GM buys back shares - Taxpayers lose billions

[GearheadTool]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
I like my Ford

Your CEO will not accept a $1 salary.

That said.. He also didn't take the handout.

And that should say it all right there.. If Ford did without it, why not the other two?

EVERYBODY SAID NO except for...

+1 to bullwinkle

 

[Loobed]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd


The American people will probably never know how much money we lost. All we'll get spoon-fed is that the bailout "worked" and that the government no longer owns any of GM.

Oh, and new bonuses and corporate jets for everyone! Nice.


The total amount is 122 trillion. This is not just from GM, but from everything.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Look at the bottom right under "US Unfunded Liabilities."

Your share is $1,061,182.00

 

[Loobed]

Originally Posted By: GearheadTool
Originally Posted By: Miller88
I like my Ford

Your CEO will not accept a $1 salary.

That said.. He also didn't take the handout.

And that should say it all right there.. If Ford did without it, why not the other two?

EVERYBODY SAID NO except for...

+1 to bullwinkle





I read something somewhere (i will keep looking for it) that Ford did get some money from the gooberment.

 

[Smokescreen]

Nothing short of crooked.

 

[Kruse]

LOL.
But...but...but....the CEO of GM went on a national TV commercial and SAID that GM has paid back every single dollar that was given to them. You mean it wasn't true??!!!!
The shame of it all.
(Sarcasm now off)

 

[Eddie]

I've nothing bad to say about GM workers but, the company is run by sleazy, self serving individuals. I expected no less from them. Ed

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
The point of what I posted is two-fold:

1. GM promised to pay the taxpayers back. If they buy back the stocks at this price, they are not paying us back. We are getting screwed, period.

I see your point, but screwed relative to what?

Relative to what we paid? Sure.

Relative to what we could have had if we had held the stock? Maybe, although this must be weighed against the uncertainty inherent in holding stock in preparation for the kinds of huge gains that would be required.

Relative to what we would have lost if we hadn't bailed them out in the first place? Probably not -- or at least, I think that'd be a very hard case to argue.


Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
2. GM management should not be chomping at the bit for salary increases, bonuses and private jets. It is this mindset that got them in the position of going bankrupt in the first place. The message this sends is "hey, we didn't learn anything! You paid for us to stay afloat, are taking a hit on us paying you back, and now we get to go spend money frivolously again!"

This is NOT the kind of message you want to be sending to the American public, who propped you up when you were failing. This is a slap in the face, rather than a "thank you".

Got it. I agree on this point.

 

[DevilsRule]

Originally Posted By: John_K
Originally Posted By: DevilsRule
They do make decent and reliable cars in my personal experience. Also, none of my GM vehicles have left me stranded yet. Just my experience. Should they be worrying about corporate jets.........absolutely not.


Well, that's great for you. Every GM car I have ever been associated with has been garbage.

John


Sorry to hear that John. When you say "associated with", do you mean owned? Also, garbage in what way? Just curious.

 

[Artem]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I wonder how many of those who claim this was such a waste of money could say so while looking in the faces of all of the good employees whose jobs were on the line.

I also wonder who is making such judgments in light of what might have happened to the already-vulnerable US economy had the Big Three been allowed to go under.

I'm not exactly a fan of most of the parties involved here (the Big Three, the UAW, etc.), but at some point we have to be pragmatic. A billion dollars here or there is barely a blip on the scale of the whole country, and it seems to have bought us quite a bit.


The point of what I posted is two-fold:

1. GM promised to pay the taxpayers back. If they buy back the stocks at this price, they are not paying us back. We are getting screwed, period.

2. GM management should not be chomping at the bit for salary increases, bonuses and private jets. It is this mindset that got them in the position of going bankrupt in the first place. The message this sends is "hey, we didn't learn anything! You paid for us to stay afloat, are taking a hit on us paying you back, and now we get to go spend money frivolously again!"

This is NOT the kind of message you want to be sending to the American public, who propped you up when you were failing. This is a slap in the face, rather than a "thank you".


x2, couldn't agree with you more. This is a perfect example of why we are in debt in the first place. Bad decision after bad decision.

 

[GearheadTool]

Where is rg200amp to defend Apple here?

 

[bullwinkle]

Originally Posted By: Loobed
Originally Posted By: GearheadTool
Originally Posted By: Miller88
I like my Ford

Your CEO will not accept a $1 salary.

That said.. He also didn't take the handout.

And that should say it all right there.. If Ford did without it, why not the other two?

EVERYBODY SAID NO except for...

+1 to bullwinkle





I read something somewhere (i will keep looking for it) that Ford did get some money from the gooberment.

I read somewhere that they talked Ford into taking some, assuming it's been paid back? My problem isn't necessarily the bailout of a "National Defense" needed corporation-it's the fact that ALL of their shareholders (& the US Gov't/taxpayers) took it in the shorts, and GM management was free to continue the arrogant, stupid moves that got them in trouble in the first place.

 

[sciphi]

Sometimes doing things in the national interest requires taking a monetary loss. Unemployment insurance for those employees laid off would have been much more expensive, and then we would have had up to date industrial facilities sitting around un-used, needing more money to be refurbished again for a potential buyer.

Sometimes it's cheaper/better to take a pragmatic loss than die on principle. Know when to hold, and know when to fold. It was cheaper to fold than to hold.

Also, other countries support their domestic auto industries to a far greater extent than we in the US do, and somehow it's okay for them but not for us. Health care, research subsidies, tax credits, and sometimes partial ownership like the minority shares some German states have in BMW or like France has in Peugeot (PSA-Citroen). And it's wunderbar for them, and verboten for us...

 

[Loobed]

Originally Posted By: Eddie
I've nothing bad to say about GM workers but, the company is run by sleazy, self serving individuals. I expected no less from them. Ed


That defines most of the businesses and governments in the world.

 

[rshaw125]

People forget that GM wanted to reorganize through bankruptcy before the bailout. Massive pressure was put on them not to. So they went into the great recession even weaker.
Bankruptcy does not mean ceasing to exist. American Airlines has been through it twice. Washington wanted taxpayers to think the plants would all have closed forever. Washington to the rescue.

 

[DBMaster]

I guess what always comes to mind for me is, "Are we REALLY capitalist?" If we selectively do things like this how do we dare call ourselves a free market economy? Government intervention into the market is not a good thing, regardless of how many jobs it "saves" or how much good it appears to do. We'll never know what would have happened if GM had not been bailed out.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
Seems pretty simple; shareholder is deciding to sell his shares and he is actually getting premium over the market price. What more do you think he can ask for???

You are an individual investor, explain to me how you would do this differently???

Are you claiming that market price should be higher? I mean what exactly is your complaint about GM buying back the shares from US Government?

I am holding bunch of HP shares :-( I have lost lot of money; only if I had sold it when it was over 40. Can I get HP to buy back my shares at a premium???

If you are saying US Government should not have taken a stake at GM, then that is different argument.


It should never have been done as shares in the first place, because this was indeed the risk. That is despite the fact that the government said they would sell them when they would get the taxpayer money back and GM said the same.

We aren't talking about a regular shareholder here. We are talking about the Government. It in no way relates to your HP shares, because you didn't lend billions of dollars of somebody else's money to HP in return for shares. Shares that you've now decided to sell-off at a 50% loss and are thumbing your nose at the people who's money you've just [censored] into the wind.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: sciphi
Sometimes doing things in the national interest requires taking a monetary loss. Unemployment insurance for those employees laid off would have been much more expensive, and then we would have had up to date industrial facilities sitting around un-used, needing more money to be refurbished again for a potential buyer.


+1 and forget unemployment, the unfunded pension liability was an even bigger monster. If they went legitimately bankrupt the taxpayer would have picked up that pension tab. Darned if you do, darned if you don't.

A stock isn't a loser until you sell it. Well, they sold it. Could have done better, could have done worse. It's like demanding Reparations after spanking another country in a war, you never get what you really feel entitled to, can't get blood from a stone.

There could have been benefits from a bankruptcy and asset and intellectual property auction but the pension thing and welching out of existing warranties and contracts would have affected a bunch as well. Dirty dirty dirty.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
I read somewhere that they talked Ford into taking some, assuming it's been paid back? My problem isn't necessarily the bailout of a "National Defense" needed corporation-it's the fact that ALL of their shareholders (& the US Gov't/taxpayers) took it in the shorts, and GM management was free to continue the arrogant, stupid moves that got them in trouble in the first place.

Ford received a "green initiative" loan to enhance their development of electric and hybrid vehicles. This was part of a program that was extended to Nissan and a host of other brands.

Ford is in the process of paying back that loan, as are the other companies. There were no shares exchanged, crooked bankruptcy proceedings or anything along those lines that happened during this program. It was a legitimate loan extended to anybody who qualified, backed by a large chunk of government money.

I will also add that this program had nothing to do with the bailout, and this loan had no impact on Ford (or Nissan's) viability and sustainability as an automaker.

 

[tgferg67]

How many billions would it have cost the taxpayer if GM had gone under.The loss of just the tax base would have been an estimated $108 billion over 3 years.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: sciphi
Sometimes doing things in the national interest requires taking a monetary loss. Unemployment insurance for those employees laid off would have been much more expensive, and then we would have had up to date industrial facilities sitting around un-used, needing more money to be refurbished again for a potential buyer.

Sometimes it's cheaper/better to take a pragmatic loss than die on principle. Know when to hold, and know when to fold. It was cheaper to fold than to hold.

Also, other countries support their domestic auto industries to a far greater extent than we in the US do, and somehow it's okay for them but not for us. Health care, research subsidies, tax credits, and sometimes partial ownership like the minority shares some German states have in BMW or like France has in Peugeot (PSA-Citroen). And it's wunderbar for them, and verboten for us...


GM, Ford and Chrysler share many of those benefits when operating in Canada. We have healthcare provided up here, the government funds part of the pension fund. Yet we still got screwed on the Camaro.......

Despite contributing to the bailout.