fmccap Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 I thought GM was part of the rebirth of the American auto industry? I thought the government was out of this deal totally? I thought they repaid there debt? Most Americans and employees of other auto companies should be upset with this whole deal. Americans lost a lot of money and FORD employees lost market share compared to have just letting GM go the way every other failed company goes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/08/15/general-motors-is-headed-for-bankruptcy-again/ President Obama is proud of his bailout of General Motors. That’s good, because, if he wins a second term, he is probably going to have to bail GM out again. The company is once again losing market share, and it seems unable to develop products that are truly competitive in the U.S. market. Right now, the federal government owns 500,000,000 shares of GM, or about 26% of the company. It would need to get about $53.00/share for these to break even on the bailout, but the stock closed at only $20.21/share on Tuesday. This left the government holding $10.1 billion worth of stock, and sitting on an unrealized loss of $16.4 billion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Uh oh, need more stimulus..... (Not) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 So if i may ask, this isn't about profits, operating expenses, cost reduction strategy but GM is going bankrupt again because Car and Driver, which almost always picks foreign cars doesn't like the Malibu? Why that is more alarmist than climate change with less evidence and we know how you feel about climate change. And I would offer Allan Mullaly as a counterpoint to your whole "bad for Ford premise". While most of us don't always agree with everything he does, I am fairly certain that he had a better view of Ford's suppliers than you or I did. And if the head of Ford is worried about the supplier base enough to testify before Congress on the need to bailout GM and Chrysler putting his company at a disadvantage I think there might have been an issue. 2010 The government’s intervention was absolutely key to helping create a chance for GM and Chrysler going forward. That’s why I testified on behalf of GM and Chrysler, as you know. The reason we did was that we believed—like two presidents [bush and Obama]—that if GM and Chrysler would have gone into freefall bankruptcy, they would have taken the supply base down and taken the industry down plus maybe turned the U.S. recession into a depression. So I think we did the right thing by testifying on their behalf and I think that the government did the right thing for that critical industry at that time to step in and help. 2012 "If GM and Chrysler would've gone into free-fall they could've taken the entire supply base into free-fall also, and taken the U.S. from a recession into a depression," Mulally says in the accompanying video, taped Friday at Ford's world headquarters in Dearborn, MI. "That's why we testified on behalf of our competitors even though we clearly did not need precious taxpayer money." 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 If Mulally had thought it was in Ford's best interest to let GM fail, he would not have supported the bailout. Obviously, that was not the case. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron W. Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Right now, the federal government owns 500,000,000 shares of GM, or about 26% of the company. It would need to get about $53.00/share for these to break even on the bailout, but the stock closed at only $20.21/share on Tuesday. This left the government holding $10.1 billion worth of stock, and sitting on an unrealized loss of $16.4 billion. Screw em, Al supported the bailout for one reason- part suppliers. As far as I'm concerned the U.S. should seize and sell GM in order to recoup the funds. Somebody out there is smart enough to make the company profitable, and it's not the current management. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 If Mulally had thought it was in Ford's best interest to let GM fail, he would not have supported the bailout. Obviously, that was not the case. Ford CEO pressed to explain anti-bailout ad~ http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/30/us-ford-advertising-idUSTRE78T54E20110930 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem12 Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 heres where those bail out tax dollars went. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 If Mulally had thought it was in Ford's best interest to let GM fail, he would not have supported the bailout. Obviously, that was not the case. That's only because chrysler was failing as well. Now (thanks to fiat), Chrysler is turning around. GM should be chopped into little pieces and sold to various private equity firms that can turn the individual brands around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted August 18, 2012 Author Share Posted August 18, 2012 There wouldn't of been supplier issues, most likely short temporary ones if any at all. If they would of went through a regular bankruptcy it would of been as Versa said. They wouldn't just have disappeared one morning. Taxpayers and bondholders wouldn't have gotten screwed also. And the "evil" rich executives wouldn't have seen those handsome bonuses either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rn4 Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 There wouldn't of been supplier issues, most likely short temporary ones if any at all. If they would of went through a regular bankruptcy it would of been as Versa said. They wouldn't just have disappeared one morning. Taxpayers and bondholders wouldn't have gotten screwed also. And the "evil" rich executives wouldn't have seen those handsome bonuses either. Yes it would have taken a whole lot of the suppliers with them. They went through the bankruptcy at a time that no one was lending money to anyone, so who do you think would have come to the rescue of all the suppliers that would have went under. Mullaly, I do believe knows a whole lot more about the supplier base that you or Versa. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 I agree, but I didn't say he was wrong. I said that, at this point, it's safe to let GM fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 That's only because chrysler was failing as well. Now (thanks to fiat), Chrysler is turning around. GM should be chopped into little pieces and sold to various private equity firms that can turn the individual brands around. Yeah, because private equity did *such* a great job with Chrysler last time. Hey, maybe they can resurrect Pontiac and Oldsmobile too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Ford CEO pressed to explain anti-bailout ad~ http://www.reuters.c...E78T54E20110930 That means what exactly? Ford and Mullaly only helped GM and Chrysler because they needed the suppliers to stay working, that doesn't mean it has to like the bailouts. I don't like competing against companies that were allowed to dump debt, but my job was dependent on small factories that built parts for more than Ford and if they went under then Ford did to. The bailout kept me working and not on the unemployment line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Yes it would have taken a whole lot of the suppliers with them. They went through the bankruptcy at a time that no one was lending money to anyone, so who do you think would have come to the rescue of all the suppliers that would have went under. Mullaly, I do believe knows a whole lot more about the supplier base that you or Versa. It would have been over for suppliers quickly. What he doesn't release is that for many suppliers the big 3 run way late in paying bills and they have to find means to maintain capital. Lose 30% and upwards of your business while Ford is holding payments up to 120 days late and you are in a bind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 That means what exactly? Ford and Mullaly only helped GM and Chrysler because they needed the suppliers to stay working, that doesn't mean it has to like the bailouts. I don't like competing against companies that were allowed to dump debt, but my job was dependent on small factories that built parts for more than Ford and if they went under then Ford did to. The bailout kept me working and not on the unemployment line. Everyone should be so fortunate. Many of the people that complain of government favoritism for the wealthy and the banks have in fact been blessed with the same federal grace. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 (edited) Everyone should be so fortunate. Many of the people that complain of government favoritism for the wealthy and the banks have in fact been blessed with the same federal grace. There's a few of the people who complain about the government picking winners and losers instead of the free market who were blessed with the same federal grace as I. Just wondering if your going to question their beliefs now too? Edited August 19, 2012 by Langston Hughes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 There's a few of the people who complain about the government picking winners and losers instead of the free market who were blessed with the same federal grace as I. Just wondering if your going to question their beliefs now too? I haven't the slightest clue what you're trying to say. Please clarify. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 I haven't the slightest clue what you're trying to say. Please clarify. I was pointing out that the auto bailouts saved the jobs of conservatives too in rebuttal to Mettech's comments about occupy supporters connected to the auto bailouts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) All the signs are looking at a part 2. GM Seeks Bigger Credit Line To Shrink Pension Obligations; Déjà Vu Pension Woes Edited August 27, 2012 by fmccap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron W. Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) Link Treasury: U.S. to lose $25 billion on auto bailout The Treasury Department says in a new report the government expects to lose more than $25 billion on the $85 billion auto bailout. That's 15 percent higher than its previous forecast. In a monthly report sent to Congress on Friday, the Obama administration boosted its forecast of expected losses by more than $3.3 billion to almost $25.1 billion, up from $21.7 billion in the last quarterly update. The report may still underestimate the losses Just so I don't get accused of "link bombing" my opinion----- No more bailouts. Edited September 5, 2012 by Ron W. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Somebody explain to me why GM should be allowed to keep all of their current profits while WE (the government) gets stiffed for $25B? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Somebody explain to me why GM should be allowed to keep all of their current profits while WE (the government) gets stiffed for $25B? I"m not saying it should or that it is. There is/was a dividend for the preferred stock and I believe that the US government holds some of that. I don't know how much or what that amount is worth right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Somebody explain to me why GM should be allowed to keep all of their current profits while WE (the government) gets stiffed for $25B? Hey, they got a larger profit sharing check as well, go figure. If they still owe money (they do) a large part (all) of that should go to returning borrowed money. Many still claim a 25 billion loss as a victory. That's some amazing mathematics right there, dont care who u / r. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Hey, they got a larger profit sharing check as well, go figure. If they still owe money (they do) a large part (all) of that should go to returning borrowed money. Many still claim a 25 billion loss as a victory. That's some amazing mathematics right there, dont care who u / r. Please tell us exactly what is owed and by whom so we can make a judgement. I wouldn't consider stock ownership by the government as owed money, as they received something in trade for that. Now if your suggesting that GM should purchase some of that stock back then I agree with you that they should spend some of the profit to purchase their stock off of the government. And the reply to the second half is always... That was one seriously expensive victory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Please tell us exactly what is owed and by whom so we can make a judgement. I wouldn't consider stock ownership by the government as owed money, as they received something in trade for that. Now if your suggesting that GM should purchase some of that stock back then I agree with you that they should spend some of the profit to purchase their stock off of the government. You're not paying attention (or you're purposely diverting - hard to tell). If the government sold all their stock there would still be a $16B shortfall at GM. Why should GM be allowed to keep profits while the government is $16B in the red. Unless you're proposing that GM buys back the stock at $53/share which would make the government whole - in that case I agree that would be the right thing to do. It will never ever happen though. If GM had actually gone out of business or wasn't making a profit right now that would be different. You could at least call that a failed investment. But the company ony did some downsizing. They never stopped manufacturing vehicles. Legally a GM car built in 2007 was built by a different company (old GM, not new GM). And what about all of the old GM stockholders who got screwed? It should have been a loan to be paid back in full and the old shareholders should have gotten new shares and there should not a "new GM" and "old GM". Period. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.