Govt sells last of GM shares, taxpayers 10.5 billion loss

[SDHornet]

This, which is an issue I failed to point out earlier. The Gov selected to back a company that couldn’t keep pace in the global economy. Instead of letting it go under and letting the vultures pick the profitable/useful pieces off of its rotting bones, we as taxpayers are keeping the whole broke dick company afloat. Time will tell if GM can get its shit together and compete with other auto manufacturers but bailing them out offered them no such favors. If GM fails again, does the Gov step in again?

Agreed ^
It was imperative that it be left to fail
And as you said, the good bits get re-sorted and re-launched
under better management and new labor deals

The GM debacle will go down in U.S. History as a failed government intervention

Which is a knock against the idea that everyone that had anything to do with GM would have lost their job.

[∞∞∞]

I think what's more important is the long-term economic impact. Was keeping GM open worth the 10.5 billion invested? How much money will suppliers, dealers, workers, engineers, designers, businessmen, lawyers, auditors, and other people put back into the economy because they didn't lose their jobs? Did GM create any new innovations that will technologically/economically benefit the US in the future? Did saving GM 'cause more US students to benefit because they didn't lose internships and other means of being educated? (Regardless of how you view GM, they do educate a large number of next-generation engineers, technologists, etc.)

These are only a few of the questions I'd like answered; I'm not sure if a study that in-depth has been made. However, my gut feeling is that it ends up being worth the 10.5 billion in long run.

[Chizzang]

I think what's more important is the long-term economic impact. Was keeping GM open worth the 10.5 billion invested? How much money will suppliers, dealers, workers, engineers, designers, businessmen, lawyers, auditors, and other people put back into the economy because they didn't lose their jobs? Did GM create any new innovations that will technologically/economically benefit the US in the future? Did saving GM 'cause more US students to benefit because they didn't lose internships and other means of being educated? (Regardless of how you view GM, they do educate a large number of next-generation engineers, technologists, etc.)

These are only a few of the questions I'd like answered; I'm not sure if a study that in-depth has been made. However, my gut feeling is that it ends up being worth the 10.5 billion in long run.

But what we'll never know now is...
We might have the single greatest automotive company in the world - had we let GM get divided up into new companies and re-create themselves under new management and Labor

What we do know is this:
We have the same old GM - still acting like nothing happened

[∞∞∞]

I think what's more important is the long-term economic impact. Was keeping GM open worth the 10.5 billion invested? How much money will suppliers, dealers, workers, engineers, designers, businessmen, lawyers, auditors, and other people put back into the economy because they didn't lose their jobs? Did GM create any new innovations that will technologically/economically benefit the US in the future? Did saving GM 'cause more US students to benefit because they didn't lose internships and other means of being educated? (Regardless of how you view GM, they do educate a large number of next-generation engineers, technologists, etc.)

These are only a few of the questions I'd like answered; I'm not sure if a study that in-depth has been made. However, my gut feeling is that it ends up being worth the 10.5 billion in long run.

But what we'll never know now is...
We might have the single greatest automotive company in the world - had we let GM get divided up into new companies and re-create themselves under new management and Labor

What we do know is this:
We have the same old GM - still acting like nothing happened

I don't think that's true. The quality of GM's products are significantly better than pre-bailout, and I believe sales have reflected that over the last few years. They're also doing extremely well in China and other emerging markets which might end up being huge in the long run. Plus there's nothing bad about foreign money being (largely) funneled into the US.

[SDHornet]

But what we'll never know now is...
We might have the single greatest automotive company in the world - had we let GM get divided up into new companies and re-create themselves under new management and Labor

What we do know is this:
We have the same old GM - still acting like nothing happened

I don't think that's true. The quality of GM's products are significantly better than pre-bailout, and I believe sales have reflected that over the last few years. They're also doing extremely well in China and other emerging markets which might end up being huge in the long run. Plus there's nothing bad about foreign money being (largely) funneled into the US.

That could have happened minus the $10B+ in lost taxpayer "investment".

[SDHornet]

I think what's more important is the long-term economic impact. Was keeping GM open worth the 10.5 billion invested? How much money will suppliers, dealers, workers, engineers, designers, businessmen, lawyers, auditors, and other people put back into the economy because they didn't lose their jobs? Did GM create any new innovations that will technologically/economically benefit the US in the future? Did saving GM 'cause more US students to benefit because they didn't lose internships and other means of being educated? (Regardless of how you view GM, they do educate a large number of next-generation engineers, technologists, etc.)

These are only a few of the questions I'd like answered; I'm not sure if a study that in-depth has been made. However, my gut feeling is that it ends up being worth the 10.5 billion in long run.

You are also assuming all those people are competent and deserving of working at a top notch automotive company. House could have been cleaned for a leaner, more efficient company to rise from the ashes.

[∞∞∞]

I don't think that's true. The quality of GM's products are significantly better than pre-bailout, and I believe sales have reflected that over the last few years. They're also doing extremely well in China and other emerging markets which might end up being huge in the long run. Plus there's nothing bad about foreign money being (largely) funneled into the US.

That could have happened minus the $10B+ in lost taxpayer "investment".

I completely agree, but I do think that GM was ultimately too big to fail (again, gut feeling). Is that a slippery slope concerning the US' biggest corporations? Perhaps. However, I trust the economists, lawyers, judges, and other peeps who are experts in these things make that call.

[SDHornet]

That could have happened minus the $10B+ in lost taxpayer "investment".

I completely agree, but I do think that GM was ultimately too big to fail (again, gut feeling). Is that a slippery slope concerning the US' biggest corporations? Perhaps. However, I trust the economists, lawyers, judges, and other peeps who are experts in these things make that call.

Sad thing is I doubt those people made the call. Probably lobbyists had the biggest sway.

[BDKJMU]

If someone takes $100 from you every year, and then one year they take $50, is that giving you $50?

If someone overpays you for your grain and helps you out with crop insurance or sends their Navy to insure safe passage of your product and helps pay for the clean up of your contaminants while charging a teacher a higher tax rate on her income, are you a capitalist?

Nice dodge. Silly liberal logic where:
-Taking less = giving
-Govt taking less = gov't spending

[BDKJMU]

Yes it is.

Classic donk ideology.

Yep.

[AZGrizFan]

I think what's more important is the long-term economic impact. Was keeping GM open worth the 10.5 billion invested? How much money will suppliers, dealers, workers, engineers, designers, businessmen, lawyers, auditors, and other people put back into the economy because they didn't lose their jobs? Did GM create any new innovations that will technologically/economically benefit the US in the future? Did saving GM 'cause more US students to benefit because they didn't lose internships and other means of being educated? (Regardless of how you view GM, they do educate a large number of next-generation engineers, technologists, etc.)

These are only a few of the questions I'd like answered; I'm not sure if a study that in-depth has been made. However, my gut feeling is that it ends up being worth the 10.5 billion in long run.

But what we'll never know now is...
We might have the single greatest automotive company in the world - had we let GM get divided up into new companies and re-create themselves under new management and Labor

What we do know is this:
We have the same old GM - still acting like nothing happened

Spot fucking ON.

[BDKJMU]

I think what's more important is the long-term economic impact. Was keeping GM open worth the 10.5 billion invested? How much money will suppliers, dealers, workers, engineers, designers, businessmen, lawyers, auditors, and other people put back into the economy because they didn't lose their jobs? Did GM create any new innovations that will technologically/economically benefit the US in the future? Did saving GM 'cause more US students to benefit because they didn't lose internships and other means of being educated? (Regardless of how you view GM, they do educate a large number of next-generation engineers, technologists, etc.)

These are only a few of the questions I'd like answered; I'm not sure if a study that in-depth has been made. However, my gut feeling is that it ends up being worth the 10.5 billion in long run.

How many jobs among suppliers, dealers, workers, engineers, designers, businessmen, lawyers, auditors, and other people weren't gained from a leaner company emerging from the ashes, and additional new and newly expanded auto companies mostly in the south (above the new and expanded ones that have sprung up in the last 4 years) that would have taken up the slack by increasing output more than they currently have?

There should be no bailouts, period, no matter how big the company, no matter what industry. We need to get rid of too big to fail mantra which encourages risky behavior knowing that if all goes to sh*t, big govt will ride to the rescue. Sets a horrible precedent, sometimes propping up a company that will ultimately fail anyway down the road...

[danefan]

I think what's more important is the long-term economic impact. Was keeping GM open worth the 10.5 billion invested? How much money will suppliers, dealers, workers, engineers, designers, businessmen, lawyers, auditors, and other people put back into the economy because they didn't lose their jobs? Did GM create any new innovations that will technologically/economically benefit the US in the future? Did saving GM 'cause more US students to benefit because they didn't lose internships and other means of being educated? (Regardless of how you view GM, they do educate a large number of next-generation engineers, technologists, etc.)

These are only a few of the questions I'd like answered; I'm not sure if a study that in-depth has been made. However, my gut feeling is that it ends up being worth the 10.5 billion in long run.

But what we'll never know now is...
We might have the single greatest automotive company in the world - had we let GM get divided up into new companies and re-create themselves under new management and Labor

What we do know is this:
We have the same old GM - still acting like nothing happened

How much of that is the government's fault versus the management of GM?
Compare and contrast to AIG.....bailed out and completely rebuilt as a leaner more focused company. also turned a hefty profit for the taxpayers.

Same government....different company leadership.

One big glaring difference is the union presence. AIG was not hampered in the US by any unions.

[AZGrizFan]

I think what's more important is the long-term economic impact. Was keeping GM open worth the 10.5 billion invested? How much money will suppliers, dealers, workers, engineers, designers, businessmen, lawyers, auditors, and other people put back into the economy because they didn't lose their jobs? Did GM create any new innovations that will technologically/economically benefit the US in the future? Did saving GM 'cause more US students to benefit because they didn't lose internships and other means of being educated? (Regardless of how you view GM, they do educate a large number of next-generation engineers, technologists, etc.)

These are only a few of the questions I'd like answered; I'm not sure if a study that in-depth has been made. However, my gut feeling is that it ends up being worth the 10.5 billion in long run.

How many jobs among suppliers, dealers, workers, engineers, designers, businessmen, lawyers, auditors, and other people weren't gained from a leaner company emerging from the ashes, and additional new and newly expanded auto companies mostly in the south (above the new and expanded ones that have sprung up in the last 4 years) that would have taken up the slack by increasing output more than they currently have?

There should be no bailouts, period, no matter how big the company, no matter what industry. We need to get rid of too big to fail mantra which encourages risky behavior knowing that if all goes to sh*t, big govt will ride to the rescue. Sets a horrible precedent, sometimes propping up a company that will ultimately fail anyway down the road...

In the not too distant future our government won't be around to bail them out.

[AZGrizFan]

But what we'll never know now is...
We might have the single greatest automotive company in the world - had we let GM get divided up into new companies and re-create themselves under new management and Labor

What we do know is this:
We have the same old GM - still acting like nothing happened

How much of that is the government's fault versus the management of GM?
Compare and contrast to AIG.....bailed out and completely rebuilt as a leaner more focused company. also turned a hefty profit for the taxpayers.

Same government....different company leadership.

One big glaring difference is the union presence. AIG was not hampered in the US by any unions.

The fact that that wasn't a REQUIREMENT of the bailout shows just how retarded our government really is.

[kalm]

If someone overpays you for your grain and helps you out with crop insurance or sends their Navy to insure safe passage of your product and helps pay for the clean up of your contaminants while charging a teacher a higher tax rate on her income, are you a capitalist?

Nice dodge. Silly liberal logic where:
-Taking less = giving
-Govt taking less = gov't spending

Congratulations on supporting a government that picks winners and losers through taxation and infrastructure investments... Yaaaaay free market!

[AZGrizFan]

Nice dodge. Silly liberal logic where:
-Taking less = giving
-Govt taking less = gov't spending

Congratulations on supporting a government that picks winners and losers through taxation and infrastructure investments... Yaaaaay free market!

Incenting a company to do something by "allowing" them to keep more of their profits isn't even remotely the same thing as ensuring that they'll get government (aka: taxpayer) cash infusions should they fuck up and do stupid shit. Really, it's not that complicated, klammy.

[kalm]

But what we'll never know now is...
We might have the single greatest automotive company in the world - had we let GM get divided up into new companies and re-create themselves under new management and Labor

What we do know is this:
We have the same old GM - still acting like nothing happened

How much of that is the government's fault versus the management of GM?
Compare and contrast to AIG.....bailed out and completely rebuilt as a leaner more focused company. also turned a hefty profit for the taxpayers.

Same government....different company leadership.

One big glaring difference is the union presence. AIG was not hampered in the US by any unions.

Not a big fan of bailouts in general, but how much of AIG's was due to bloat and how much was due to greed?

(Honest question)

[kalm]

Congratulations on supporting a government that picks winners and losers through taxation and infrastructure investments... Yaaaaay free market!

Incenting a company to do something by "allowing" them to keep more of their profits isn't even remotely the same thing as ensuring that they'll get government (aka: taxpayer) cash infusions should they fuck up and do stupid shit. Really, it's not that complicated, klammy.

It's really the same thing. Either you can stand on your own without ANY government assistance or you can't. One gives you the $'s every year and one only in case of an emergency.

* Conk meme notwithstanding.

[danefan]

How much of that is the government's fault versus the management of GM?
Compare and contrast to AIG.....bailed out and completely rebuilt as a leaner more focused company. also turned a hefty profit for the taxpayers.

Same government....different company leadership.

One big glaring difference is the union presence. AIG was not hampered in the US by any unions.

Not a big fan of bailouts in general, but how much of AIG's was due to bloat and how much was due to greed?

(Honest question)

The size of the losses was mostly due to greed by a few individuals and lack of risk management at the top. The inability to respond (monetize assets quick enough to cover the collateral calls) was due to bloat. AIG's balance sheet was relatively strong in 2008. It just wasn't liquid...or should I say...no one could tell quickly enough where the liquidity was.

[CAA Flagship]

U.S. taxpayers no longer own any of automaker General Motors. The Treasury sold the last of its remaining 31.1 million GM shares today.

Just curious. Why did the government sell the shares when they did? Why not wait another year and possibly reap the benefits of a higher price per share? Was there a time limit? The price is currently at a peak of it's post-bailout era. The Treasury sold the "remaining 31.1 million shares" recently out of the 500 million shares it once had. When did they sell the other 469 million shares? When it was half the current price?

This result seems like poor investment strategy more than anything.

[Ibanez]

I don't think that's true. The quality of GM's products are significantly better than pre-bailout, and I believe sales have reflected that over the last few years. They're also doing extremely well in China and other emerging markets which might end up being huge in the long run. Plus there's nothing bad about foreign money being (largely) funneled into the US.

That could have happened minus the $10B+ in lost taxpayer "investment".

I'm not for or against, but what is the economic impact of yearly, Federal, economic impact of GM?

Either way, for our government to loan money and just say, "You know that last $10B, you keep it" is absurd. I wish my bank would tell me that.

[Ibanez]

U.S. taxpayers no longer own any of automaker General Motors. The Treasury sold the last of its remaining 31.1 million GM shares today.

Just curious. Why did the government sell the shares when they did? Why not wait another year and possibly reap the benefits of a higher price per share? Was there a time limit? The price is currently at a peak of it's post-bailout era. The Treasury sold the "remaining 31.1 million shares" recently out of the 500 million shares it once had. When did they sell the other 469 million shares? When it was half the current price?

This result seems like poor investment strategy more than anything.

They had been selling throughout the year. I think every month, the Treasury sold more and more stock.

[AZGrizFan]

Incenting a company to do something by "allowing" them to keep more of their profits isn't even remotely the same thing as ensuring that they'll get government (aka: taxpayer) cash infusions should they fuck up and do stupid shit. Really, it's not that complicated, klammy.

It's really the same thing. Either you can stand on your own without ANY government assistance or you can't. One gives you the $'s every year and one only in case of an emergency.

* Conk meme notwithstanding.

You are blurring lines, my friend. Tax rules are tax rules. Incentives for infrastructure investments are typically short-term. Subsidies are another animal altogether (and I'm not a fan of THOSE either). But bailouts set an extremely dangerous precedent that (much like subsidies) fundamentally changes the industry's thought process as to how to manage the business and how much risk/expense to take on.

[danefan]

U.S. taxpayers no longer own any of automaker General Motors. The Treasury sold the last of its remaining 31.1 million GM shares today.

Just curious. Why did the government sell the shares when they did? Why not wait another year and possibly reap the benefits of a higher price per share? Was there a time limit? The price is currently at a peak of it's post-bailout era. The Treasury sold the "remaining 31.1 million shares" recently out of the 500 million shares it once had. When did they sell the other 469 million shares? When it was half the current price?

This result seems like poor investment strategy more than anything.

I believe it was a set timeframe to avoid driving the market. They did the same thing with AIG stock. Being a huge shareholder but not trying to interrupt the private marketplace on the exit like they did on the entrance.

Terrible investment strategy for the Gov't but i think a necessarily evil for the good of the greater market.