Treasury sells lasts shares. closes book on successful profitable auto bailout

Vern · Dec 10, 2013

The Treasury Department sold its final shares of the Detroit auto giant on Monday, recovering $39 billion of the $49.5 billion it spent to save the dying automaker at the height of the financial crisis five years ago.

Government sells the last of its GM stake: Treasury

mmmm, we lost 10 billion on the stock investment. If President Obama had let them fail as gullible cons were screaming we would lost at minimum 17 billion of the 20 billion bush gave them (can you believe some people still don’t know bush handed them 20 billion just so they wouldn’t fail on his watch). So right there, President Obama saved 7 billion dollars.

“
As a hypothetical exercise, though, the analysis is interesting: It found that in a fire sale, the largest United States automaker would likely yield less than $10 billion in net proceeds.

The costs of liquidating would be huge, according to the analysis — from $2 billion to $2.7 billion, the document says. Taking that into account, the amount left for creditors would be from $6.5 billion to $9.7 billion…..
And what would G.M.’s creditors get?

Bank lenders owed $5.4 billion would recover from 26.3 to 77.1 cents on the dollar. The United States Treasury, on the hook for $20.5 billion, fares even worse under this scenario, getting just 12.7 cents to 23.7 cents on the dollar for its claims. Unsecured creditors would get nothing.
"

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/imagining-a-gm-fire-sale/?_r=0

mmmmm, unsecured creditors would get nothing,mmmmmm

ttwtt78640 · Dec 10, 2013

Obama doubles down on a Bush administration policy, loses only 20% on the "investment" and Obama gets all of the credit for that Bush idea. Does that basically sum up your position on this matter?

Vern · Dec 10, 2013

“Ha, that’s not profitable. That’s just greatly reducing the loss of Bush’s misguided loans with no apparent purpose other than “ wait til I leave before you fail” loans “ is exactly what’s racing through conservative minds right now (as ttwtt jsut proves). You got me. Reducing the losses of Bush’s misguided policy doesn’t make it profitable. It did make it a good business decision. Cons are always saying “run the govt like a business".

this is what made it profitable. From bush’s estimate if GM and C were liquidated

The direct costs of American automakers failing and laying off their workers in the near term would result in a more than one-percent reduction in real GDP growth and about 1.1 million workers losing their jobs, including workers from auto suppliers and dealers. Many workers would apply for unemployment benefits, and to the extent that retirees and other workers lost health insurance, apply for Medicaid. These new unemployment claims could cost about $13 billion and would likely add sizeable costs to State Medicaid programs.

Fact Sheet: Financing Assistance to Facilitate the Restructuring of Auto Manufacturers to Attain Financial Viability

that’s Bush’s low ball estimate of job losses. So not only did President Obama reduce the losses from Bush’s misguided loans, it saved over 13 billion in UE costs. and its actually more profitable than that because as bush vaguely said “and would likely add sizeable costs to State Medicaid programs.”

Vern · Dec 10, 2013

ttwtt78640 said:
Obama doubles down on a Bush administration policy, loses only 20% on the "investment" and Obama gets all of the credit for that Bush idea. Does that basically sum up your position on this matter?

Holy cow!!! how funny is that? cons rant and rave over the auto bailout and now they trip over themselves to give Bush credit. Amazeballs. But sorry T, bush’s only idea for GM and C was “fail later”. And T, Bush’s misguided policy was to keep them out of bankruptcy.

Now this is critical, the Bush admin tried to claim the loan would be ‘converted’ to DIP financing if they did go into bankruptcy. They even hired a law firm to see if it was legal. I still don’t know if it was legal or not but I do know, nobody on the planet was going to cough up 50 billion to finance GM’s bankruptcy and then fight with the govt over who gets priority in being paid back.

“
U.S. taxpayers currently take a backseat to prior creditors, including Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., according to loan agreements posted on the U.S. Treasury’s Web site. The government has hired a law firm to help establish its place at the front of the line for repayment, two people involved in the work said last week.
“
GM, Chrysler May Face Bankruptcy to Protect U.S. Debt (Update5) - Bloomberg

ttwtt78640 · Dec 10, 2013

Vern said:
Holy cow!!! how funny is that? cons rant and rave over the auto bailout and now they trip over themselves to give Bush credit. Amazeballs. But sorry T, bush’s only idea for GM and C was “fail later”. And T, Bush’s misguided policy was to keep them out of bankruptcy.

Now this is critical, the Bush admin tried to claim the loan would be ‘converted’ to DIP financing if they did go into bankruptcy. They even hired a law firm to see if it was legal. I still don’t know if it was legal or not but I do know, nobody on the planet was going to cough up 50 billion to finance GM’s bankruptcy and then fight with the govt over who gets priority in being paid back.

“
U.S. taxpayers currently take a backseat to prior creditors, including Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., according to loan agreements posted on the U.S. Treasury’s Web site. The government has hired a law firm to help establish its place at the front of the line for repayment, two people involved in the work said last week.
“
GM, Chrysler May Face Bankruptcy to Protect U.S. Debt (Update5) - Bloomberg

Are you kidding me? What other option did Bush have, since he was no longer president "later"? Complaining that Bush, just like Obama, passed (and spent) what the congress critters offered up was somehow different is simply BS. View it as responding to a fire; both Bush and Obama squirted water on the fire but it did not go out completely until enough water was squirted - that just happened to be on Obama's (later) watch.

Fenton · Dec 10, 2013

ttwtt78640 said:
Obama doubles down on a Bush
administration policy, loses only 20% on the "investment" and Obama gets all of the credit for that Bush idea. Does that basically sum up your position on this matter?

VERNs bad about stuff like this...and math.

He once started a thread bragging about the " profits " of Fannie and Freddie, but chose to ignore the fact that they're the only "profitable" entity that doesn't have to report their massive amount of liabillites and that has a massive Central Bank buying up their toxic debt.

Funny funny funny.

Vern · Dec 10, 2013

ttwtt78640 said:
Are you kidding me? What other option did Bush have, since he was no longer president "later"? Complaining that Bush, just like Obama, passed (and spent) what the congress critters offered up was somehow different is simply BS. View it as responding to a fire; both Bush and Obama squirted water on the fire but it did not go out completely until enough water was squirted - that just happened to be on Obama's (later) watch.

er uh T, Bush was president when he gave GM 20 billion wasn’t he? anyhoo, had they started the bankruptcy right away, the cost of the bankruptcy would have been 20 billion cheaper. Now of course you could probably post an intelligent argument they didn’t know that bankruptcy was the best course of action or maybe they didn’t feel Bush had enough time his last month in office. But cons were never ever trying to make an intelligent or honest argument (look at fenton’s post above. Heck, look at any Fenton post). They were quite satisfied with their ridiculous lies. Oh how cons cackled with glee when obediently parroting

“illegal bankruptcy proceedings”
“Obama bailout uses TARP funds illegally”
“ Obama screwed bondholders” (other versions include shareholders too)
“ SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM”
“bondholders are secured creditors”
“ Obama gave GM to the unions”

And that’s pretty much the script with all republican narratives: lie lie lie and resist any attempt to have an intelligent discussion until all else fails. Case in point, did you ever feel the need to post your silly firehouse analogy when cons were foaming at the mouth about the “obama socialist takeover”? yea, probably not.

so if you are truly interested in this can we get back to discussing the extremely successful and profitable Obama auto bailouts? so as I’ve proven, even using Bush’s lowball estimate (and I’ll prove its low but its good enough for now), President Obama’s actions saved 13 billion in UE costs and some unspecified Medicaid costs. It was probably as much if not more than UE.

But lets pretend that the 1.1 million people whose jobs were saved payed a measely 5,000 a year in taxes. that’s 5.5 billion. So lets total up the profits

13 billion in UE costs saved + some unspecified Medicaid costs saved + 5.5 billion in revenue in just one year – 10.5 billion loss on stock

so the total profit is 8 billion + some unspecified Medicaid costs

ludin · Dec 10, 2013

yep a 10 b loss that should have never been given.

chevy chrystler should have failed and went under gone throug proper bankruptcy procedings and or sold to competitors who would have improved the business.
Bush and obama were stupid to give them more money. sure they ran a short term market oppertunity, but now have pretty much given it back to ford, toyota, honda, and
hundai.

not to mention that the UAW are in their usual rants of wanting more more more.

only this time bailout 2.0 isn't coming. no such things as to big to fail.

i am not impressed with either ford or chevy. their style is blah their interiors are inferior and if i go to get another car it is going to be a mazda or nissan.

ocean515 · Dec 10, 2013

Vern said:
Government sells the last of its GM stake: Treasury

mmmm, we lost 10 billion on the stock investment. If President Obama had let them fail as gullible cons were screaming we would lost at minimum 17 billion of the 20 billion bush gave them (can you believe some people still don’t know bush handed them 20 billion just so they wouldn’t fail on his watch). So right there, President Obama saved 7 billion dollars.

“
As a hypothetical exercise, though, the analysis is interesting: It found that in a fire sale, the largest United States automaker would likely yield less than $10 billion in net proceeds.

The costs of liquidating would be huge, according to the analysis — from $2 billion to $2.7 billion, the document says. Taking that into account, the amount left for creditors would be from $6.5 billion to $9.7 billion…..
And what would G.M.’s creditors get?

Bank lenders owed $5.4 billion would recover from 26.3 to 77.1 cents on the dollar. The United States Treasury, on the hook for $20.5 billion, fares even worse under this scenario, getting just 12.7 cents to 23.7 cents on the dollar for its claims. Unsecured creditors would get nothing.
"

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/imagining-a-gm-fire-sale/?_r=0

mmmmm, unsecured creditors would get nothing,mmmmmm

:lamo

And when does the $45 billion gift from the IRS get accounted for? Also, since GM owes more to the union pension plan than they did before taxpayers were fleeced, where does that get get mentioned?

ttwtt78640 · Dec 10, 2013

Vern said:
er uh T, Bush was president when he gave GM 20 billion wasn’t he? anyhoo, had they started the bankruptcy right away, the cost of the bankruptcy would have been 20 billion cheaper. Now of course you could probably post an intelligent argument they didn’t know that bankruptcy was the best course of action or maybe they didn’t feel Bush had enough time his last month in office. But cons were never ever trying to make an intelligent or honest argument (look at fenton’s post above. Heck, look at any Fenton post). They were quite satisfied with their ridiculous lies. Oh how cons cackled with glee when obediently parroting

“illegal bankruptcy proceedings”
“Obama bailout uses TARP funds illegally”
“ Obama screwed bondholders” (other versions include shareholders too)
“ SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM”
“bondholders are secured creditors”
“ Obama gave GM to the unions”

And that’s pretty much the script with all republican narratives: lie lie lie and resist any attempt to have an intelligent discussion until all else fails. Case in point, did you ever feel the need to post your silly firehouse analogy when cons were foaming at the mouth about the “obama socialist takeover”? yea, probably not.

so if you are truly interested in this can we get back to discussing the extremely successful and profitable Obama auto bailouts? so as I’ve proven, even using Bush’s lowball estimate (and I’ll prove its low but its good enough for now), President Obama’s actions saved 13 billion in UE costs and some unspecified Medicaid costs. It was probably as much if not more than UE.

But lets pretend that the 1.1 million people whose jobs were saved payed a measely 5,000 a year in taxes. that’s 5.5 billion. So lets total up the profits

13 billion in UE costs saved + some unspecified Medicaid costs saved + 5.5 billion in revenue in just one year – 10.5 billion loss on stock

so the total profit is 8 billion + some unspecified Medicaid costs

That assumes, falsely, that bankruptcy = no more company/jobs. Many, once bankrupt, companies are doing quite well today.

http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/debt-management/bankruptcy2.htm

8 Companies You Didn't Know Went Bankrupt

Vern · Dec 10, 2013

ocean515 said:
:lamo

And when does the $45 billion gift from the IRS get accounted for? Also, since GM owes more to the union pension plan than they did before taxpayers were fleeced, where does that get get mentioned?

mmmm, another con tactic is to post questions as if they are referencing some overlooked fact that makes my clear statements backed up by solid factual links null and void. See how they cleverly dont reference anything in particular with their vague questions. and heaven forbid they post a link especially when it comes to their union delusions.

polgara · Dec 10, 2013

ocean515 said:
:lamo

And when does the $45 billion gift from the IRS get accounted for? Also, since GM owes more to the union pension plan than they did before taxpayers were fleeced, where does that get get mentioned?

Excellent questions, ocean! I was wondering the same thing... :lol:

ocean515 · Dec 10, 2013

Vern said:
mmmm, another con tactic is to post questions as if they are referencing some overlooked fact that makes my clear statements backed up by solid factual links null and void. See how they cleverly dont reference anything in particular with their vague questions. and heaven forbid they post a link especially when it comes to their union delusions.

Or, another tactic is to avoid answering the question your laughable sources ignored. Gee, what else is new?

Vern · Dec 10, 2013

ttwtt78640 said:
That assumes, falsely, that bankruptcy = no more company/jobs. Many, once bankrupt, companies are doing quite well today.

HowStuffWorks "Chapter 11: Business Bankruptcy"

8 Companies You Didn't Know Went Bankrupt

oh no, I was hoping you wouldnt post anything about other companies that went bankrupt and continued to exist. Wait, I never said "bankruptcy = no more company/jobs" . And to use your logic, how does the fact that some companies weren't liquidated prove that GM wouldnt be? Yea, arguing points nobody made his a classic conservative tactic.

The thing is that you either dont know or are pretending dishonestly you dont know (Con and Fenton do this regularly) is that bankrutpcies require financing. Its called DIP financing. In this case someone needed to pony up 50 billion. Now if you can supply a list of investors with 50 billion in funds in the worst recession since the depression with the financial system in ruins that was willing to take a chance on becoming the DIP Financier knowing full well that they would have to fight with govt over who gets paid first, I'm all ears. (I've already posted the fact that Bush tried to retroactively make the first 20 billion become DIP financing)

before you post anymore, go read up on bankruptcies. It'll save you the future embarrassment of claiming bondholders are secured. Hey look, a con thought only Obama used TARP. why didnt you post your silly firehose analogy for him

CanadaJohn said:
You are aware that TARP, initiated by the Bush administration, was largely designed to allow banks and mortgage companies to take underwater and defaulted mortgages and allow home owners to refinance their mortgages to lower rates and principal amounts going forward. More than three years into Obama's first term, his administration still hadn't worked out the details of how it would be implemented. Yet, Obama spent no time at all using TARP funds to bail out Chrysler and GM and cede them to the United Auto Workers.

Blue_State · Dec 10, 2013

Hope and Change!!!

eohrnberger · Dec 10, 2013

ludin said:
yep a 10 b loss that should have never been given.

chevy chrystler should have failed and went under gone throug proper bankruptcy procedings and or sold to competitors who would have improved the business.
Bush and obama were stupid to give them more money. sure they ran a short term market oppertunity, but now have pretty much given it back to ford, toyota, honda, and
hundai.

not to mention that the UAW are in their usual rants of wanting more more more.

only this time bailout 2.0 isn't coming. no such things as to big to fail.

i am not impressed with either ford or chevy. their style is blah their interiors are inferior and if i go to get another car it is going to be a mazda or nissan.

On the point of "no such things as to big to fail." this is incorrect, although not directly related to the thread.

Dodd-Frank has only created larger banks all of which are 'too bog to fail', as the cost of regulatory compliance has driven smaller banks to unprofitably and acquisition by larger banks.

ObamaCare has a bailout clause in the law which will have the government pay money to insurance companies that don't make enough profit from Obamacare.

So I don't see where your assertion that 'no such things as to big to fail.' is correct.

CalGun · Dec 10, 2013

My business failed, 15 people lost their jobs and I lost money - I didn't get a bail out. Why is GM so special?

Vern · Dec 10, 2013

ocean515 said:
Or, another tactic is to avoid answering the question your laughable sources ignored. Gee, what else is new?

con, I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you have a point make it and back it up. Its what I do. Posting some mish mosh of things you read/remember from some con editorial or blog and/or imagined all by yourself in the form of a question is all you can do. You see, you have an emotional need to respond to the facts I've posted. Since you dont really know anything you have to 'ask' so you can later say, "well I didnt say blah blah blah". Again, I make clear straight forward statements and back them up. Come back when you can do that.

Hey ocean, here's a chance to show you got. what sources are laughable and why? Yea, whining at sources is another con tactic.

ocean515 · Dec 10, 2013

Vern said:
con, I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you have a point make it and back it up. Its what I do. Posting some mish mosh of things you read/remember from some con editorial or blog and/or imagined all by yourself in the form of a question is all you can do. You see, you have an emotional need to respond to the facts I've posted. Since you dont really know anything you have to 'ask' so you can later say, "well I didnt say blah blah blah". Again, I make clear straight forward statements and back them up. Come back when you can do that.

I know everything Proggy. I know you're avoiding the questions your dubious sources avoided. Answer them, or run along.

Vern · Dec 10, 2013

CalGun said:
My business failed, 15 people lost their jobs and I lost money - I didn't get a bail out. Why is GM so special?

Why why why why why why cant cons respond to the facts already posted in the thread? Cal, as Bush said and you pretended not to see:

"The direct costs of American automakers failing and laying off their workers in the near term would result in a more than one-percent reduction in real GDP growth and about 1.1 million workers losing their jobs, "

washunut · Dec 10, 2013

Vern said:
Government sells the last of its GM stake: Treasury

mmmm, we lost 10 billion on the stock investment. If President Obama had let them fail as gullible cons were screaming we would lost at minimum 17 billion of the 20 billion bush gave them (can you believe some people still don’t know bush handed them 20 billion just so they wouldn’t fail on his watch). So right there, President Obama saved 7 billion dollars.

“
As a hypothetical exercise, though, the analysis is interesting: It found that in a fire sale, the largest United States automaker would likely yield less than $10 billion in net proceeds.

The costs of liquidating would be huge, according to the analysis — from $2 billion to $2.7 billion, the document says. Taking that into account, the amount left for creditors would be from $6.5 billion to $9.7 billion…..
And what would G.M.’s creditors get?

Bank lenders owed $5.4 billion would recover from 26.3 to 77.1 cents on the dollar. The United States Treasury, on the hook for $20.5 billion, fares even worse under this scenario, getting just 12.7 cents to 23.7 cents on the dollar for its claims. Unsecured creditors would get nothing.
"

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/imagining-a-gm-fire-sale/?_r=0

mmmmm, unsecured creditors would get nothing,mmmmmm

Does this include Gm's financing arm which they broke out as Ally bank? They still owe us about $10 billion.

Vern · Dec 10, 2013

ocean515 said:
I know everything Proggy. I know you're avoiding the questions your dubious sources avoided. Answer them, or run along.

Stop demanding I respond to something you cant even back up so grow up, make clear statements and back them up. Of course you demand I answer your questions because you cant back them up. You literally made up the "union" statement. and since you know its completely made up you will "courageously" refuse to back up your own "claims".

Blue_State · Dec 10, 2013

Vern said:
Stop demanding I respond to something you cant even back up so grow up, make clear statements and back them up. Of course you demand I answer your questions because you cant back them up. You literally made up the "union" statement. and since you know its completely made up you will "courageously" refuse to back up your own "claims".

You forgot your classic move here where you label them.

ocean515 · Dec 10, 2013

Vern said:
con, I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you have a point make it and back it up. Its what I do. Posting some mish mosh of things you read/remember from some con editorial or blog and/or imagined all by yourself in the form of a question is all you can do. You see, you have an emotional need to respond to the facts I've posted. Since you dont really know anything you have to 'ask' so you can later say, "well I didnt say blah blah blah". Again, I make clear straight forward statements and back them up. Come back when you can do that.

Hey ocean, here's a chance to show you got. what sources are laughable and why? Yea, whining at sources is another con tactic.

Gee whiz. An edit. Got you thinking did I?

Well, sit down and let me show you some truths.

For example, how about GM's own earning reports. Remember, it was costs and libilities that got them into trouble.

Read their latest earning reports here. Talk to me about increased unfunded pension liabilities, and increased debt. (It's right there in their reports) Now, please point me towards comments in your links about these truths.

Earnings Releases - Quarterly Reports & Financial Releases | GM.com

Now please post the parts in your links that speak to the following, since they are certainly cost to taxpayers:

GM Could Be Free of Taxes for Years - WSJ.com

And then, having successfully completed commenting on the above, please point out in your links comments about these realities that continue at GM:

GM Cutting Pension Obligations by $26 Billion on Buyouts - Bloomberg

GM’s global pension plans were underfunded by $25.4 billion at the end of 2011, up from $22.2 billion a year earlier, according to federal filings. Analysts with credit-rating companies Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings have said they will evaluate how GM addresses that shortfall as they consider restoring an investment-grade credit rating.

So, step up Vern. As opposed the insults, try and inject some content.

ocean515 · Dec 10, 2013

Vern said:
Stop demanding I respond to something you cant even back up so grow up, make clear statements and back them up. Of course you demand I answer your questions because you cant back them up. You literally made up the "union" statement. and since you know its completely made up you will "courageously" refuse to back up your own "claims".

I'll be looking forward to your rebuttal, or if history is any indicator, your dissappearance...

Treasury sells lasts shares. closes book on successful profitable auto bailout

Vern

back from Vegas

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Vern

back from Vegas

Vern

back from Vegas

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Fenton

Vern

back from Vegas

ludin

ocean515

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Vern

back from Vegas

polgara

ocean515

Vern

back from Vegas

Blue_State

eohrnberger

CalGun

Vern

back from Vegas

ocean515

Vern

back from Vegas

washunut

Vern

back from Vegas

Blue_State

ocean515

ocean515