Jump to content

41chevy

Pedigreed Bulldog
  • Content Count

    10,669
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    289

Everything posted by 41chevy

  1. Think this helped or hurt G.M. ? UAW trust sells $1.6B worth of GM stock Nora Naughton, The Detroit News Published 6:27 p.m. ET March 5, 2018 | Updated 7:59 p.m. ET March 5, 2018 (Photo: STAN HONDA / AFP/Getty Images) The United Auto Workers’ retiree health care trust unloaded 40 million of its shares in General Motors Co. worth $1.6 billion, a move that risks the trust’s ability to replace retired UAW Vice President Joe Ashton on the automaker’s board of directors. The UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust is still likely GM’s largest stakeholder with a remaining 100.15 million shares. But that might fall below the threshold detailed in the 2009 stockholder’s agreement between GM, the UAW trust and the U.S. Treasury that guarantees the trust representation on the board. The 2009 agreement says the UAW trust must own at least 50 percent of the shares it initially acquired following the automaker’s federally-induced bankruptcy. But it’s unclear if the initial number of shares acquired includes a three-way stock split ahead of GM’s November 2010 initial public offering that increased the UAW trust’s shares from 87.5 million to 262.5 million. The UAW’s health care trust sold 40 million GM shares Friday valued at $39.71 each, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In an earlier filing last Tuesday, GM detailed the trust’s intention to sell nearly a third of its stake in the automaker. If the UAW trust’s 262.5 million shares reported in GM’s 2010 filing with the SEC are considered its original acquisition, the trust’s holdings would fall to 38 percent of what it initially acquired, no longer guaranteeing a board seat. But based on the 87.5 million shares reflected in the 2009 stockholder’s agreement, the UAW trust actually owns some 12 million more shares than first amassed. The UAW trust lost its representative on GM’s board in December when Ashton abruptly resigned. It wouldn’t be able to nominate a replacement until the automaker’s annual shareholders’ meeting in June, at which time issues of governance would be addressed, a GM spokesman said. As a large shareholder, the UAW trust still is empowered to nominate someone for the board in June. At issue with the stock sale is whether that board seat would be guaranteed. Talks are continuing between GM, the UAW and the health care trust on whether the union trust would keep the seat, according to sources familiar with the situation. In a year-end roundtable, UAW president Dennis Williams said the union intended to keep the seat vacated by the resignation of Ashton. A spokeswoman for the retiree trust declined to comment on discussions surrounding the UAW trust’s place on GM’s board of directors, and deferred comments on the stock sale to Brock Fiduciary Services, the trust’s independent fiduciary and investment manager for its GM shares. A representative from Brock did not immediately respond to request for comment. The UAW retiree trust will receive all of the proceeds from this offering, and none of the shares are being sold by GM, according to the automaker’s Tuesday statement. GM plans to repurchase a portion of the 40 million shares the trust is selling, valuing about $100 million as the price per share at the time of the offering. Based on GM’s closing listed in the SEC filing, that would amount to about 2.5 million shares. The UAW trust’s share sale comes as federal officials are pressing ahead with an investigation of the joint training centers funded by Detroit’s three automakers. A vice president of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV and the wife of a deceased UAW vice president already have pleaded guilty to charges in an alleged scheme involving the embezzlement of hundreds of thousands of dollars from the funds earmarked for member training. It’s still not clear what caused Ashton’s sudden resignation, which GM announced in a four-sentence news release at the time. He left the board shortly after being linked to a federal grand jury investigation into auto industry corruption. Ashton also resigned amid a separate internal investigation GM launched this fall after learning of the widening federal investigation. His departure came six weeks after The Detroit News reported that he had drawn the scrutiny of federal agents looking into potential corruption at UAW joint training centers funded by all three automakers. NNaughton@detroitnews.com
  2. 41chevy

    Political Stuff

    What are these people you talk of? Whom do they work for? Where do they work? As far as I can see there in no House or Senate. Better off going to the local diner or BMT and putting them in office.
  3. 41chevy

    "New" Tow rtruck

    My grandfathers brother had an Auto repair/ gas station and Pontiac dealer in Centerport Long Island from the mid teens until his death in 1967. During the 20's and 30's most of his customers were from Eatons Neck and Centerport. The likes of the Vanderbilts, Morgans, Pratt and Manvilles so his wrecker wrecker fit his image for his clients. Biggest memory was climbing all over his 1928 Packard tow truck. when he died I was 14 and couldn't convince my dad to take it for his garage. so it was sold. The unit just came up for sale after sitting in the buyers garage since 1969. I contacted the seller and sent him a wire transfer deposit to buy it. Only 3 photos and needs most likely a ton of mechanical and the body was changed quite a bit. But 52 years later I'm going to own it. 1933 photo Center Shore Drive Centerport N.Y. Hosted on Fotki December 2018. Hosted on Fotki Hosted on Fotki Hosted on Fotki
  4. 41chevy

    Snow

    500 lbs is only a wee bit smaller than a yearling moose in Maine. Male 1200 to 1500 lbs 6 to 7 ft tall, 8 plus long and females run about 900 lbs plus. Bear, Bobcats, wolves and only a small amount of highly dangerous Lib-er-als All I got to hunt in Virginia is squatters with my Scoop Mobile.
  5. 41chevy

    FCA US Sheds Light on “Smart” LEDs

    What are they going to do in 2020 when vehicles are going to get a Seat Belt -Starter inter lock? The return of the seat belt interlock: crazy rule or money saver? by Daniel Stern NHTSA, the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is looking at bringing back seat belt-ignition interlocks by 2020. These devices, which prevent cars from being driven unless each occupant is using a seat belt, are already allowed — but some automakers want to use them instead of complying with regulations, unique to North America, for protecting unbelted occupants. BMW petitioned NHTSA last October to allow belt interlocks as a compliance option, citing the cost, weight, and fuel penalty required to pass the American beltless-occupant crash tests. NHTSA denied the petition, but may eventually let automakers do as BMW asked; NHTSA Administrator David Strickland said he would ask for research to look at opportunities for adjusting the regulations “if there is 100% certainty that everyone is wearing a belt.” Strickland said he sees BMW's point: “This could provide manufacturers design flexibility and options to not only improve the margin of safety in a crash, but could also relieve regulatory burdens and save significant costs.” BMW's petition mentioned three types of ignition interlocks that might be used: one that prevents the car from being started unless all occupants buckle in, one that prevents the automatic transmission from being shifted out of Park, and one that would allow only very low speed driving (to go down a driveway or private road, or maneuver in a parking lot, for example) if the driver isn't using the seat belt. The American requirements for unbelted occupant protection at issue were written into law in the 1970s and ’80s when most Americans didn't buckle in; but, in 2012, 86% of vehicle occupants in the US were belted in. That's an all-time high for the United States, but still below those of most of the developed world, including neighboring Canada, which sit in the mid to high 90s. The 14% of unbelted drivers and passengers tally up a whoppingly disproportionate 52% of those killed in car crashes in the US. This is not the first time the idea has been considered. A seat belt/starter interlock was briefly required almost four decades ago. It was an idea put forth by then-Ford executive Lee Iacocca to stave off an airbag mandate; at that time almost zero Americans used belts, and airbags were incorrectly regarded as a replacement for seat belts rather than a supplemental restraint. So 1974-model cars came with an interlock: the belts in all occupied front seats had to be buckled or the engine couldn't be cranked. he system was immediately and vehemently hated by the American motoring public. The mechanically-inclined quickly figured out which wires to cut and solder to defeat the system (Chrysler owners could simply unclip a connector, shown at right). Those without technical skill found that leaving the belts buckled and sitting on them did not work—there was a logic module that required the correct sequence (sit, buckle, crank). There was an underhood bypass button that could be pressed to give one "free" start in case of system fault. Taping the button down wouldn't work; it had to be pressed each time. The components of the day were unreliable, especially given what automakers would pay for a system they did not want in the first place. Seat occupancy was detected with weight sensors; this made problems with bags of groceries, briefcases, packages, and pets. System faults, including failure of the bypass button, and nuisances were common. Do you have a 1974 Chrysler, Dodge, Imperial, or Plymouth? If so, you can probably eliminate your seat-belt interlock by unclipping the wire underneath the driver’s seat. Many Americans also hated seat belts, seeing them as an infringement on personal freedom, and even as unsafe (e.g., keeping people in a burning car). [Editor’s note: Some people had problems using the belts of 1974, whose cranky retractors required a very smooth touch and some degree of luck to prevent them from locking on every pull. These belts also sometimes tightened themselves in driving. Prior seat belts usually had no retractors, but had to be “manually sized” like airline seat belts, and when taken off, had to be stowed in clips above the door; the driver could not lean forward to release the emergency brake while wearing a seat belt.] Now, we know from mountains of crash data and accident reconstructions that belt non-use affects everybody, not just the non-user; an unbelted driver is much more likely to be knocked unconscious or otherwise unable to control a car by a first impact, making further impacts (and death and injury of other people) much more likely. [Editor’s note: The costs to emergency rooms and health insurers from un-belted drivers can be quite high. People who would walk from even a fairly severe crash often end up in the critical ward for weeks if they were not belted.] Shortly after a critical mass of congressmen bought new 1974 cars, the interlock requirement was repealed and a (rare) exemption was enacted to the prohibition on rendering inoperative a vehicle safety device or system. Now we have much more accurate and precise ways of detecting seat occupancy; cameras able to monitor a driver for fatigue can certainly tell the difference between a driver and a dog or a stack of books. Today's automotive electronics are also much more dependable and flexible. Defeating a current-day interlock would be much harder than it was in 1974, but few would try; education and social and legal pressure have gradually brought most Americans to realize that seat belts save lives and prevent injuries and property damage. It is difficult to think of a rational objection to the interlock as proposed by BMW. It helps to recall we have had interlocks preventing the car from cranking if it’s not in Park or Neutral, since even before the advent of US Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in 1968. Few people object to these obvious crash-prevention devices in that context; with today's understanding and general acceptance of seat belts, a belt interlock ought to meet with good acceptance by those who were not too emotionally scarred from the 1974 systems.
  6. 41chevy

    FCA US Sheds Light on “Smart” LEDs

    Make them automatic ?!! So they can spend more time texting, shopping, watching a video or taking selfies because the the Lane Monitoring APP, Collision APP, the Cruise Control APP, the intersection Side entry monitoring APP and the Self Parking APPs? Headlights must cut into their socializing APP Since they are always on their I phone how about a simple APP just saying "put the phone down, turn your lights on a drive the Efin car"
  7. 41chevy

    Run away shipping charges

    If it is a ORM-D (other regulated material) like paint or solvent, charcoal, flux and a ton of other items the Federal Government has declared "dangerous". UPS, FEDEX and the USPS have surcharges and it is a ground only transport. Adds an average of 20% to 38% to the shipping costs.
  8. A good Radiator shop can clean it out . Paul
  9. Welcome! great unit you bought. Pos ground is an easy conversion to neg with only a few simple changes. But that said the pos ground systems work just fine.
  10. Can you get either LED bulbs or complete lights there? Much brighter and different beam pattern. If you use them be sure to re aim the lights as they will shine higher than regular units. Paul
  11. 41chevy

    Wiring Harness

    Watts has them custom made when you order it. Original look color coded cloth covered. Takes 3 weeks and cost is $1600.00 plus about $40 shipping.
  12. Produced from 1940 to 1942, produced totally 365 copies. Externally identical to other E-series trucks, it was included to F range, as equipped with chain-driven rear wheels and F series heavy chassis
  13. 1937 MACK bus chassis. Note the long air intake tube. All dressed up.
  14. 41chevy

    Amazon Challenge......

    Just re read the certificate of Authenticity seems it's Wheezie Jeffersons pen, oh well at least I got Abe Lincolns I pad.
  15. The Hydrovac unit has a master cylinder on it that works by vacuum needs to be be bleed. Generally they need to be pressure bleed with 10 or 20 psi. BUT what I done without a power bleeder is to just crack the rear bleeders for an hour plus and let gravity go to work (be sure to keep checking the master cylinder for fluid). Then repeat on the front brakes. They some times get air bound between the main master and the Hydravac master.
  16. Push rod length and pedal travel correct? Bench bleed the master before you installed it?
  17. 41chevy

    Amazon Challenge......

    Well at least Thomas Jeffersons BiC pen he used when he wrote the Declaration of Independence I got on Amazon is real.
  18. 41chevy

    Amazon Challenge......

    Some exotic stuff is reasonable on Amazon. I just bought a Luffa used by John the Baptist with a free copy of Noahs original plans for the ARK for only $3995.00 guaranteed to be authentic with a sworn certificate from King Solomon..
  19. All the info I've found is it is mechanical with flex joints ever section to bell cranks to shift rods to trans. The trans is a 3 speed so two rods make sense.
  20. If the mounting holes are the same the only difference is the OEM is a 1 1/2 bore as opposed to the NAPA 1 3/4 bore. Just a tad more line pressure.
  21. Casting number and Lockheed Wagner name as in first photos. The FE numbers are stamp cast in the body as in the second photos. The FE-??? will cross to current model Raybestos unit according to my books.
  22. 41chevy

    Joining the gang

    Back yard yesterday late afternoon. Than the poo poo hit the fan. Hosted on Fotki

Welcome to BMT!

...The world's best antique, classic & modern Mack Truck support forum! Founded in 2000, BigMackTrucks.com is the place to go for everything related to Mack Trucks!

BMT!

BigMackTrucks.com is owned and operated by Watt's Truck Center, New Alexandria, PA. This forum and it's contents are not affiliated with Mack Trucks, Inc. or Volvo Trucks North America.

×