GM's total investment in USA since 7/09?????
- Thread starter LS2JSTS
- Start date
- Status
From the article I posted:
Quote:
Usually, companies that undergo a significant change in ownership risk having major restrictions put on their tax benefits. The U.S. bailout of GM, in which the Treasury took a 61% stake in the company, ordinarily would have resulted in GM having such limits put on its tax benefits, according to tax experts.
But the federal government, in a little-noticed ruling last year, decided that companies that received U.S. bailout money under the Troubled Asset Relief Program won't fall under that rule.
"The Internal Revenue Service has decided that the government's involvement with these companies, both its acquisitions plus its disposals of their stock, means they should be exempt" from the rule, said Robert Willens, a New York tax consultant who advises investment banks and hedge funds.
The government's rationale, said people familiar with the situation, is that the profit-shielding tax credit makes the bailed-out companies more attractive to investors, and that the value of the benefit is greater than the lost tax payments, especially since the tax payments would not exist if the companies fail.
So the government gave itself a sweet hart deal, in order drive the stock price up, to make the loss LOOK like it was less.
Further:
Quote:
The panel noted that the government "absorbed the consequences of GM's and Chrysler's failures" while more competently run organizations that were also in deep trouble didn't get the same help because they were able to muddle through.
Ford, for example, piled on massive debt to finance its own reorganization and has been diverting a portion of its profits to pay down the loans and get back its investment-grade credit rating. The company reduced the debt for its automotive operations by $12.8 billion last year. While that sliced nearly $1 billion off of its interest expenses, Ford still has $22.8 billion in debt.
"The effects of Treasury's intervention will linger long after taxpayers have sold their last share of stock in the automotive industry," the panel said.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/13/business/la-fi-autos-bailout-20110114/2
So again, GM is operating in a protected bubble that it's major competitor is not. All because they got "help".
Quote:
Usually, companies that undergo a significant change in ownership risk having major restrictions put on their tax benefits. The U.S. bailout of GM, in which the Treasury took a 61% stake in the company, ordinarily would have resulted in GM having such limits put on its tax benefits, according to tax experts.
But the federal government, in a little-noticed ruling last year, decided that companies that received U.S. bailout money under the Troubled Asset Relief Program won't fall under that rule.
"The Internal Revenue Service has decided that the government's involvement with these companies, both its acquisitions plus its disposals of their stock, means they should be exempt" from the rule, said Robert Willens, a New York tax consultant who advises investment banks and hedge funds.
The government's rationale, said people familiar with the situation, is that the profit-shielding tax credit makes the bailed-out companies more attractive to investors, and that the value of the benefit is greater than the lost tax payments, especially since the tax payments would not exist if the companies fail.
So the government gave itself a sweet hart deal, in order drive the stock price up, to make the loss LOOK like it was less.
Further:
Quote:
The panel noted that the government "absorbed the consequences of GM's and Chrysler's failures" while more competently run organizations that were also in deep trouble didn't get the same help because they were able to muddle through.
Ford, for example, piled on massive debt to finance its own reorganization and has been diverting a portion of its profits to pay down the loans and get back its investment-grade credit rating. The company reduced the debt for its automotive operations by $12.8 billion last year. While that sliced nearly $1 billion off of its interest expenses, Ford still has $22.8 billion in debt.
"The effects of Treasury's intervention will linger long after taxpayers have sold their last share of stock in the automotive industry," the panel said.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/13/business/la-fi-autos-bailout-20110114/2
So again, GM is operating in a protected bubble that it's major competitor is not. All because they got "help".
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: Greggy_D
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Every day the stock goes up, you and I get closer to being fully repaid.
How about paying back the suppliers, stockholders, and retirees that got screwed when GM stock version 1.0 was declared worthless?
I notice that this is being completely ignored by the bailout supporters....
Had they gone through bankruptcy, what would the stock be worth?
Originally Posted By: Greggy_D
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Every day the stock goes up, you and I get closer to being fully repaid.
How about paying back the suppliers, stockholders, and retirees that got screwed when GM stock version 1.0 was declared worthless?
I notice that this is being completely ignored by the bailout supporters....
Had they gone through bankruptcy, what would the stock be worth?
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
I wish. I don't know how many bankrupt stocks you've held in the past. But the stockholders are way back, at the end of the line. First come the secured creditors, then the bond holders, then the stockholders.
If you care to look at facts and not just guess at what would have happened, the numbers are there to find. The debt on the books was nearly 175 billion, the assets were listed as just over 80 billion. The common stock holders would have received zip, zilch...nada. Your claim that they would have gotten "more" ignores every financial fact involved.
I want the law to be followed. If stock holders knew that they were at the back of the line WHEN they invested, that's their risk. The secured creditors and whoever else made their investment decisions based on the law when they gave GM their money.
The GM bailouts were done (on it's face) to "save the economy". What do you think the chilling effect on the economy and investment is when your right to contract means nothing?
I wish. I don't know how many bankrupt stocks you've held in the past. But the stockholders are way back, at the end of the line. First come the secured creditors, then the bond holders, then the stockholders.
If you care to look at facts and not just guess at what would have happened, the numbers are there to find. The debt on the books was nearly 175 billion, the assets were listed as just over 80 billion. The common stock holders would have received zip, zilch...nada. Your claim that they would have gotten "more" ignores every financial fact involved.
I want the law to be followed. If stock holders knew that they were at the back of the line WHEN they invested, that's their risk. The secured creditors and whoever else made their investment decisions based on the law when they gave GM their money.
The GM bailouts were done (on it's face) to "save the economy". What do you think the chilling effect on the economy and investment is when your right to contract means nothing?
Originally Posted By: Tempest
From the article I posted:
Quote:
Usually, companies that undergo a significant change in ownership risk having major restrictions put on their tax benefits. The U.S. bailout of GM, in which the Treasury took a 61% stake in the company, ordinarily would have resulted in GM having such limits put on its tax benefits, according to tax experts.
But the federal government, in a little-noticed ruling last year, decided that companies that received U.S. bailout money under the Troubled Asset Relief Program won't fall under that rule.
"The Internal Revenue Service has decided that the government's involvement with these companies, both its acquisitions plus its disposals of their stock, means they should be exempt" from the rule, said Robert Willens, a New York tax consultant who advises investment banks and hedge funds.
The government's rationale, said people familiar with the situation, is that the profit-shielding tax credit makes the bailed-out companies more attractive to investors, and that the value of the benefit is greater than the lost tax payments, especially since the tax payments would not exist if the companies fail.
So the government gave itself a sweet hart deal, in order drive the stock price up, to make the loss LOOK like it was less.
Further:
Quote:
The panel noted that the government "absorbed the consequences of GM's and Chrysler's failures" while more competently run organizations that were also in deep trouble didn't get the same help because they were able to muddle through.
Ford, for example, piled on massive debt to finance its own reorganization and has been diverting a portion of its profits to pay down the loans and get back its investment-grade credit rating. The company reduced the debt for its automotive operations by $12.8 billion last year. While that sliced nearly $1 billion off of its interest expenses, Ford still has $22.8 billion in debt.
"The effects of Treasury's intervention will linger long after taxpayers have sold their last share of stock in the automotive industry," the panel said.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/13/business/la-fi-autos-bailout-20110114/2
So again, GM is operating in a protected bubble that it's major competitor is not. All because they got "help".
So again....Ford enjoys the exact same tax law...and currently has a 19 billion dollar carried forward loss on the books. This isn't unique to GM. The ONLY difference is that GM was allowed to carry over the debt from the Corporation to the Company.
No amount of quotes or other information will change the fact that every major corporation enjoys the same tax credit if they have a loss on the books.
From the article I posted:
Quote:
Usually, companies that undergo a significant change in ownership risk having major restrictions put on their tax benefits. The U.S. bailout of GM, in which the Treasury took a 61% stake in the company, ordinarily would have resulted in GM having such limits put on its tax benefits, according to tax experts.
But the federal government, in a little-noticed ruling last year, decided that companies that received U.S. bailout money under the Troubled Asset Relief Program won't fall under that rule.
"The Internal Revenue Service has decided that the government's involvement with these companies, both its acquisitions plus its disposals of their stock, means they should be exempt" from the rule, said Robert Willens, a New York tax consultant who advises investment banks and hedge funds.
The government's rationale, said people familiar with the situation, is that the profit-shielding tax credit makes the bailed-out companies more attractive to investors, and that the value of the benefit is greater than the lost tax payments, especially since the tax payments would not exist if the companies fail.
So the government gave itself a sweet hart deal, in order drive the stock price up, to make the loss LOOK like it was less.
Further:
Quote:
The panel noted that the government "absorbed the consequences of GM's and Chrysler's failures" while more competently run organizations that were also in deep trouble didn't get the same help because they were able to muddle through.
Ford, for example, piled on massive debt to finance its own reorganization and has been diverting a portion of its profits to pay down the loans and get back its investment-grade credit rating. The company reduced the debt for its automotive operations by $12.8 billion last year. While that sliced nearly $1 billion off of its interest expenses, Ford still has $22.8 billion in debt.
"The effects of Treasury's intervention will linger long after taxpayers have sold their last share of stock in the automotive industry," the panel said.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/13/business/la-fi-autos-bailout-20110114/2
So again, GM is operating in a protected bubble that it's major competitor is not. All because they got "help".
So again....Ford enjoys the exact same tax law...and currently has a 19 billion dollar carried forward loss on the books. This isn't unique to GM. The ONLY difference is that GM was allowed to carry over the debt from the Corporation to the Company.
No amount of quotes or other information will change the fact that every major corporation enjoys the same tax credit if they have a loss on the books.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
I wish. I don't know how many bankrupt stocks you've held in the past. But the stockholders are way back, at the end of the line. First come the secured creditors, then the bond holders, then the stockholders.
If you care to look at facts and not just guess at what would have happened, the numbers are there to find. The debt on the books was nearly 175 billion, the assets were listed as just over 80 billion. The common stock holders would have received zip, zilch...nada. Your claim that they would have gotten "more" ignores every financial fact involved.
I want the law to be followed. If stock holders knew that they were at the back of the line WHEN they invested, that's their risk. The secured creditors and whoever else made their investment decisions based on the law when they gave GM their money.
The GM bailouts were done (on it's face) to "save the economy". What do you think the chilling effect on the economy and investment is when your right to contract means nothing?
They were aware of it....it has always been the case that stockholders fall behind bondholders(unsecured) and Secured investors.
With 175 billion in debts and 80 billion in assets it's a pipe dream to state that the stockholders would have gotten anything.
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
I wish. I don't know how many bankrupt stocks you've held in the past. But the stockholders are way back, at the end of the line. First come the secured creditors, then the bond holders, then the stockholders.
If you care to look at facts and not just guess at what would have happened, the numbers are there to find. The debt on the books was nearly 175 billion, the assets were listed as just over 80 billion. The common stock holders would have received zip, zilch...nada. Your claim that they would have gotten "more" ignores every financial fact involved.
I want the law to be followed. If stock holders knew that they were at the back of the line WHEN they invested, that's their risk. The secured creditors and whoever else made their investment decisions based on the law when they gave GM their money.
The GM bailouts were done (on it's face) to "save the economy". What do you think the chilling effect on the economy and investment is when your right to contract means nothing?
They were aware of it....it has always been the case that stockholders fall behind bondholders(unsecured) and Secured investors.
With 175 billion in debts and 80 billion in assets it's a pipe dream to state that the stockholders would have gotten anything.
Quote:
With 175 billion in debts and 80 billion in assets it's a pipe dream to state that the stockholders would have gotten anything.
What about the people in front of them? Were they aware of the arbitrary bankruptcy rules when they invested?
With 175 billion in debts and 80 billion in assets it's a pipe dream to state that the stockholders would have gotten anything.
What about the people in front of them? Were they aware of the arbitrary bankruptcy rules when they invested?
It has always been the case that secured creditors come first, then the unsecured creditors, then the stock holders. This isn't something new. It's true with every stock you hold in your portfolio.
Personally, as a bondholder. I will grant you that the UAW never should have been put in line in front of me, that was unfair. But take it up with the feds, that was their grand plan. It was out of GM's hands at that point.
Personally, as a bondholder. I will grant you that the UAW never should have been put in line in front of me, that was unfair. But take it up with the feds, that was their grand plan. It was out of GM's hands at that point.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
With 175 billion in debts and 80 billion in assets it's a pipe dream to state that the stockholders would have gotten anything.
What about the people in front of them? Were they aware of the arbitrary bankruptcy rules when they invested?
So I think this is the crux of the issue. You believe bondholders and creditors should've gotten more and should have been put ahead of pension and healthcare obligations.
Quote:
With 175 billion in debts and 80 billion in assets it's a pipe dream to state that the stockholders would have gotten anything.
What about the people in front of them? Were they aware of the arbitrary bankruptcy rules when they invested?
So I think this is the crux of the issue. You believe bondholders and creditors should've gotten more and should have been put ahead of pension and healthcare obligations.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
So again, GM is operating in a protected bubble that it's major competitor is not. All because they got "help".
PLEASE do not tell me you are sooo naive as to beleive that your beloved "free-market" <
Toyota does not get "help" (whether they 'need' it or NOT), and are not "protected" in their own home markets by the Nippon Ministry Of Trade, from foreign competitors!!
So again, GM is operating in a protected bubble that it's major competitor is not. All because they got "help".
PLEASE do not tell me you are sooo naive as to beleive that your beloved "free-market" <
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: Tempest
So again, GM is operating in a protected bubble that it's major competitor is not. All because they got "help".
PLEASE do not tell me you are sooo naive as to beleive that your beloved "free-market" <
Toyota does not get "help" (whether they 'need' it or NOT), and are not "protected" in their own home markets by the Nippon Ministry Of Trade, from foreign competitors!!
An interesting comparison, since this has been brought up, would be how much Toyota has invested in the US over the same period. I know there's at least one plant in California. I believe we have two Toyota plants in Ontario (mine was built in one of them).
Or what Ford, Chrysler, or Honda spent. More an apples to apples comparison, especially if weighted against the percentage of sales from each company in the US market.
-Spyder
Originally Posted By: Tempest
So again, GM is operating in a protected bubble that it's major competitor is not. All because they got "help".
PLEASE do not tell me you are sooo naive as to beleive that your beloved "free-market" <
An interesting comparison, since this has been brought up, would be how much Toyota has invested in the US over the same period. I know there's at least one plant in California. I believe we have two Toyota plants in Ontario (mine was built in one of them).
Or what Ford, Chrysler, or Honda spent. More an apples to apples comparison, especially if weighted against the percentage of sales from each company in the US market.
-Spyder
- Status
