on chit fund scam http://gulfnews.com/news/world/india/forensic-audit-on-chit-fund-scam-1.1181551 c…
Video Rating: five / 5
Query by Morey000: Is this exactly where the SubPrime Lending Mess got it’s start off (or enhance?) see hyperlink?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/ten/20021015.html
Or is it less complicated just to blame it all on the democrats?
I have to admit, I’m learning more about this mess thanks to the responses right here. Even though the community reinvestment act seems like 1 of the culprits (beneath Andrew Cuomo a dem), the Bush administration re-ratified every thing. So, there’s enough blame to go around both parties.
Ideal answer:
Answer by Charlotte
No
It is less difficult to spot blame correct were it belongs, on the Democrates
What do you believe? Answer under!
Query by ridingis4life: Help how do I discover out what bank owns this house?
I am unable to find the bank that truly owns this home. I took this off of public records, and each particular person I have tried calling from the Grantor to the Grantee, has been a dead end. If any individual has info relating to how I can get in touch with the bank that owns this home I would greatly appreciate it.
Please note, I did call the record of Deeds workplace, and the lady on the telephone stated the bank that owned the house was not listed in the records (strange huh). Ieven tried the law firm listed below, and they stated they are not functioning on this case aganist the property, they are trying to get in touch with Ms. Werner for an additional property she stopped paying on.
Instrument: R2009027165 Old Doc Ref No: Book/Page:
Recorded: 3/9/2009 eight:34:47 AM Consideration: $ Pages: 1
Document Variety: Mortgage Assignments Comments:
Document Date: two/16/2009
Grantor: FCDB 8020 REO LLC
SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC – Lawyer IN Fact
Grantee: FCDB SNPWL REO LLC
WERNER CYNTHIA – THIRD Party
Legal Description: Lot/Unit: 8, PTLT, Sub: ARROWHEAD SOUTH TOWNHOMES U1, TwnNotes: D162 R97-72385 30-36-11
PrpId: 16-05-30-402-035-0000 (GIS) (Assessor)
AddrNo: 16106, Str1: GOLFVIEW DRIVE, City: LOCKPORT, State: IL, Zip: 60441
Cross Reference: Bkwd R 2007060046 (MTG)
Sent To: DUTTON & DUTTON
10325 W LINCOLN HWY
FRANKFORT, IL 60423
Mar 18 2009 11:31AM
Greatest answer:
Answer by Ed Atun
This loan was sold as element of a securitization. It may possibly be owned by 10 banks. Every bank owns 1 “slice” of the loan.
Most of these loans can be tracked to a firm named MERS. They manage most of these securities. Wall Street Journal had an article about them final week (free of charge at the library).
There are two keys to finding the noteholder. One particular is that REO seems soon after Grantee. So it has been foreclosed. And the instrument mentioned in your facts is a Mortgage Assignment. You need to have to have the recorder hand you that document… the assignment. You would have to do this in individual. There is often a personal computer on the front desk for them to help customers at the Recorders Workplace.
Know greater? Leave your own answer in the comments!
Query by oops: can you tell me if i have understood this paragraph on banks and credit and mortgages right ?
PLEASE Study THE PARA Very first
SIVs utilized brief-term industrial paper, sold at low interest prices, to buy longer-term mortgage-backed securities and other instruments with higher prices of return. With the seizure of the credit markets, many SIVs had trouble selling new commercial paper to replace upcoming obligations on older paper. The collapse in sub-prime mortgages and in the commercial paper that supported them has basically adjusted the value of the principal to make up for the outsized returns that these investors got more than the past five years.
The money that banks owe on their commercial paper didn’t modify. These banks are going to supply more industrial paper to purchase mortgage assets in other words, they are going to borrow more quick-term income in order to purchase lengthy-term assets from themselves! That is, if they can borrow the funds in the 1st spot. One particular of the casualties in the rout was the industrial paper marketplace investors are realizing that it backs a lot of lousy mortgage debt, so they are backing away from investing in the industrial paper that backs the mortgages.
NOW – IS MY UNDERSTANDING Appropriate ?
Borrowed cash – The SIVs sold brief-term commercial paper at low prices of interest – so they borrowed cash for a ST at a low IR. They did this routinely to maintain receiving funds.
Lent money – The banks told the folks that we will give you income – mortgage your house at 12 % IR. ( Or the banks purchased mortgage investments from investors.) The banks took the less expensive loans from CP and invested it in longer term mortgage-backed securities and other instruments with greater prices of return.
But when the market collapsed, the value of the home collapsed, borrowers could not pay loans and higher IR, and the bank was left with a property which was not worth 25% of the loan they had provided. Oversized interest prices frequently imply that the investment is in reality sucking money out of principal. Occasionally investors can get away with the gambit for awhile, but sooner or later somebody pays the bill.
Secondly, with the seizure of the credit markets, a lot of SIVs had difficulty selling new commercial paper to replace upcoming obligations on older paper.
Thirdly, The income that banks owe on their commercial paper didn’t modify. Sounds like problems.
Now the banks have paid Rs 100 to the borrower, in return they have a house which is worth Rs 20. How do the banks cover the balance Rs 70 ? These banks are going to offer you far more commercial paper ( and take ST loans at low IR ) to buy mortgage assets in other words, they are going to borrow much more short-term cash at low IR in order to purchase extended-term assets from themselves!
That is, if they can borrow the money in the initial place. A single of the casualties in the rout was the industrial paper market place investors are realizing that it backs a lot of lousy mortgage debt, so they are backing away from investing in the commercial paper that backs the mortgages.
Greatest answer:
Answer by BobWang
An important aspect is the total lack of faith in SIVs, CDOs, and the agencies that purport to price them.
[Quote]
Most of these are mortgage-primarily based securitizations, such as CDOs. The cause for the common gun-shyness is since no-one particular knows what’s in them. This point was produced final Thursday evening on CNBC, where Thomas Patrick presented a strategy to take the performing mortgages out of CDOs and SIVs at par. It was shot down by CNBC reporter Charlie Gasparino on the grounds that performing mortgages might not execute at all in the future. Due to the fact no-one knows what’s in these securitizations, they’re not actually buyable. This impression explains why mortgage-rooted CDOs and SIVs are promoting way under what their present money flow indicates, a disparity that Mr. Patrick’s program depends on.
[/Quote]
Add your own answer in the comments!
Query by BigBubbaLove: Is this the legacy of Ronald Regan, the Republicans, and the GOP?
http://finance.yahoo.com/profession-work/write-up/107069/spend-dirt-the-executive-spend-technique-is-broken?mod=profession-salary_negotiation
The Regan Administration took away the majority of restrictions on corporations. This led to rampant corruption at the corporate level and unreasonably huge CEO compensation.
Right here is a quote from the write-up
“It wasn’t usually like this.
From the Excellent Depression until the late 1980s, CEO spend levels stayed pretty continuous. Adjusted for inflation, a CEO in 1988 earned as significantly as one did in 1934, according to analysis published in 1990 by Michael Jensen and Kevin Murphy. ‘We are confident that the causes are systemic,’ they wrote. With no ‘the creation of a new regime in compensation practice’ far more organizations could get into trouble because of skewed incentives, they added.
So why has CEO spend surged so drastically since the late 1980s? A lot of authorities blame the following: Golden parachutes, annual stock-choice grants, peer-group comparison surveys and reaction to new government regulations.
The two compensation experts re-visited the problem in 2004 in the wake of the Enron scandal and concluded that factors had changed “substantially” for the worse.”
So the query.
Is this entire monetary crisis the outcome of “Reganomics”? Of rewarding the wealthy and expecting to have the billions of excess CEO compensation trickle down to the typical worker?
Bill G.
That is not how a free of charge market is supposed to work. A cost-free industry is based on provide and demand, not CEO compensation and corporate bonuses. Besides, if you study the post, you would comprehend that the problem is systemic. All CEO’s do this, thus, it is impossible to quit acquiring their items as you recommend.
To all,
I refer to Reganomics, or the economics of rewarding the rich with the belief that they will bring up the rest of the nation.
OH, and by the way. That neighborhood reinvestment act which you trumpet so loudly by no means triggered this dilemma. That act accounted for less than 2% of the total bad loans given by banks. Stop blaming the poor on the problems the wealthy triggered. The problem was that CEO’s had as well a lot incentive to dish out loans. This result in them to leverage a lot more than they had. They did this so they could get their golden bonuses.
Sorry. I am proper! And so is Warren Buffet, who argued this extremely very same thing.
Best answer:
Answer by Atheist in the Foxhole
Reaganomics sucked then, and they suck now.
What do you consider? Answer beneath!
Query by j l: Wall St. crash….who can we prosecute for this mess ?
Best answer:
Answer by beardog4314
No one particular, there’s no crime. The market goes up, the marketplace goes down, the market goes up again. It’s only a difficulty in the brief term.
Know much better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
issue of the original Bob Enzyte : Why are the Liberals not but know that Barney Frank and the Democrats / Fannie Mae has brought on this financial disaster FANNIE MAE AND DEMOCRATS IN THEIR Personal WORDS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs Ideal answer:
response Sunshine
Since our dollar was almost quickly devalued the Bush initial took loans from China several years ago minute, I feel it has more to do with that.
Question by Greg’s Wife: How significantly does it expense to run this heater – 1200w?
I have a space heater that is 1200W and 120V. Our energy firm charges are below – I have no thought what it all indicates. I am just attempting to find out how significantly it would cost to run this heater say for 1 hour in a 500sq ft room (continuous heating). Even a ballpark would be nice. Thanks!
Rate_200W_ten-18_TO_11-17
Electric Power Supply Charges
KWH Charge-Energy 1562 KWH § .047517 $ 74.22
Power Provide Price Recovery 1562 KWH § .019530 $ 30.51
Electric Delivery Charges
Method Access Charge $ six.00
Elec Distribution Charge 1562 KWH § .026082 $ 40.74
Delivery Surcharges£ $ 9.49
Securitization Charge 1562 KWH § .001269 $ 1.98
Securitization Tax Charge 1562 KWH § .000535 $ .84
Palisades Plant Sale Credit 1562 KWH § .004383- $ six.85-
Total Electric $ 156.93
Very best answer:
Answer by woodtick314
You are making use of 1.2 kW per hour. So adding in the charges, you have $ .099316/kWH. Multiply by 1.2, offers you an hourly cost to run the heater at $ .1192, or 12 cents an hour. Hope this assists.
Give your answer to this question below!
Question by Who’s Your Daddy Now: Seeing as how Republicans got us in this mess, ought to they be taxed at a higher price to pay it off?
Best answer:
Answer by Philip McCrevice
Funny.
Dems had been in handle of Congress when the economy tanked.
In fact, when Republicans had been in charge of Congress, we were cruising financially. Despite the loans to the dem voter base that ought to never ever have been allowed.
Know far better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
Question by BrianthePigEatingInfidel: How is the Community Reinvestment Act to blame for this mess?
In 1995, as a result of interest from President Bill Clinton’s administration, the regulations for the CRA were strengthened.
These revisions were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. These changes were very controversial and as a result, the regulators agreed to revisit the rule after it had been fully implemented for seven years. Thus in 2002, the regulators opened up the regulation for review and potential revision.
Part of the increase in home loans was due to the emergence of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not reduce loan risk with savings deposits like traditional banks do, using the subprime authorization that was in the CRA. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997 by Bear Stearns. The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent.
Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $ 12 trillion U.S. mortgage market.
Now, since the CRA is entirely a creation of the Democratic party and its leftist elements, how can anyone pin the blame on the Republicans, who actually tried to reform it in 2003?
Yes, Joan. But unlike the countries that you have wet dreams about, the ones with their epaulet-laden “el presidentes for life,” being president of the United States accords no such dictatorial powers. And get this, EVEN IF his own party is in power, he still doesn’t have control unless his party has a 2/3 supermajority. And at no time since Gingrich delivered the house to the republicans did they ever have a supermajority.
Deb M: Interesting you say that dems in power now can’t get anything done because republicans are blocking it, but then ask why republicans couldn’t pass reforms in 2002-2003. Funny you should apply such a double standard without even wincing.
Fact is, the republicans TRIED to reform it. It was blocked by the two biggest recipients of Fannie Mae contributions, Barney Fwank and Chuck Schumer.
Just because you have a simple majority does not mean you can do whatever you want.
gabriel bell: There was no bill that brought the changes in 1995. The original act in 1977 gave broad regulatory powers to three agencies: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. They made the regulatory changes within the power they already had under CRA 1977. It did not require congress to approve.
Best answer:
Answer by Joan S
Yeah. That must be it. Never mind that Bush has been in office for nearly 8 years. Not like he had any opportunity to have an impact?
What do you think? Answer below!
Question by Denise: want to find out what bank owns this property at 3917 colma ave merced ca 95348?
Best answer:
Answer by Erica
Go to the county’s registrar of deeds office. It will help you look up the info in the records.
Give your answer to this question below!
Question by DONALD T: What are your thoughts on this?
Many Americans today are unhappy with the Democratic Party.
Yet according to a Gallup poll conducted in July 2010, Democrats were still ahead of Republicans, 49% to 43%, in voters’ generic ballot preferences for the 2010 congressional elections.
Why? A big part of the reason is voter dissatisfaction with the Republican Party. And a major reason for that dissatisfaction is that over the years voters have been fed numerous lies by Democrats and the mainstream media to discredit the GOP.
Here are five of those lies:
1. The Bush administration lied about the intelligence leading up to the Iraq War.
Two bipartisan investigations demanded by Democrats refute this myth. In 2004, the Robb-Silberman Report, along with a separate Senate Intelligence Committee report, both concluded that there was no evidence that administration officials manipulated intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq.
2. Republicans caused the mortgage crisis.
In reality it was the Democrats who caused the mortgage crisis and stifled Republican efforts to prevent it.
First, Bill Clinton broadened the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), bypassing the Republican-led Congress and ordering the Treasury Department to rewrite the CRA rules to force banks to fulfill loan “quotas” in low income neighborhoods.
Eventually, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were required by HUD to show that 55% of their mortgage purchases were to low and moderate income borrowers, and lending standards were lowered to meet those goals.
Intense competition caused by Fannie and Freddie’s increasing appetite for loans caused investment and commercial banks to compete for borrowers, and the looser lending standards eventually spread to higher-income and prime borrowers as well.
Then came Clinton’s most disastrous decision: he legalized the securitization of subprime mortgages that allowed the market to soar from $ 35 billion in risky loans in 1994 to $ 1 trillion by 2008, thus poisoning the entire mortgage industry.
Republicans tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie’s purchases of subprime mortgages. In both 2003 and 2005, they introduced legislation that would have required Fannie and Freddie to eliminate their investments in them. Both times their attempts were opposed by the Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee, so the bills never made it to Senate floor.
3. Eight years of Republican deregulation caused the financial crisis.
Some myths die harder than others. This is certainly one of them. Financial services were not deregulated during the Bush administration.
The repeal of the Depression-era Glass–Steagall Act in 1999, allowing banks and securities firms to be affiliated under the same roof, was supported by the Clinton administration and signed into law by the president.
Moreover, that was not the cause of the financial crisis. The crisis was caused by banks and investment firms purchasing vast numbers of bad mortgages and mortgage-backed securities.
What contributed to such a high volume of purchases? In 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Democrat Annette Nazareth, who ran the market regulation division at the time, unanimously adopted a rule change known as Basel II.
Adopted by all of the world’s central bankers, Basel II was an attempt to provide greater regulation of investment firms by more accurately evaluating the types of assets they held.
Unfortunately, AAA-rated mortgages were incorrectly considered to be some of the safest assets an institution could own. As a result, Basel II allowed investment banks to leverage their assets of mortgage-backed securities at a ratio as high as 30 to 1. Thus, although Basel II wasn’t the cause of the financial crisis, it certainly contributed to the size of it.
4. Republicans are the “party of Wall Street, big business and special interest groups.”
In the 2008 national election cycle, more campaign donations from the largest banks and Wall Street firms went to Democrats, not Republicans.
Ninety of the top one hundred corporate donors leaned Democratic, and nearly 75 percent of all hedge fund donations in that same period went to presidential candidate Obama.
Furthermore it is the Democratic Party which has deep-rooted unholy alliances with special-interest groups—labor unions, teachers unions, trial lawyers, environmental groups, community organizations such as ACORN and welfare beneficiaries—that often places the interests of those groups ahead of what’s best for the country. Their alliance with trial lawyers, for example, is why tort reform, an effective way to lower health care costs, was not included in the health care bill.
5. Democrats have always stood up for black Americans—and Republicans are either uncaring at best, or overt racists at worst.
Many Americans would be surprised to know that Martin Luther King, Jr. embraced conservative ideals.
Yet King’s choice of political affinity made perfect sense: it was R
Best answer:
Answer by middleclassman
What is going on is that the young world and the fading generations are clashing. The youth is less restrained and has more resources to get information then the fading generations that are mostly Republicans. Also the big wig Republicans don`t want to take the house or senate and share guilt with Obama before the 2012 election.
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
Question by The Federalist: “PAY FOR PERFORMANCE ACT OF 2009″…is this the beginning of a nationalized economy?
Barney Frank has introduced a bill in congress that would give the Government authority to set the salary of EVERY SINGLE employee of companies who have utilized government capital aka bail out funds…
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Beyond-AIG-A-Bill-to-let-Big-Government-Set-Your-Salary-42158597.html
Since Frank’s policies are a large part of why we are in this mess doesn’t seem like this was all planned? Force low standards on lending….greenlight the securitization and selling off of government chartered debt….watch it infect the banking system….give hand outs to sick banks….impose complete control over those banks now that they owe billions of dollars.
Barney Frank is as much to blame for this economic mess as anyone on Wall Street or in Washington DC and he wants to use the crisis that he helped create to take total control of the companies that his policies put at risk…It’s like a sick little toad who wants to show all the giants of industry at the private organizations that keep this country moving in a positive direction that the dimwits in Washington are going to take over their jobs by force.
Barney Frank should be tarred and feathered on the steps of Capital Hill and sent to jail for crimes against society and abuse of power. He is the most detestable type of politician I can imagine exists…the type who causes problems with his ignorance and then uses the damage to his own benefit…all while blaming others.
The idea that the failing of these companies will set off a massive depression is a falacy….they told us the exact same thing when GM and Dodge came hat in hand two months ago…they gave them 30 billion because they couldn’t afford to fail….now GM is talking about going into Chapter 11 bankruptcy….so the 30 Billion dollars was wasted and the end result is still the same…And you who said people don’t get to demand better pay….your right…no one will be paid better for better work…so no one will work hard…and the country will slowly diminish under th guise of “fairness”…”THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS” this policy of taxing the producers to provide to the challenged will not stop until the last bone of the last taxpayer is picked clean and their is nothing left to take…the envious ones who have not suceeded will continue to elect those who will take from the producers in this country until their is nothing left…socialism is a failed principle.
Best answer:
Answer by demonhunter5110
i agree. that goes for all of Obamas cabinet. whats he thinking electing the former federal reserve. what a joke. thats how our government or better yet a combination of the bankers and government always work. they did a similar thing to create the first depression and they are doing it again. heres what ya do. April 15 come join American on the new tea day protest. ill give you a link all you do is pick your state and find one in your area. we need protesters from evry state. lets start the revolution!!
http://www.officialtaxdayteaparty.com/index.html
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
Question by joa: can you understand this???? please help???
Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc. (Nasdaq: HAYZ) today reported financial results for its fiscal year ended January 31, 2007. The results were in line with preliminary results announced on March 16, 2007 and with guidance the Company provided to investors in December 2006.
For the fiscal year, the automotive and commercial highway wheels and components maker reported sales of $ 2.06 billion, up 5.1% from sales of $ 1.96 billion in the prior fiscal year. Earnings from operations were $ 4.8 million for fiscal 2006, compared with a year earlier loss from operations of $ 215.2 million, which included $ 185.5 million of goodwill impairment charges. Capital expenditures for the fiscal year were $ 80.8 million, down from $ 95.2 million a year earlier. The foregoing results exclude the suspension components business reported as discontinued operations, which had sales of $ 230 million, a loss from operations of $ 46.0 million and capital expenditures of $ 9.1 million.
The Company reported a net loss of $ 166.9 million for fiscal 2006, compared to a net loss of $ 457.5 million for fiscal 2005. The Company reported a loss from continuing operations of $ 120.9 million, compared with a loss from continuing operations of $ 287.1 million a year earlier.
Adjusted EBITDA for fiscal 2006 (including the suspension components business) was $ 188.6 million, up 7.3% from $ 175.7 million a year earlier. For the full fiscal year, Hayes Lemmerz reported free cash flow of negative $ 9.1 million, excluding the impact of the Company’s securitization program, an improvement of $ 71.6 million from a year earlier.
“Hayes Lemmerz is a much stronger company today than it was five years ago,” said Curtis Clawson, President, CEO and Chairman of the Board of Hayes Lemmerz.
“We have significantly decreased our dependence on U.S. markets, and continue to grow our international business, especially in Asia. By divesting non-core businesses and focusing on high growth/high return markets, we are continuing to execute our strategic business plan and our drive toward profitability and positive free cash flow. Sales to GM, Ford and Chrysler in the U.S., excluding discontinued operations, now account for only about 18% of global sales. Given the extremely difficult conditions in our marketplace, our results for 2006 are encouraging.”
As previously announced, as part of its continuing profit-enhancing initiatives, the Company completed the sale of two aluminum suspension components plants in February 2007. “These divestitures further reduce our dependence on the North American automotive market and free us from a very capital-intensive business,” said Mr. Clawson.
“Our new business wins point the way toward our future. We won over $ 575 million in annualized sales in 2006, of which 75% is international business,” Mr. Clawson said. “We continue to win with Japanese and Korean manufacturers, including Toyota, Hyundai, Nissan and Honda, both in the U.S. and internationally. We continue to win new business with our European partners, and in the U.S. markets our new business wins diversify our product mix with more crossover and passenger vehicles,” he said.
As previously announced, the Company�s board of directors has approved a rights offering for existing shareholders, for up to $ 180 million of common stock. Proceeds will be used to repurchase the Company�s 10.5% Senior Notes. The offering must be approved by shareholders at a special meeting scheduled for May 4, 2007. “By raising new equity capital and retiring high-cost debt, we are de-leveraging, strengthening our balance sheet and significantly improving free cash flow,” Mr. Clawson commented.
For the full fiscal year 2007, Hayes Lemmerz expects to achieve sales of about $ 2.1 billion, Adjusted EBITDA of approximately $ 195 to $ 205 million, positive free cash flow (excluding securitization impact) and capital expenditures of approximately $ 85 to $ 90 million.
Conference Call
Hayes Lemmerz will host a telephone conference call to discuss the Company’s full fiscal year 2006 financial results this morning, at 10:00 a.m. (ET).
To participate by phone, please dial 10 minutes prior to the call: (888) 295-5935 from the United States and Canada; (706) 758-0212 from outside the United States. Callers should ask to be connected to Hayes Lemmerz earnings conference call, Conference ID # 2107451. The conference call will be accompanied by a slide presentation, which can be accessed through the Company’s web site, in the Investor Kit presentations section at http://www.hayes-lemmerz.com/investor_kit/overview/presentations/www-presentations.html.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOW
Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc. is a world leading global supplier of automotive and commercial highway wheels, brakes and powertrain components. The Company has 30 facilities and approximately 8,500 employees worldwide.
This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities, nor shall there be any sale of securities in any state in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such state. The Rights Offering will be made only by means of a prospectus. When available, copies of the prospectus may be obtained from Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc., 15300 Centennial Drive, Northville, Michigan 48168, (734) 737-5000, Attention: Corporate Secretary.
Use of Non-GAAP Financial Information
EBITDA, a measure used by management to measure operating performance, is defined as earnings from operations plus depreciation and amortization. Adjusted EBITDA is defined as EBITDA further adjusted to exclude asset impairment losses and other restructuring charges, reorganization items and other items. Management references these non-GAAP financial measures frequently in its decision making because they provide supplemental information that facilitates internal comparisons to historical operating performance of prior periods and external comparisons to competitors� historical operating performance. Institutional investors generally look to Adjusted EBITDA in measuring performance, among other things. The Company uses Adjusted EBITDA to facilitate quantification of planned business activities and enhance subsequent follow-up with comparisons of actual to planned Adjusted EBITDA. Free cash flow is defined as cash from operating activities minus capital expenditures plus cash from discontinued operations and the sale of assets. Management uses free cash flow to identify the amount of cash available to meet debt amortization requirements, pay dividends to stockholders or make corporate investments.
Forward Looking Statement
This press release contains forward-looking statements with respect to our financial condition and business. All statements other than statements of historical fact made in this press release are forward-looking. Such forward-looking statements include, among others, those statements including the words “expect,” “anticipate,” “intend,” believe,” and similar language. These forward-looking statements involve certain risks and uncertainties. Our actual results may differ significantly from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those contemplated by such forward-looking statements include, among others: (1) competitive pressure in our industry; (2) fluctuations in the price of steel, aluminum, and other raw materials; (3) changes in general economic conditions; (4) our dependence on the automotive industry (which has historically been cyclical) and on a small number of major customers for the majority of our sales; (5) pricing pressure from automotive industry customers and the potential for re-sourcing of business to lower-cost providers; (6) changes in the financial markets or our debt ratings affecting our financial structure and our cost of capital and borrowed money; (7) the uncertainties inherent in international operations and foreign currency fluctuations; (8) our ability to divest non-core assets and businesses; (9) the risks described in our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and our periodic statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission; and (10) our ability to consummate the previously announced rights offering. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this press release.
Contact:
Marika P. Diamond
Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc.
(734) 737-5162
HOME | INVESTOR KIT | PRESS KIT | CAPABILITIES | PRODUCTS | LOCATIONS | ABOUT HAYES
Contact Hayes Lemmerz. � 1998-2007 Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Subject to Acceptable Usage Policy
Best answer:
Answer by pimpcess
i wish i could help you but sorry i dont get this=[
What do you think? Answer below!
Question by bimma b: Is this the beginnings of a world wide central bank or worse a private takeover of world credit supplies?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080915/ap_on_bi_ge/banks_plan
Best answer:
Answer by krollohare2
No. Foreigners have had their fingers in our pie for years. Maybe if we stopped buying from overseas and making our own stuff, they’d have to cash out eventually and use that money to buy what they need from us.
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
Question by Arrow: Can someone explain this in an easier way.?
I don’t really get this statement:
Excessive lending under loosened underwriting standards, which was a hallmark of the United States housing bubble, resulted in a very large number of sub prime mortgages. These high risk loans had been perceived to be mitigated by securitization. Rather than mitigating the risk, however, this strategy appears to have had the effect of broadcasting and amplifying it in a domino effect.
Best answer:
Answer by Books
It’s saying that money was loaned to people who couldn’t afford to pay it back. The loans were sold to investors to spread the risk. The amount was so great that spreading the risk by selling the loans to other investors just caused greater damage.
Give your answer to this question below!
Question by rmz_usa: Can someone summarize this book for me?
Can someone summarize the book “The business of Investment Banking, A Comprehensive overview” for me in 1 or 2 paragraphs? It is a large textbook, so I would appreciate it very much.
Best answer:
Answer by cactusgene
Synopsis
The business of investment banking has become intensely competitive. With a growing number of clients who prefer to deal with a single financial adviser for all their capital needs, firms must now engage in all major capital-market activities in order to meet this demand. Rapid advances in information technology have closely linked the international capital markets and, as a result, major securities firms have gone global to better serve their clients. To fully understand this changing environment and remain players in the game, new and seasoned professionals alike will require detailed, in-depth information on a broad scope of banking operations.
The Business of Investment Banking: A Comprehensive Overview, 2nd Edition is a complete guide to the major banking activities in today’s global marketplace. This convenient, one-volume reference identifies and analyzes key trends worldwide, allowing banking and finance professionals to effectively manage deals and incorporate trends into operations. In The Business of Investment Banking: A Comprehensive Overview, 2nd Edition, Professor K. Thomas Liaw goes beyond traditional banking topics and includes extensive coverage of rarely discussed subjects that are integral to investment banking, such as emerging markets, proprietary trading, repurchase transactions, operations, money management, and how foreign firms list on Wall Street.
Beginning with an overview, covering everything from underwriting to M&As to global presence, Liaw provides a thorough and rigorous analysis of the current market practices in all relevant business segments. He presents an investment banker’s perspective on the current environment, with a detailed description of the strategic decision-making process that is crucial to successfully managing the investment bank.
This thorough guide is divided into four main sections:
Basic Business-explores venture capital investment, mergers and acquisitions, underwriting, and asset securitization
Global Perspective-detailed information about foreign listing on Wall Street, international capital markets, and emerging markets
Trading and Risk Management-extensive data on proprietary trading, repurchase agreements, financial engineering, and money management
Special Topics-discusses clearing and settlement, securities regulation, ethics, major trends, and Section 20 subsidiaries
Comprehensive, unparalleled coverage of a wide range of topics makes The Business of Investment Banking: A Comprehensive Overview, 2nd Edition an invaluable, one-stop resource for all practicing investment banking professionals and for graduate students interested in a career in capital markets.
Here are 22 more customer reviews of people who have actually used it. Half of them say it is a 5-star book (the best) and give you what they liked or learned from it:
http://www.amazon.com/Business-Investment-Banking-Comprehensive-Overview/product-reviews/0471739642/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
Give your answer to this question below!
Question by what?: Do you agree this is what caused the economic crisis?
I found this on fact check
The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html
Best answer:
Answer by new mom
uh, yep that about sums it up
Give your answer to this question below!
Question by sweetnsassy: What does this mean in plain English?
“Owing to a form of financial engineering called securitization, many mortgage lenders had passed the rights to the mortgage payments and related credit/default risk to third-party investors via mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDO). Corporate, individual and institutional investors holding MBS or CDO faced significant losses, as the value of the underlying mortgage assets declined. Stock markets in many countries declined significantly.”
Best answer:
Answer by bud68
It means mortgage lenders made reckless loans to unqualified buyers, packaged the loans into complex bond-like securities and peddled them to investors as “investment-grade” securities. These securities have now tanked.
Add your own answer in the comments!
